Today's Laws & Customs:
• Rosh Chodesh Observances
Today is the second of the two Rosh Chodesh ("Head of the Month") days for the month of "Iyar" (when a month has 30 days, both the last day of the month and the first day of the following month serve as the following month's Rosh Chodesh).
Special portions are added to the daily prayers: Hallel (Psalms 113-118) is recited -- in its "partial" form -- following the Shacharit morning prayer, and the Yaaleh V'yavo prayer is added to the Amidah and to Grace After Meals; the additional Musaf prayer is said (when Rosh Chodesh is Shabbat, special additions are made to the Shabbat Musaf). Tachnun (confession of sins) and similar prayers are omitted.
Many have the custom to mark Rosh Chodesh with a festive meal and reduced work activity. The latter custom is prevalent amongst women, who have a special affinity with Rosh Chodesh -- the month being the feminine aspect of the Jewish Calendar.
Links: The 29th Day; The Lunar Files
• Count "Seventeen Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the seventeenth 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 seventeen days, which are two weeks and three days, 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: Tifferet sheb'Tifferet -- "Harmony 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:
• Construction of Second Temple Begins (370 BCE)
Fifty three years following the destruction of the First Holy Temple (see Jewish History for the 9th of Av), Zerubabel and Joshua the High Priest began construction of the Second Temple, with permission from King Cyrus of Persia.
The offering of sacrifices had actually commenced a few months earlier, on the vacant lot where the 1st Temple stood, however it was only after the construction started on the 1st of Iyar that the Levites began accompanying the service with song and music.
The construction was later halted after the hostile Samaritans supplied false slanderous information to Cyrus about the Jews' intentions. The construction was resumed many years later, and completed 21 years later under the reign of King Darius (see Jewish History for the Third of Adar).
Link: The Second Temple
• Passing of R. Menachem Mendel of Horodok (1788)
Chassidic master Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Horodok (1730?-1788), also known as Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, was one of the leading disciples of the second leader of the Chassidic Movement, Rabbi DovBer of Mezeritch. Upon the latter's passing in 1772, R. Menachem Mendel was regarded by his colleagues as the leader of the Chassidic community in Russia, and Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi considered him his rebbe and mentor. In 1777, R. Menachem Mendel led a group of 300 Chassidim to the Holy Land and established Chassidic communities in Safed and Teberias. Rabbi Menachem Mendel passed away on the 1st of Iyar of 1788, and is buried in Tiberias.
Daily Quote:
And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought out of Egypt, for it was not leavened; because they were driven out of Egypt, and could not delay, neither had they prepared for themselves any provision . . .[Exodus 12:39]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Tazria-Metzora, 2nd Portion Leviticus 13:24-13:39 with Rashi
• Chapter 13
24If [a person's] flesh has a fire burn on its skin, and on the healed area of the burn, there is a reddish white or white bahereth, כדאוֹ בָשָׂר כִּי יִהְיֶה בְעֹרוֹ מִכְוַת אֵשׁ וְהָיְתָה מִחְיַת הַמִּכְוָה בַּהֶרֶת לְבָנָה אֲדַמְדֶּמֶת אוֹ לְבָנָה:
the healed area of the burn: Saynement [in Old French]. When the burn healed, the area changed to become a blended bahereth [of white and red], or pure white one. The signs of a burn (מִכְוָה) and the signs of an inflammation (שְׁחִין) are the same. [If so,] why does Scripture separate them [into two sections]? To teach us that they do not become combined with each other, [i.e., while a griss, the area of a bean, is the minimum surface area of a lesion for it to be deemed unclean,] if a lesion the size of half a griss emerges in an inflammation, and [another] the size of half a griss in a burn, they are not judged as [though] a full griss [of lesion has emerged]. — [Chul. 8a] מחית המכוה: שיינימנ"ט בלע"ז [רפוי] כשחיתה המכוה נהפכה לבהרת פתוכה או לבנה חלקה. וסימני מכוה וסימני שחין שוים הם, ולמה חלקן הכתוב, לומר שאין מצטרפין זה עם זה, נולד חצי גריס בשחין וחצי גריס במכוה לא ידונו כגריס:
25the kohen shall look at it. And, behold! the hair has turned white in the bahereth, and its appearance is deeper than the skin, it is tzara'ath which has spread in the burn. So, the kohen shall pronounce him unclean. It is a lesion of tzara'ath. כהוְרָאָה אֹתָהּ הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה נֶהְפַּךְ שֵׂעָר לָבָן בַּבַּהֶרֶת וּמַרְאֶהָ עָמֹק מִן הָעוֹר צָרַעַת הִוא בַּמִּכְוָה פָּרָחָה וְטִמֵּא אֹתוֹ הַכֹּהֵן נֶגַע צָרַעַת הִוא:
26But, if the kohen looks at it, and, behold! there is no white hair in the bahereth, and it is not lower than the skin and it is dim, the kohen shall quarantine him for seven days. כווְאִם | יִרְאֶנָּה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה אֵין בַּבַּהֶרֶת שֵׂעָר לָבָן וּשְׁפָלָה אֵינֶנָּה מִן הָעוֹר וְהִוא כֵהָה וְהִסְגִּירוֹ הַכֹּהֵן שִׁבְעַת יָמִים:
27And the kohen shall look at it on the seventh day. If it has spread on the skin, the kohen shall pronounce him unclean. It is a lesion of tzara'ath. כזוְרָאָהוּ הַכֹּהֵן בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי אִם פָּשׂה תִפְשֶׂה בָּעוֹר וְטִמֵּא הַכֹּהֵן אֹתוֹ נֶגַע צָרַעַת הִוא:
28But if the bahereth remains in its place, not increasing on the skin, and it is dim, it is a se'eith of the burn, and the kohen shall pronounce him clean, because it is the scar tissue of the burn. כחוְאִם תַּחְתֶּיהָ תַעֲמֹד הַבַּהֶרֶת לֹא פָשְׂתָה בָעוֹר וְהִוא כֵהָה שְׂאֵת הַמִּכְוָה הִוא וְטִהֲרוֹ הַכֹּהֵן כִּי צָרֶבֶת הַמִּכְוָה הִוא:
29If a man or a woman has a lesion on the head or on the beard [area], כטוְאִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה כִּי יִהְיֶה בוֹ נָגַע בְּרֹאשׁ אוֹ בְזָקָן:
on the head or on the beard [area]: Scripture comes to distinguish between a lesion in a place where hair grows and a lesion in a place of flesh, namely, that in one [case, i.e., on flesh], the sign [of uncleanness] is white hair, while in the other [case, i.e., on the area of hair], the sign [of uncleanness] is golden-yellow hair. — [Torath Kohanim 5:5] בראש או בזקן: בא הכתוב לחלק בין נגע שבמקום שער לנגע שבמקום בשר, שזה סימנו בשער לבן וזה סימנו בשער צהוב:
30the kohen shall look at the lesion, and, behold! its appearance is deeper than the skin, and in it is a thin golden yellow hair, the kohen shall pronounce him unclean. It is a nethek, which is tzara'ath of the head or the beard. לוְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַנֶּגַע וְהִנֵּה מַרְאֵהוּ עָמֹק מִן הָעוֹר וּבוֹ שֵׂעָר צָהֹב דָּק וְטִמֵּא אֹתוֹ הַכֹּהֵן נֶתֶק הוּא צָרַעַת הָרֹאשׁ אוֹ הַזָּקָן הוּא:
and in it is a… golden-yellow hair: [meaning] that the black hair in it has turned golden-yellow. ובו שער צהב: שנהפך שער שחור שבו לצהוב:
It is a nethek: This is the name of the lesion [of tzara’ath when it occurs] on an area of [skin where] hair [grows]. נתק הוא: כך שמו של נגע, שבמקום שער:
31But when the kohen looks at the nethek lesion, and, behold! its appearance is not deeper than the skin, and there is no black hair in it, the kohen shall quarantine [the person with] the nethek lesion for seven days. לאוְכִי יִרְאֶה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת נֶגַע הַנֶּתֶק וְהִנֵּה אֵין מַרְאֵהוּ עָמֹק מִן הָעוֹר וְשֵׂעָר שָׁחֹר אֵין בּוֹ וְהִסְגִּיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת נֶגַע הַנֶּתֶק שִׁבְעַת יָמִים:
and there is no black hair in it: Thus, if there was black hair inside it, he is clean and does not require quarantine, for black hair in a nethek is a sign of cleanness, as the verse (37) says, “or if black hair has grown in it, [the nethek has healed; it is clean].”[Torath Kohanim 13:125] ושער שחר אין בו: הא אם היה בו שער שחור, טהור. ואין צריך להסגר ששער שחור סימן טהרה הוא בנתקים, כמו שנאמר (פסוק לז) ושער שחור צמח בו וגו':
32And the kohen shall look at the lesion on the seventh day. And, behold! the nethek has not spread, and no golden yellow hair was in it, and the appearance of the nethek is not deeper than the skin, לבוְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַנֶּגַע בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וְהִנֵּה לֹא פָשָׂה הַנֶּתֶק וְלֹא הָיָה בוֹ שֵׂעָר צָהֹב וּמַרְאֵה הַנֶּתֶק אֵין עָמֹק מִן הָעוֹר:
And, behold! the nethek did not spread: Thus, if [the nethek] did spread, or if it had golden-yellow hair in it, he is unclean. והנה לא פשה וגו': הא אם פשה או היה בו שער צהוב טמא:
33he shall shave himself, but adjacent to the nethek he shall not shave, and the kohen shall quarantine [the person with] the nethek again for seven days. לגוְהִתְגַּלָּח וְאֶת הַנֶּתֶק לֹא יְגַלֵּחַ וְהִסְגִּיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַנֶּתֶק שִׁבְעַת יָמִים שֵׁנִית:
he shall shave himself: around the nethek. [but adjacent to the nethek] והתגלח: סביבות הנתק:
he shall not shave: [I.e.,] he shall leave two hairs close to it all around, in order that any spread of the nethek will be discernible, so that, if it spreads, it will pass the hairs and go out to the shaven area. — [Torath Kohanim 13:133] ואת הנתק לא יגלח: מניח שתי שערות סמוך לו סביב, כדי שיהא ניכר אם פשה, שאם יפשה ועבר השערות ויצא למקום הגילוח, טמא:
34Then the kohen shall look at the nethek on the seventh day. And, behold! the nethek did not spread on the skin, and its appearance is not deeper than the skin, the kohen shall pronounce him clean, and he shall immerse his garments and become clean. לדוְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַנֶּתֶק בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וְהִנֵּה לֹא פָשָׂה הַנֶּתֶק בָּעוֹר וּמַרְאֵהוּ אֵינֶנּוּ עָמֹק מִן הָעוֹר וְטִהַר אֹתוֹ הַכֹּהֵן וְכִבֶּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָהֵר:
35But if the nethek spreads on the skin, after he has been declared clean, להוְאִם פָּשׂה יִפְשֶׂה הַנֶּתֶק בָּעוֹר אַחֲרֵי טָהֳרָתוֹ:
after he has been declared clean: From here, we know only that [the lesion is pronounced unclean] if it spreads after dismissal. How do we know [that it is unclean if it spreads] at the end of the first week [of quarantine] or at the end of the second week [of quarantine]? Because Scripture [uses a double expression and] says, פָּשׂה יִפְשֶׂה, “it spreads,” [denoting that he is unclean if it spreads] in any case. — [Torath Kohanim 13:134] אחרי טהרתו: אין לי אלא פושה לאחר הפטור, מנין אף בסוף שבוע ראשון ובסוף שבוע שני, תלמוד לומר פשה יפשה:
36the kohen shall look at it, and, behold! the nethek has spread on the skin, the kohen need not examine for golden yellow hair; it is unclean! לווְרָאָהוּ הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה פָּשָׂה הַנֶּתֶק בָּעוֹר לֹא יְבַקֵּר הַכֹּהֵן לַשֵּׂעָר הַצָּהֹב טָמֵא הוּא:
37But if the appearance of the nethek has remained the same, or if black hair has grown in it, the nethek has healed; he is clean. So the kohen shall pronounce him clean. לזוְאִם בְּעֵינָיו עָמַד הַנֶּתֶק וְשֵׂעָר שָׁחֹר צָמַח בּוֹ נִרְפָּא הַנֶּתֶק טָהוֹר הוּא וְטִהֲרוֹ הַכֹּהֵן:
black hair: How do we know that even yellow or red [hair], which are not golden-yellow? Because Scripture says, [שָׁחֹר] וְשֵׂעָר [lit., “ and black hair,” but here meaning, “ or if black hair.” Instead of using the expected אוֹ, “or,” the Torah used וְ, an inclusive term, which comes to include yellow and red hair in the nethek as signs of cleanness, just like black hair. See Be’er Basadeh] (Torath Kohanim 13:137). The term צָהֹב means: resembling the appearance of gold (Torath Kohanim 13:122). צָהֹב is the same as זָהֹב, golden [because צ and ז are interchangeable], orable in Old French, gold-colored, or orpale, pale gold. ושער שחר: מנין אף הירוק והאדום שאינו צהוב, תלמוד לומר ושער. ולמה צהוב דומה, לתבנית הזהב. צהוב, כמו זהוב אורבל"א בלע"ז [זהוב]:
he is clean. So the kohen shall pronounce him clean: But, an unclean person whom the kohen pronounces clean, is not clean. - [Torath Kohanim 13:140] טהור הוא וטהרו הכהן: הא טמא שטהרו הכהן, לא טהור:
38If a man or a woman has spots on the skin of their flesh, white spots, לחוְאִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה כִּי יִהְיֶה בְעוֹר בְּשָׂרָם בֶּהָרֹת בֶּהָרֹת לְבָנֹת:
spots: Spots בהרת: חברבורות:
39the kohen shall look, and, behold! there are dim white spots on the skin of their flesh, it is a bohak [pigmentation] which has spread on the skin. He is clean. לטוְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה בְעוֹר בְּשָׂרָם בֶּהָרֹת כֵּהוֹת לְבָנֹת בֹּהַק הוּא פָּרַח בָּעוֹר טָהוֹר הוּא:
dim white: I.e., their whiteness is not bright, but dim. כהות לבנת: שאין לובן שלהן עז אלא כהה:
it is a bohak: Like the whiteness that appears on the flesh of a red man, called ros [in Old French, rosso in Italian], between the areas of his redness [i.e., flesh color]. This [white pigmentation] is called בֹּהַק, just like a freckled man, whose skin between one freckle and another shines brightly (מַבְהִיק) with pure whiteness. בהק: כמין לובן הנראה בבשר אדם אדום, שקורין רו"ש [אדמוני], בין חברבורות אדמימותו, קרוי בהק, כאיש עדשן שבין עדשה לעדשה מבהיק הבשר בלובן צח:
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 1 - 9
• Chapter 1
This psalm inspires man to study Torah and avoid sin. One who follows this path is assured of success in all his deeds, whereas the plight of the wicked is the reverse.
1. Fortunate is the man that has not walked in the counsel of the wicked, nor stood in the path of sinners, nor sat in the company of scoffers.
2. Rather, his desire is in the Torah of the Lord, and in His Torah he meditates day and night.
3. He shall be like a tree planted by streams of water, that yields its fruit in its season, and whose leaf does not wither; and all that he does shall prosper.
4. Not so the wicked; rather, they are like the chaff that the wind drives away.
5. Therefore the wicked will not endure in judgement, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
6. For the Lord minds the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.
Chapter 2
This psalm warns against trying to outwit the ways of God. It also instructs one who has reason to rejoice, to tremble—lest his sins cause his joy to be overturned.
1. Why do nations gather, and peoples speak futility?
2. The kings of the earth rise up, and rulers conspire together, against the Lord and against His anointed:
3. “Let us sever their cords, and cast their ropes from upon us!”
4. He Who sits in heaven laughs, my Master mocks them.
5. Then He speaks to them in His anger, and terrifies them in His wrath:
6. “It is I Who have anointed My king, upon Zion, My holy mountain.”
7. I am obliged to declare: The Lord said to me, “You are my son, I have this day begotten you.
1
8. Ask of Me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, and the ends of the earth your possession.
9. Smash them with a rod of iron, shatter them like a potter’s vessel.”
10. Now be wise, you kings; be disciplined, you rulers of the earth.
11. Serve the Lord with awe, and rejoice with trembling.
12. Yearn for purity—lest He become angry and your path be doomed, if his anger flares for even a moment. Fortunate are all who put their trust in Him
Chapter 3
When punishment befalls man, let him not be upset by his chastisement, for perhaps--considering his sins—he is deserving of worse, and God is in fact dealing kindly with him.
1. A psalm by David, when he fled from Absalom his son.
2. Lord, how numerous are my oppressors; many rise up against me!
3. Many say of my soul, “There is no salvation for him from God—ever!”
4. But You, Lord, are a shield for me, my glory, the One Who raises my head.
5. With my voice I call to the Lord, and He answers me from His holy mountain, Selah.
6. I lie down and sleep; I awake, for the Lord sustains me.
7. I do not fear the myriads of people that have aligned themselves all around me.
8. Arise, O Lord, deliver me, my God. For You struck all my enemies on the cheek, You smashed the teeth of the wicked.
9. Deliverance is the Lord’s; may Your blessing be upon Your people forever
Chapter 4
This psalm exhorts man not to shame his fellow, and to neither speak nor listen to gossip and slander. Envy not the prosperity of the wicked in this world, rather rejoice and say: “If it is so for those who anger Him . . . [how much better it will be for those who serve Him!”]
1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music, a psalm by David.
2. Answer me when I call, O God [Who knows] my righteousness. You have relieved me in my distress; be gracious to me and hear my prayer.
3. Sons of men, how long will you turn my honor to shame, will you love vanity, and endlessly seek falsehood?
4. Know that the Lord has set apart His devout one; the Lord will hear when I call to Him.
5. Tremble and do not sin; reflect in your hearts upon your beds, and be silent forever.
6. Offer sacrifices in righteousness, and trust in the Lord.
7. Many say: “Who will show us good?” Raise the light of Your countenance upon us, O Lord.
8. You put joy in my heart, greater than [their joy] when their grain and wine abound.
9. In peace and harmony I will lie down and sleep, for You, Lord, will make me dwell alone, in security.
Chapter 5
A prayer for every individual, requesting that the wicked perish for their deeds, and the righteous rejoice for their good deeds.
1. For the Conductor, on the nechilot,1 a psalm by David.
2. Give ear to my words, O Lord, consider my thoughts.
3. Listen to the voice of my cry, my King and my God, for to You I pray.
4. Lord, hear my voice in the morning; in the morning I set [my prayers] before you and hope.
5. For You are not a God Who desires wickedness; evil does not abide with You.
6. The boastful cannot stand before Your eyes; You hate all evildoers.
7. You destroy the speakers of falsehood; the Lord despises the man of blood and deceit.
8. And I, through Your abundant kindness, come into Your house; I bow toward Your holy Sanctuary, in awe of You.
9. Lead me, O Lord, in Your righteousness, because of my watchful enemies; straighten Your path before me.
10. For there is no sincerity in their mouths, their heart is treacherous; their throat is an open grave, [though] their tongue flatters.
11. Find them guilty, O God, let them fall by their schemes; banish them for their many sins, for they have rebelled against You.
12. But all who trust in You will rejoice, they will sing joyously forever; You will shelter them, and those who love Your Name will exult in You.
13. For You, Lord, will bless the righteous one; You will envelop him with favor as with a shield.
Chapter 6
This is an awe-inspiring prayer for one who is ill, to pray that God heal him, body and soul. An ailing person who offers this prayer devoutly and with a broken heart is assured that God will accept his prayer.
1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music for the eight-stringed harp, a psalm by David.
2. Lord, do not punish me in Your anger, nor chastise me in Your wrath.
3. Be gracious to me, O Lord, for I languish away; heal me, O Lord, for my bones tremble in fear.
4. My soul is panic-stricken; and You, O Lord, how long [before You help]?
5. Relent, O Lord, deliver my soul; save me for the sake of Your kindness.
6. For there is no remembrance of You in death; who will praise You in the grave?
7. I am weary from sighing; each night I drench my bed, I melt my couch with my tears.
8. My eye has grown dim from vexation, worn out by all my oppressors.
9. Depart from me, all you evildoers, for the Lord has heard the sound of my weeping.
10. The Lord has heard my supplication; the Lord accepts my prayer.
11. All my enemies will be shamed and utterly terrified; they will then repent and be shamed for a moment.
1
Chapter 7
Do not rejoice if God causes your enemy to suffer—just as the suffering of the righteous is not pleasant. David, therefore, defends himself intensely before God, maintaining that he did not actively harm Saul. In fact, Saul precipitated his own harm, while David’s intentions were only for the good.
1. A shigayon 1 by David, which he sang to the Lord concerning Kush the Benjaminite.
2. I put my trust in You, Lord, my God; deliver me from all my pursuers and save me.
3. Lest he tear my soul like a lion, crushing me with none to rescue.
4. Lord, my God, if I have done this, if there is wrongdoing in my hands;
5. if I have rewarded my friends with evil or oppressed those who hate me without reason—
6. then let the enemy pursue and overtake my soul, let him trample my life to the ground, and lay my glory in the dust forever.
7. Arise, O Lord, in Your anger, lift Yourself up in fury against my foes. Stir me [to mete out] the retribution which You commanded.
8. When the assembly of nations surrounds You, remove Yourself from it and return to the heavens.
9. The Lord will mete out retribution upon the nations; judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness and my integrity.
10. Let the evil of the wicked come to an end, but establish the righteous—O righteous God, Searcher of hearts and minds.
11. [I rely] on God to be my shield, He Who saves the upright of heart.
12. God is the righteous judge, and the Almighty is angered every day.
13. Because he does not repent, He sharpens His sword, bends His bow and makes it ready.
14. He has prepared instruments of death for him; His arrows will be used on the pursuers.
15. Indeed, he conceives iniquity, is pregnant with evil schemes, and gives birth to falsehood.
16. He digs a pit, digs it deep, only to fall into the trap he laid.
17. His mischief will return upon his own head, his violence will come down upon his own skull.
18. I will praise the Lord according to His righteousness, and sing to the Name of the Lord Most High
Chapter 8
This psalm is a glorious praise to God for His kindness to the lowly and mortal human in giving the Torah to the inhabitants of the lower worlds, arousing the envy of the celestial angels. This idea is expressed in the Yom Kippur prayer, “Though Your mighty strength is in the angels above, You desire praise from those formed of lowly matter.”
1. For the Conductor, on the gittit,1 a psalm by David.
2. Lord, our Master, how mighty is Your Name throughout the earth, You Who has set Your majesty upon the heavens!
3. Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings You have established might, to counter Your enemies, to silence foe and avenger.2
4. When I behold Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars which You have set in place—
5. what is man that You should remember him, son of man that You should be mindful of him?
6. Yet, You have made him but a little less than the angels, and crowned him with honor and glory.
7. You made him ruler over Your handiwork, You placed everything under his feet.
8. Sheep and cattle—all of them, also the beasts of the field;
9. the birds of the sky and the fish of the sea; all that traverses the paths of the seas.
10. Lord, our Master, how mighty is Your Name throughout the earth.
Chapter 9
One should praise God for saving him from the hand of the enemy who stands over and agonizes him, and for His judging each person according to his deeds: the righteous according to their righteousness, and the wicked according to their wickedness.
1. For the Conductor, upon the death of Labben, a psalm by David.
2. I will thank the Lord with all my heart; I will recount all Your wonders.
3. I will rejoice and exult in You; I will sing to Your Name, O Most High.
4. When my enemies retreat, they will stumble and perish from before You.
5. You have rendered my judgement and [defended] my cause; You sat on the throne, O righteous Judge.
6. You destroyed nations, doomed the wicked, erased their name for all eternity.
7. O enemy, your ruins are gone forever, and the cities you have uprooted—their very remembrance is lost.
8. But the Lord is enthroned forever, He established His throne for judgement.
9. And He will judge the world with justice, He will render judgement to the nations with righteousness.
10. The Lord will be a stronghold for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble.
11. Those who know Your Name put their trust in You, for You, Lord, have not abandoned those who seek You.
12. Sing to the Lord Who dwells in Zion, recount His deeds among the nations.
13. For the Avenger of bloodshed is mindful of them; He does not forget the cry of the downtrodden.
14. Be gracious to me, O Lord; behold my affliction at the hands of my enemies, You Who raises me from the gates of death,
15. so that I may relate all Your praises in the gates of the daughter of Zion, that I may exult in Your deliverance.
16. The nations sank into the pit that they made; in the net they concealed their foot was caught.
17. The Lord became known through the judgement He executed; the wicked one is snared in the work of his own hands; reflect on this always.
18. The wicked will return to the grave, all the nations that forget God.
19. For not for eternity will the needy be forgotten, nor will the hope of the poor perish forever.
20. Arise, O Lord, let not man prevail; let the nations be judged in Your presence.
21. Set Your mastery over them, O Lord; let the nations know that they are but frail men, Selah.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 43• Lessons in Tanya
• Monday, Iyar 1, 5775 · April 20, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 43
It has previously been noted that the higher level of love can come about only after one’s fear of G‑d is total. However, the lower level of love may sometimes come about, as shall soon be explained, even without being preceded by the fear of G‑d.
והנה בחינת אהבה זו, פעמים שקודמת ליראה, כפי בחינת הדעת המולידה, כנודע שהדעת כולל חסדים וגבורות, שהם אהבה ויראה
This [latter] category of love sometimes precedes fear, according to the quality of the Daat which fathers it, as is known. (1For Daat incorporates bothChassadim and Gevurot, which are love and fear; Chessed is love and Gevurah is fear. Daat reveals both these emotions. Thus, binding one’s Daat intensely to the greatness of G‑d gives rise to both feelings, fear and love,
ופעמים שהחסדים קודמים לירד ולהתגלות
and sometimes the Chassadim descend and manifest themselves first).
The Chassadim may sometimes precede the Gevurot; this means that Daat may sometimes evoke love before fear.
ולכן אפשר לרשע ובעל עבירות שיעשה תשובה מאהבה הנולדה בלבו, בזכרו את ה׳ אלקיו
Therefore it is possible for a wicked and sinful person to repent by virtue of the love that is born in his heart at the time he remembers the L‑rd his G‑d.
Although up to the point of his repentance he was wicked, and lacked a fear of G‑d, still there may be born in him a love for G‑d that will lead him to repent.
ומכל מקום, היראה גם כן כלולה בה ממילא, רק שהיא בבחינת קטנות והעלם, דהיינו, יראת חטא למרוד בו, חס ושלום, והאהבה היא בהתגלות לבו ומוחו
At any rate, fear, too, is included therein — in the love, as a matter of course, except that it is [there] in a state of “minuteness” and “concealment”, namely, as the fear of sin — of rebelling against Him, G‑d forbid, while the love is in a revealed state in his heart and mind, so that consciously the individual is only aware of a love for G‑d.
אך זהו דרך מקרה והוראת שעה בהשגחה פרטית מאת ה׳ לצורך שעה, כמעשה דרבי אלעזר בן דורדייא
However, such a case — where the wicked and sinful person should suddenly attain a love of G‑d and become a penitent — where love precedes fear is an extraordinary occurrence, and an “emergency prescription,” through G‑d’s particular providence as the occasion requires, as happened with Rabbi Elazar ben Durdaya,2 who had been sinful, and suddenly became a penitent, repenting out of a love for G‑d. Indeed, so intense was his penitence that it caused his soul to depart his body.
This was an “emergency prescription” required for that occasion. For it is written3 that Rabbi Elazar ben Durdaya was a gilgul — the reincarnated soul — of Yochanan the High Priest, who served in that office for eighty years and then became a Sadducee.4 All the Torah and mitzvot fulfilled by Yochanan were elevated through the transmigration of his soul into the body of Rabbi Elazar ben Durdaya, whose life-story followed the reverse course, that of a sinner who ultimately repented out of his love for G‑d.5
אבל סדר העבודה הקבועה ותלויה בבחירת האדם, צריך להקדים תחלה קיום התורה והמצות על ידי יראה תתאה, בבחינת קטנות על כל פנים, בסור מרע ועשה טוב
However, the [regular] order of divine service, which is determined by and depends on a man’s choice, is to begin with the fulfillment of the Torah andmitzvot through yirah tata‘ah in its state of “minuteness” at least, departing from evil and doing good, i.e., refraining from committing any sins and performing all themitzvot,
להאיר נפשו האלקית באור התורה ומצותיה
so as to illuminate his divine soul with the light of the Torah and its commandments,
ואחר כך יאיר עליה אור האהבה
whereupon the light of love will also shine upon it,
כי ואהבת בגימטריא ב׳ פעמים אור, כידוע ליודעי ח״ן
(6for the word ve‘ahavta, (“And you shall love [the L‑rd your G‑d]”) has a numerical value twice that of or (“light”), as is known to those who are familiar with the Esoteric Discipline [of the Kabbalah]).
Thus, first must come the illumination earned by the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvot; only then can one be granted the illumination of experiencing a love of G‑d.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Parentheses are in the original text. |
| 2. | See Avodah Zarah 17a. |
| 3. | In Likkutei Torah of the AriZal, Tehillim 32. |
| 4. | See Berachot 29a. |
| 5. | The Rebbe cites the letter of the previous Rebbe, printed at the end of Kuntres HaAvodah,which states that the Alter Rebbe here speaks of Rabbi Elazar ben Durdaya’s love for G‑d, even though the plain meaning of the narrative would seem to highlight only hisrepentance. True enough, the experience of ahavat olam alone would not be expected to bring about klot hanefesh, the expiry of his soul. Both love and repentance, however, were present here; indeed, his teshuvah was so intense that his soul left his body while he shed tears of contrition. |
| 6. | Parentheses are in the original text. |
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Monday, Iyar 1, 5775 · April 20, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 154
Following the Prescribed Order of Tithes
"The fullness of your [harvest] and of the outflow of your [presses] you shall not delay"—Exodus22:28.
It is forbidden to deviate from the order of the harvest's tithes prescribed by the Torah.
Bikkurin [the first fruits taken to Jerusalem and given to the priest] is the first gift that is given from the harvest. Afterwards one separates 1/50 of the remaining crop for Terumah. Then one separates 1/10 of the remainder, the First Tithe. Then one separates 1/10 of the remainder, the Second Tithe. The Terumah is given to the priest, the First Tithe to the Levite, and the Second Tithe is eaten by the owners in Jerusalem.
If this order was not followed, i.e. if one separated a later tithe before one that should have preceded it – though the action is valid – he has transgressed this prohibition.
Following the Prescribed Order of Tithes
Negative Commandment 154
Translated by Berel Bell
The 154th prohibition is that we are forbidden from giving the agricultural gifts out of order; rather, we must give them in the proper order.
The explanation of this is as follows: wheat, for example, which was threshed and piled up has the status of tevel.1 One must set aside 1/50th for terumah gedolah. Then, one must set aside 1/10th of the remainder for ma'aser rishon. After that, one must set aside 1/10th of the remainder for ma'aser sheni. One gives the terumah gedolah to a Kohen; the ma'aser rishon to a Levite; and eats the ma'aser sheni himself in Jerusalem.
This law prohibits either giving earlier that which should come later or delaying that which should come earlier.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,2 "Do not delay your offerings of newly ripened produce (m'lei'as'cha) and your agricultural offerings (dimas'cha)," i.e. do not delay that which should come earlier.
The Mishneh in tractate Terumos3 says, "One who gave terumah before bikkurim, or ma'aser rishon before terumah, or ma'aser sheni before ma'aser rishon — although he transgressed a negative commandment, as it says, 'Do not delay your offerings of newly ripened produce and your agricultural offerings,' his act is still valid."4
The Mechilta says, "The word 'm'lei'ascha' refers to bikkurim, which are picked only when ripe (m'lai); 'dimas'cha' refers to terumah; 'do not delay' means that one may not give ma'aser sheni before ma'aser rishon, ma'aser rishon before terumah, or terumah before bikkurim." It also says in that passage that, "This verse is the source for the law that although one who gave terumah before bikkurim or ma'aser sheni before ma'aser rishon transgressed a negative commandment, his act is still valid."
In the beginning of tractate Temurah5 it is explained that one who violates this commandment does not receive lashes.6
FOOTNOTES
1.Food which is forbidden because the proper agricultural gifts have not yet been separated.
2.Ex. 22:28.
3.Ch. 3, Mishneh 6.
4.The Rambam brings this quote in order to show that this mitzvah is included in the count of 613. His proof is from the phrase, "although he transgressed a negative commandment."
5.4a.
6.This is because it resembles a lav shenitak l'aseh. See Yad Halevi, note 7.
Shabbos - Chapter Nineteen
Halacha 1
We may not go out [wearing] any weaponry on the Sabbath.1 [The following rules apply should one] go out [wearing weaponry]: If they are objects that are worn as garments - e.g., a coat of mail, a helmet, or iron boots2 - one is not liable. If, however, one goes out [carrying]3 articles that are not worn as garments - e.g., a spear, a sword, a bow, a round shield4 or a triangular shield - he is liable.5
Halacha 2
We may not go out wearing a sandal studded with nails to fasten it.6 Even on festivals, the Sages decreed that we should not go out wearing [such sandals].7
It is permitted to go out wearing a belt with pieces of gold and silver imbedded into it as kings wear, for this is a piece of jewelry, and it is permitted [to wear] all jewelry. [This license is granted] provided [the belt] does not hang loosely, lest it fall in the public domain and one go and bring it.8
Halacha 3
A ring that has a seal9 is considered to be a piece of jewelry for a man, but not for a woman. A ring without a seal, by contrast, is considered to be a piece of jewelry for a woman,10 but not for a man. Accordingly, a woman who goes out wearing a ring that has a seal and a man who goes out wearing a ring without a seal are liable.11
Why are they liable? They did not transfer them in an ordinary manner12 - i.e., it is not an ordinary practice for a man to wear a ring on his finger that is not appropriate for him, nor for a woman to wear a ring on her finger that is not appropriate for her. [Nevertheless,] there are times when a man gives his ring to his wife to hide at home and she places it on her finger while she is walking. Similarly, there are times when a woman gives her ring to her husband to take to a jeweler to fix, and he places it on his finger while he is walking to the jeweler's store. Therefore, [although the rings are not appropriate for the individuals mentioned above, because they do occasionally wear such rings,] they are considered to have transferred them in an ordinary manner. Accordingly, they are liable.
Halacha 4
Although a ring that does not have a seal is considered to be a piece of jewelry for a woman, a woman should not go out wearing such a ring, lest she take it off in the public domain and show it to her friends, as women often do.13 If, however, she went out wearing such a ring, she is not liable.14
A man, by contrast, may go out wearing a ring that has a seal, for it is considered to be a piece of jewelry for him and it is not usual practice for a man to show off [his jewelry to others].15 It has, [nevertheless,] become accepted practice for people to go out without wearing any rings at all.
Halacha 5
A woman who goes out [wearing] a pin with an eye is liable,16 while a man is not liable.17 A man who goes out [wearing] a pin without an eye is liable,18 while a woman is not liable, for this is considered to be a piece of jewelry for her.19She is prohibited against wearing it only because of a decree lest she [take it off and] show it to her friends.
The [following] general principles apply: Whenever a person goes out wearing an item that is not considered to be jewelry for him, and it is not [worn as] a garment, he is liable if he transfers it in an ordinary manner.
Whenever a man goes out wearing a piece of jewelry that hangs loosely and could easily fall and thus cause him to bring it through the public domain, and similarly, whenever a woman goes out wearing a piece of jewelry that she is likely to take off and show [to her friends], they are not liable.
Whenever an adornment that is not likely to fall, nor is it likely to be shown to others, [a woman] is permitted to go out [wearing] it. Therefore, she may go out [wearing] a bracelet that is placed on the forearm or [a garter that is placed on] the thigh if it clings tightly to the flesh and will not slip off.20 These rules apply in other similar situations.
Halacha 6
A woman should not go out with woolen strands, linen strands, or straps attached to her head lest she remove them when she immerses herself21 and carry them in the public domain.
She should not go out [wearing] a frontlet on her forehead,22 nor with bangles of gold that hang from the frontlet on her cheeks if they are not sewn together.23 Nor may [she go out wearing] a crown of gold on her head,24 nor with the ankle chains worn by maidens so that they will not take long strides and thus destroy [the signs of] their virginity.
It is forbidden to go out [wearing] any of these articles lest they fall and one carry them by hand.
Halacha 7
A woman should not go out [wearing] a necklace,25 a nose ring,26 a flask of perfume27 attached to her forearm, a small round pouch28 in which balsam oil29is placed, referred to as a cochellet.30
Nor should she wear a wig that will give the appearance that she has a full head of hair,31 nor a woolen pad that goes around her face,32 nor a false tooth, nor a golden crown that she places over a black tooth or a red blemish that she has on her teeth. She may go out with a silver tooth, because this is not obvious.
All these prohibitions were instituted lest {the article fall and [the woman] carry it in her hand or}33 lest she remove it and show it to a friend.
Halacha 8
Whenever the Sages forbade wearing an item in the public domain, it is forbidden to go out [wearing] that item even in a courtyard for which there is noeruv.34 An exception is made with regard to a face pad and a wig; permission is granted to go out [wearing] them to a courtyard where there is no eruv so that [the woman] would not appear unattractive to her husband.
A woman who goes out [carrying] an empty flask with no perfume is liable.
Halacha 9
A woman may go out [wearing] strands of hair that are attached to her head.35Water passes through them and they are therefore not considered to be an interposing substance were she to immerse herself. [Consequently,] she will not remove them. Hence, there is no necessity to prohibit [wearing them lest she remove them] and carry them into the public domain.
This applies regardless of whether [the strands of hair were taken from] the woman's own tresses, those of another woman, or from an animal.36 An elderly woman should not, however, go out [wearing strands of hair from] a young woman, for they are becoming to her, [and we fear that] she might remove them and show them to a friend. A young woman, by contrast, may go out [wearing] strands of hair from an elderly woman.37
Any woven hair-covering may be worn.
Halacha 10
A woman may go out [wearing] strands38 [tied around] her neck, because she does not tie them tightly,39 and they are therefore not considered to be an interposing substance [with regard to ritual immersion]. If, however, they are colored, she may not go out wearing them, lest she show them to a friend.
A woman may go out wearing a golden diadem, since these are worn only by dignified woman who are not accustomed to removing [their jewelry] and showing them to their friends.40 A woman may also go out [wearing] a frontlet on her forehead with bangles of gold [that hang from the frontlet], provided they are sewn into her head-covering so that they do not fall.41 The same applies in all similar situations.
Halacha 11
A women may go out with wadding in her ear42 provided it is attached to her ear, with wadding in her sandal43 provided it is attached to her sandal, and with wadding for her menstrual discharge44 even though it is not attached. [The latter rule applies] even if it has a handle. Since it is repulsive, even if it falls, she would not carry it.
Halacha 12
She may go out with pepper, a grain of salt, or any other substance that is placed in the mouth [to prevent] bad breath. She should not, however, place these substances in her mouth on the Sabbath itself.45
Women may go out [wearing] slivers of wood in their ears,46 or with bells47 on their necks or garments, and with a cloak fastened with a make-shift button.48
Indeed, a woman may fasten her cloak in this manner using a stone or a nut49on the Sabbath and go out, provided she does not [use this leniency as] a ruse and use a nut for this purpose in order to bring it to her young son. Similarly, she should not fasten her cloak in this manner using a coin,50 for it is forbidden to carry it. If her cloak was fastened [using a coin],51 she may go out wearing it.
Halacha 13
A man may go out to the public domain with a sliver of wood in his teeth52 or in his sandal. If, however, it falls, he should not put it back. [He may go out with] wadding or a sponge over a wound,53 provided he does not wind a cord or a string over them. [The latter restriction applies] because he considers the cord or the string as important and they do not assist [the healing of] the wound.54
[He may go out with] a garlic peel or an onion peel on a wound, and with a bandage on a wound. He may open and close [the bandage] on the Sabbath. [He may go out with] a compress, a plaster, or a dressing on a wound. [Similarly, one may go out with] a sela55 on a footsore, a locust's egg,56 a fox's tooth,57 a nail from a gallows,58 and any other entity that is hung on a person's body to [bring] a cure, provided that physicians say that it is effective.59
Halacha 14
[A woman] may go out with a tekumah60 stone or with the weight of a tekumahstone61, which was weighed [and carried] with the intent that it serve as a remedy. This applies not only to a pregnant woman, but to all women, [as a safeguard] lest they become pregnant and miscarry.
One may go out [wearing] an amulet that has proven its efficacy. What is an amulet that has proven its efficacy? [An amulet] that has cured three individuals62 or that was prepared by an individual who cured three people with other amulets. If a person goes out wearing an amulet that has not proved its efficacy, he is not liable.63 [The rationale:] he carried it out as a garment.64Similarly, a person who goes out [wearing] tefillin is not liable.65
Halacha 15
A person who has a wound on his foot may go out [wearing] one sandal on his healthy foot. If, however, a person does not have a wound on his foot, he may not go out [wearing] a single sandal.66
A child67 should not go out [wearing] the sandals of an adult.68 He may, however, go out [wearing] the cloak of an adult. A woman should not go out [on the Sabbath], [wearing] a loose-fitting sandal,69 nor [wearing] a new sandal that she did not wear for even a short period of time before [the commencement of the Sabbath].70
Halacha 16
[A man] may go out [wearing] tufts of flax or a woolen wig worn by men with sores on their heads.73 When does this apply? When he colored them with oil and wound them,74 or he went out [wearing] them [at least] momentarily75before the commencement of the Sabbath. If, however, he did not perform a deed [that indicated his desire to use these articles], nor did he go out [wearing] them before the Sabbath, it is forbidden for him to go out [wearing] them.
Halacha 17
We may go out [wearing] coarse sackcloth, tent-cloth,76a thick woolen blanket,77 or a coarse wrap78 [as protection] against rain.79 We may not, however, go out [wearing] a chest, a container, or a mat, [as protection] against the rain.80
When a pillow and a blanket are soft and thin as garments are, one may go out [wearing] them as a wrap on one's head on the Sabbath. When they are firm, they are considered to be burdens and it is forbidden.
Halacha 18
We may go out with bells woven81 into our clothes.82 A servant83 may go out [wearing] a clay seal84 around his neck,85 but not with a metal seal, lest it fall and he carry it.
[The following rules apply when] a person wraps himself in a tallit86 and folds it, either [holding the folds] in his hand, or [placing them] on his shoulder: If his intent is that [the ends of the garment] should not tear or become soiled, it is forbidden.87 If his intent is for the sake of fashion, since this is the style in which people of his locale wear their clothes, it is permitted.
Halacha 19
A person who goes out [to the public domain] with a garment that is folded and placed on his shoulders is liable. He may, however, go out with a wrap [folded] around his shoulders even though a thread is not tied to his fingers.88
Whenever a wrap does not cover [a person's] head and the majority of his body,89 he is forbidden to go out [wearing it]. A cloth that is worn as a head covering90 that is short and not wide should be tied below one's shoulders. Thus, it will serve as a belt and one will be permitted to go out [wearing] it.
Halacha 20
It is permitted to wrap oneself in a tallit91 that has unwoven strands92 at its edges, even though they are long and do not enhance the appearance of thetallit, because they are considered to be subsidiary to it. The person [wearing the tallit] does not care whether they exist or not.93
Based on the above, a person who goes out [wearing] a tallit whose tzitzit are not halachically acceptable is liable. For these strands are important to him and he is concerned with completing what they are lacking, so that they can be considered to be tzitzit.94
When, however, the tzitzit are halachically acceptable, it is permitted to go out [wearing this garment] during the day and during the night.95 Tzitzit that are halachically acceptable are not considered to be a burden, but rather to be an article that enhances the garment and beautifies it. Were the strands of tzitzitthat are halachically acceptable to be considered a burden, one would be liable [for wearing such a garment] even on the Sabbath day, since a positive commandment [whose negation] is not [punishable by] karet does not supersede the Sabbath [prohibitions].96
Halacha 21
A tailor should not go out on the Sabbath with a needle stuck into his clothes, nor a carpenter with a sliver of wood behind his ear,97 nor a weaver with wool in his ear, nor a carder of flax with a string around his neck, nor a money-changer with a dinar in his ear, nor a dyer with a sample in his ear.
If one [of these individuals] goes out [wearing such an article], he is not liable. Although this is the usual practice for artisans of this craft, [he is not liable,] because he is not considered to have transferred the article in an ordinary manner.98
Halacha 22
A zav99 who goes out with his receptacle is liable, for this is the only way this receptacle is transferred. [He is liable] although he has no need to take out [the receptacle] itself; [he needs it] only to prevent his clothes from being soiled.100For a person who performs a labor is liable even when he has no need for the actual labor he performed.101
Halacha 23
What should a man102 do when he finds tefillin in the public domain on the Sabbath?103 He should wear them in the ordinary fashion, placing the headtefillin on his head and the arm tefillin on his arm, enter a home and remove them there. Afterwards, he should go out, return, put on a second pair, [return to the home,] remove them, and [continue this pattern] until he brings in all [thetefillin].
If there were many pairs of tefillin and there was not enough time to bring them in during the time by wearing them as garments, he should remain [watching] them until [after] nightfall, and bring them in on Saturday night.104 In a time of oppressive decrees,105 when one might fear to linger and watch them until the evening because of the gentiles, he should cover them where they are located, leave them, and proceed [on his way].
Halacha 24
Should he be afraid to wait until after nightfall because of thieves, he should take the entire group at once and carry them less than four cubits at a time, or he should give them to a colleague [standing within four cubits], who in turn will give them to another colleague106 until they reach the courtyard at the extremity of the city.107
When does the above apply? When they are found together with their straps that are tied with the knots with which tefillin are tied, since then they are surelytefillin. If, however, their straps are not tied, one should not pay attention to them.108
Halacha 25
Halacha 26
On Friday, shortly before nightfall, a tailor should not go carrying a needle in his hand,112 nor should a scribe [go out carrying] his pen, lest he forget and transfer it on the Sabbath.
A person is obligated to check his clothes on Friday before nightfall, lest he forget something in them and [inadvertently] transfer it on the Sabbath.
It is permissible to go out wearing tefillin on Friday shortly before sunset. Since a person is obligated to touch his tefillin at all times,113 there is no possibility that he will forget them. If a person forgets and goes out to the public domain [wearing] tefillin,114 [when] he remembers the tefillin on his head, he should cover his head115 until he reaches his home or the house of study.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
I.e., this prohibition applies to all weaponry. As the Rambam continues, there are instances where carrying such weaponry violates a Torah prohibition, and other instances where the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin.
This chapter represents a turning point in the structure of this text. From the middle of Chapter 12 onward, the Rambam has delineated the various factors involved in the forbidden labor of transferring articles from one domain to another. In this halachah, he begins speaking of the Rabbinic safeguards associated with this forbidden labor.
|
| 2. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:2).
|
| 3. |
Even when hanging from one's garments - e.g., a sword in a scabbard attached to one's belt.
|
| 4. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:4). Rashi (Shabbat 63a) renders this term as "a mace."
|
| 5. |
The Rambam's ruling is based on Shabbat 63a, which mentions a difference of opinion between the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer. Our Sages rule that one is liable, while Rabbi Eliezer differs and states that one is not liable for carrying weapons, for they are ornaments, like jewelry.
Our Sages support their position by quoting Isaiah's (2:4) prophecy of the Era of the Redemption, "And they shall beat their swords into plowshares.... Nation shall not lift up sword against nation...." Since weaponry will be nullified in that era of ultimate fulfillment, it is a sign that it is not a true and genuine ornament.
The Lechem Mishneh (in his gloss on Hilchot Teshuvah 8:7) notes that there is a slight difficulty with the Rambam's ruling. The Talmud associates the opinion of the Sages (which the Rambam accepts) with the conception that Mashiach's coming will initiate a miraculous world order, and Rabbi Eliezer's ruling with the opinion of Shemuel that "there is no difference between the present era and the Messianic era except [for the emancipation from] the dominion of [gentile] powers." InHilchot Teshuvah 9:2, and more explicitly in Hilchot Melachim 12:1-2, the Rambam explains Shmuel's position, stating:
Nevertheless, this approach does not necessarily contradict the Rambam's rulings here. The Rambam also maintains that war will be nullified in the Messianic era, as he writes (loc. cit. 12:5): "In that era, there will be neither famine nor war, neither envy nor competition." Nevertheless, its nullification will not come because of miracles that defy the natural order, but because of the reasons he continues to mention in that halachah - that "good will flow in abundance" and "'the world will be filled with the knowledge of God' (Isaiah 11:9)."
|
| 6. |
The Ritba (in his gloss on Shabbat 60a) states that these nails were used to fasten the soles of the sandals to the upper portion.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah [Shabbat 6:2 (based on Shabbat, loc. cit., and Beitzah 14b)], the Rambam explains that in an era of religious oppression, many Jews gathered together for prayer and study in a hidden place. When they heard a noise outside, they suspected that they had been discovered by their enemies and panicked. In the confusion, hundreds were crushed by these nailed sandals.
|
| 7. |
Since these are days of public assembly, our Sages felt that wearing these sandals would arouse disturbing memories of the abovementioned incident.
There is a question whether the prohibitions against wearing such sandals apply at present despite the fact that our nailed sandals are made differently from those of Talmudic times. Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi quotes this prohibition in his Halachot. Since he mentions only those laws that are relevant in the post-Talmudic era, this inclusion would seem to imply that the prohibition should be followed now as well. Rabbenu Asher differs. Significantly, Rav Yosef Karo does not mention this prohibition in his Shulchan Aruch, nor does the Ramah refer to it in his gloss on that text.
|
| 8. |
This reason, that perhaps an article will fall and be carried in the public domain, is mentioned several times throughout this chapter and is relevant to both men and women.
|
| 9. |
As reflected by Esther 3:10 and other sources, in Biblical and Talmudic times men wore signet rings, using the seal to authorize their approval of documents.
|
| 10. |
The commentaries draw attention to a problematic statement in the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:1), where he states that a ring without a seal is somewhat like, but not exactly, a piece of jewelry for women.
|
| 11. |
Since these rings are not considered to be jewelry for these individuals, they are considered to be carrying them in the public domain.
|
| 12. |
As mentioned in Chapter 12, Halachot 12-14, a person is liable for transferring an article only when he does so in an ordinary fashion.
|
| 13. |
This point is mentioned several times in this chapter as a rationale for restrictions governing women's wearing jewelry in the public domain.
|
| 14. |
Although all Talmudic authorities prohibit women from wearing jewelry in public on the Sabbath, from the era of the Geonim onward, and particularly in the Ashkenazic community, it has become customary for women to do so. Among the rationales offered by the Rabbis (Tosafot, Shabbat64b; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 303:18) for this leniency are:
a) Today, there is no concept of a true public domain, for there are no places through which 600,000 people pass at one time. Since the restrictions against carrying in a carmelit are only safeguards against carrying in a public domain, it would be improper to impose a safeguard against carrying in a carmelit, for a safeguard is not instituted to protect a safeguard.
[There are several difficulties with this rationale: Firstly, many Rishonim (including the Rambam) do not accept this principle. Furthermore, today many large metropolises are a public domain according to all views.]
b) The socio-economic climate of the age has changed. In the Talmudic period, most women did not have jewelry, nor did they see their friends that often, nor did they have private places in which to socialize. Therefore, there was reason for the concern that jewelry would be taken off and displayed in the public domain. When the above mentioned conditions changed, this suspicion no longer applied, and there was no reason for this stringency.
|
| 15. |
Indeed, our Sages never imposed any restrictions on men's carrying in the public domain for this reason.
|
| 16. |
Since it has an eye, it is used as a needle for sewing, and therefore is not considered an ornament. Women are liable for transferring them on the Sabbath, because they frequently sew, and often carry needles by sticking them in their clothes. Hence, they are considered to have carried the needle in an ordinary manner.
|
| 17. |
With the exception of a tailor, a man is not liable for carrying a needle stuck in his clothes on the Sabbath, since this is not the ordinary way in which these items are carried.
Our explanation in this and the previous note follows the interpretation of Rabbenu Avraham, the Rambam's son (Birkat Avraham 16). It must be emphasized that the Rambam's rulings in Halachah 21 present a difficulty to this explanation. Rav Kapach offers a resolution to this difficulty by explaining that Halachah 20 refers to a needle which is a symbol of the tailor's trade. Wearing it is not considered to be transferring an article in the ordinary manner. In contrast, the present halachah refers to a functional needle that is carried in a craftsman's garment from time to time.
Significantly, Rashi and other Rishonim interpret Shabbat 62a, the source for this halachah, differently. Their views are given greater emphasis by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim301:8).
|
| 18. |
Since it is not a piece of jewelry for him.
|
| 19. |
Shabbat 60a relates that ordinarily these pins would have a gold plate attached to them. The pointed end of the pin would be stuck into her head-covering, and the plate would hang down over her forehead.
|
| 20. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:4). As mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 303:15), there are authorities who forbid the wearing of forearm bracelets.
|
| 21. |
These threads are tied to the woman's hair. Accordingly, they would be considered to be a חציצה, "intervening substance," and would have to be removed before immersion (see Hilchot Mikvaot 1:12, 2:5). The suspicion is that afterwards, they would be carried in the public domain.
|
| 22. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah [Shabbat 6:1 (based on Shabbat 57b), the Rambam describes this as a gold plate extending on the forehead from ear to ear.
|
| 23. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah [loc. cit. (according to Rav Kapach's translation), which is based on Shabbat 57b], the Rambam adds "and are sewn into her head-covering." Since a woman is not likely to remove her head-covering entirely when her jewelry is sewn into it, we do not suspect that she will take it off and show it to her friends in the public domain. (See Halachah 10.)
This interpretation (which resolves the question the Ra'avad raises in his gloss on this halachah and which reflects the interpretation of our Sages, Shabbat 57b) presents difficulties, because of the Rambam's final clause, "It is forbidden to go out [wearing] any of these articles, lest they fall and one carry them by hand." Note the commentaries of the Merkevet HaMishneh and the Seder HaMishneh, who address themselves to this difficulty.
|
| 24. |
A golden crown engraved with an impression of the city of Jerusalem.
|
| 25. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:1), the Rambam interprets this as a necklace with golden beads. Rashi (Shabbat 57b, 59b) interprets this as referring to a golden choker necklace. (See the notes on Halachah 4 regarding the Rabbinic opinions regarding wearing jewelry at present.)
|
| 26. |
Significantly, even in Talmudic times earrings were permitted. Rashi explains that this leniency was granted because earrings are difficult to remove. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 303:8) offers a different rationale: that a woman's head covering would cover her ears as well. Hence, there is no need to worry about her showing the earrings to her friends.
|
| 27. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:3), the Rambam mentions that musk would usually be carried.
|
| 28. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat, loc. cit.), the Rambam mentions that this pouch was also attractive, being made of gold or silver.
|
| 29. |
Balsam oil is renowned for its pleasant fragrance.
|
| 30. |
Significantly, our text of the Mishnah states kovellet, replacing the כ with a ב. The meaning of the term, however, does not change.
|
| 31. |
This refers to attractive hair glued to a thin surface and placed on a woman's head (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 6:5).
Needless to say, in addition to the more inclusive leniencies involving jewelry in general, the nature of wigs and false teeth are different today. Therefore, there is no difficulty in wearing these items in the public domain.
|
| 32. |
This pad was placed on a woman's forehead beneath the frontlet of gold (Shabbat 57b) in a manner similar to the woolen pad that the High Priest would wear under his forehead plate (Chulin 138a). Apparently this pad was also attractive and could serve as an ornament in its own right.
|
| 33. |
This clause is set off by braces, because based on manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah and early printings, it appears to be a printer's addition and not part of the Rambam's original text. According to the Rambam, this suspicion is not relevant with regard to these particular articles.
|
| 34. |
Although the prohibition against carrying in such a courtyard is Rabbinic in origin and there is no possibility of transgressing a Torah prohibition, our Sages imposed the restrictions against carrying there as well. The Maggid Mishneh explains that this is not considered as instituting "a safeguard for a safeguard." Were women allowed to wear these adornments in a courtyard, they would most likely inadvertently proceed into the public domain while wearing them.
The Maggid Mishneh also explains that according to the Rambam, there appears to be no prohibition against women wearing such articles at home. We do not suspect that they will inadvertently go outside while wearing them. Other Rishonim (the Ramban and the Rashba) differ and prohibit wearing ornaments even in one's home. As mentioned above, however, at present it is customary to adopt a more lenient approach regarding the entire issue of wearing jewelry.
|
| 35. |
In contrast to the strands of wool or linen mentioned in Halachah 6. As the Rambam continues to explain, the reasons the Sages forbade wearing strands from other fabrics do not apply in this instance.
|
| 36. |
See Shabbat 64b for an explanation why it is necessary to mention all three instances.
|
| 37. |
Based on an alternate interpretation [or perhaps an alternate version] of Shabbat 64b, Rabbenu Asher and others differ and also forbid a young woman from wearing strands of hair from an elderly woman.
|
| 38. |
Even of wool and linen. As the Rambam continues to explain, the reasons why it was forbidden to wear strands of these fabrics tied to one's hair do not apply in this instance.
|
| 39. |
It is, however, forbidden for a woman to wear a choker necklace (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 40. |
This ruling serves as the basis for some of the lenient opinions mentioned in the notes on Halachah 4, which allow women to wear jewelry in the public domain at present. All our women are dignified and are not accustomed to removing their jewelry and showing it to their friends.
|
| 41. |
See Halachah 6 and notes.
|
| 42. |
To absorb the fluids it produces (Rashi, Shabbat 64b).
|
| 43. |
To make walking more comfortable (ibid.).
|
| 44. |
As reflected by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 301:13), this applies only when the woman's intent is that the blood from the discharge will not cause her discomfort when it dries. If her intent is to prevent the discharge from soiling her clothes, it is forbidden. See Halachah 22.
|
| 45. |
I.e., if a woman had such a substance in her mouth before the Sabbath, she may continue holding it in her mouth on the Sabbath. She may not, however, place these substances in her mouth on the Sabbath itself, nor may she return such a substance to her mouth if it falls out.
Based on Chapter 21, Halachah 24, it appears that the restrictions on placing a substance in one's mouth on the Sabbath to prevent bad breath apply only when one will continue carrying those substances in one's mouth outside.
|
| 46. |
So that the holes in their pierced ears will not close (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah,Shabbat 6:6).
|
| 47. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, ibid. Rashi (Shabbat65a) and others translate רעולות as "veiled." See the notes on Halachah 18, which discuss the laws regarding wearing bells on the Sabbath.
|
| 48. |
Jewish women living in Media would wear a coat with a strap in one of its upper corners. They would place a stone, nut, coin, or the like under the cloak to serve as a makeshift button. The strap would be looped around this button to fasten the cloak closed (Rashi, loc. cit.).
|
| 49. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 303:22) emphasizes that a stone must be set aside for this purpose before the commencement of the Sabbath. Otherwise, it is muktzeh and is forbidden to be moved.
|
| 50. |
Even if a coin was set aside for this purpose before the Sabbath, it is still considered to bemuktzeh (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).
|
| 51. |
Before the commencement of the Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).
|
| 52. |
A toothpick.
|
| 53. |
We are permitted to wear any entity that heals the body on the Sabbath. Such articles are not considered to be a burden, but a garment or jewelry. In Chapter 21, Halachot 26-27, the Rambam discusses whether it is permissible to place wadding or bandages on a wound on the Sabbath.
|
| 54. |
These restrictions do not apply to a rag, because it is inconsequential. Since a cord or a string is considered somewhat important, it is not considered to be subsidiary to the bandage. Hence, the person is considered to be carrying them in the public domain.
|
| 55. |
A coin from the Talmudic period.
|
| 56. |
A cure for weak thighs (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 6:10).
|
| 57. |
A cure for both insomnia and hyperactivity (ibid.).
|
| 58. |
A cure for continuous high fever (ibid.).
|
| 59. |
This halachah is very problematic for the Rambam. As explained at length in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, Chapter 11, the Rambam maintains that all occult arts and superstitious practices are not only prohibited, but are absolute nonsense. It would appear that the latter cures mentioned are surely not practical medical advice, but rather a charm stemming from folklore (and perhaps pagan folklore). Indeed, for the latter reason, Rabbi Meir (according to the Rambam's text ofShabbat 6:10, our version states "the Sages") forbids the use of these practices even during the week.
The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1436) compounds our difficulty in understanding the Rambam's view, citing the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Yoma 8:4), which states:
The Radbaz, therefore, maintains that the Rambam is describing a situation where these articles are worn as pendants. Hence, they can be considered equivalent to pieces of jewelry. (See the following halachah with regard to an amulet that has not proved its efficacy.) If, however, they are carried by hand, it is forbidden to go out to the public domain with them on the Sabbath. TheShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 301:27) does not make such a stipulation and quotes the Rambam's words in this halachah without emendation.
|
| 60. |
A stone worn by a woman to prevent a miscarriage (Rashi, Shabbat 66b).
|
| 61. |
A weight equivalent to that of the tekumah stone, which is purported to have a similar positive effect (ibid.).
|
| 62. |
The Maggid Mishneh states that, in contrast to Rashi's view, according to the Rambam, an amulet that healed one person three times is not considered to have proved its efficacy.
|
| 63. |
At the outset, however, one is forbidden to go out wearing such an amulet.
|
| 64. |
I.e., the amulet is considered to be an ornament, like a piece of jewelry.
|
| 65. |
There is no obligation to wear tefillin on the Sabbath, and we are therefore forbidden to wear them in most circumstances. (See Halachah 23 with regard to the exceptions.) Nevertheless, since they are worn as a garment, a person is not liable for wearing them.
|
| 66. |
Rashi (Shabbat 60a) gives two rationales for this ruling:
a) The Jerusalem Talmud states that a person who wears only one shoe will be suspected of carrying the other in his cloak.
b) Wearing one shoe may arouse the attention of others and cause them to mock him. We fear that in such a situation the person will remove the sandal that he is wearing and carry it.
It is questionable whether the Rambam accepts the latter rationale. Although Rashi suggests that it applies with regard to several of the items mentioned in the previous halachot, the Rambam does not mention it - neither in this chapter nor in his Commentary on the Mishnah.
|
| 67. |
This is the simple interpretation of the word קטן. Note, however, the commentary of Rashi onShabbat 141b, where he interprets the term as referring to a small adult. Since the obligation of a child is Rabbinic in origin, the Sages would not enforce any further safeguards on his conduct.
|
| 68. |
The rationale is that the sandal may fall off and the child might carry it in the public domain.
|
| 69. |
Rashi interprets the Talmud (loc. cit.) as referring to a torn sandal.
|
| 70. |
Lest the sandal prove uncomfortable and the woman carry it.
|
| 71. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:8). Shabbat66b offers three different Aramaic interpretations of this term. These interpretations, in turn, are understood differently by the later commentaries.
In the above source, the Rambam states that since it is uncomfortable to walk in wooden shoes, they are not considered to be garments.
|
| 72. |
For he did not transfer them in an ordinary manner (Merkevet HaMishneh).
|
| 73. |
This reflects a fusion of the interpretation by Rav Hai Gaon (and Tosafot) of Shabbat 50a, which understands these substances to be makeshift wigs to cover baldness, and that of Rashi, who explains that these terms refer to wool that is placed on wounds.
|
| 74. |
I.e., he performed a deed that indicates that he desires to use the wool as a wig.
|
| 75. |
If he wore the wool as a wig once before the Sabbath, this indicates that he is willing to use it for this purpose. Otherwise, since most people would not wear a wig of this nature, it is forbidden to wear it on the Sabbath because it is muktzeh (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:62).
|
| 76. |
The source for this halachah is Nedarim 55b. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Nedarim 7:3), the Rambam defines this term as "coarsely woven material that is not sown."
|
| 77. |
Our translation is taken from Rav Kapach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Oholot 11:3).
|
| 78. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Nedarim 7:3), the Rambam defines this term as "a wrap made from an extremely coarse and thick fabric... used for protection from rain."
|
| 79. |
Although these are not proper garments, since they resemble clothing and are useful in protecting one against the rain, they may be worn.
|
| 80. |
In this instance, although the person is seeking protection from the rain, since these are not garments, he is considered to be carrying a burden (Rashi Nedarim, loc. cit.).
|
| 81. |
If, however, the bells are not woven into the garment, there are restrictions against wearing them, lest they become severed and the person carry them in the public domain. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:21, Mishnah Berurah 301:80.)
|
| 82. |
Note the Ramah (Orach Chayim 301:23), who states that this leniency applies only to bells whose clappers have been removed. Otherwise, it is forbidden to wear them, for jingling a bell is forbidden on the Sabbath.
|
| 83. |
This refers to an eved Cana'ani - i.e., a servant who has been circumcised and has been immersed in the mikveh, and who has accepted the observance of the Torah's laws. Such a servant is obligated to fulfill all the mitzvot incumbent on a woman (Chaggigah 4a). (See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 12:11, 13:18.)
|
| 84. |
A seal of identification, indicating to whom he belongs. The seal is permitted because it resembles a piece of jewelry. In contrast to a metal seal, the servant is allowed to go out wearing a clay seal, since were it to fall, it would break and would be worthless.
|
| 85. |
But not hanging from his clothes (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 86. |
The intent here is not necessarily a prayer shawl, but also a garment worn for mundane purposes as well. We have, nevertheless, merely transliterated the Hebrew term rather than translate it as "garment," to indicate the type of clothing that is under discussion. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 301:31) specifically states that this restriction does not apply to contemporary garments, because they are of a different type.
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:36 and the Mishnah Berurah 301:117 emphasize that even the garments worn at present should not be lifted up extremely high.
|
| 87. |
The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam does not state that the person is liable, for the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin.
|
| 88. |
Rashi (Shabbat 147a) explains that tying the string around one's finger will prevent the wrap from falling. We do not fear that the wrap will fall and the person will carry it in the public domain.
The commentaries explain that in contrast to the garment mentioned in the first clause, since it is customary to wear a wrap folded, there is no difficulty in wearing it in this manner on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, in light of the final clause, they require that the wrap be large enough to cover one's head and the majority of one's body.
Although there are more stringent opinions, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:37 and the Mishnah Berurah 301:115 permit the wearing of scarfs that are not this large if it is accepted practice in a community to wear such garments.
|
| 89. |
The Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh explain that this clause refers to a passage fromShabbat 147b which describes a wrap worn by women after a bath.
|
| 90. |
Our translation is based on Rashi, Shabbat 147b. Rav Kapach suggests a different version of that text. Since this cloth is not large enough to cover the person's head and the majority of his body, the only way it may be worn is when one ties it as a belt.
|
| 91. |
This does not refer to a tallit used for prayer, but rather to an ordinary shawl that resembles such a garment.
|
| 92. |
See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Keilim 29:1).
|
| 93. |
Since they are of no consequence to the person whatsoever, they have no halachic importance either. It is as if they did not exist at all. If, however, the person was disturbed by their presence, it would be forbidden.
|
| 94. |
Since the tzitzit are important to the person, they are not considered to be subsidiary to the garment. Hence, wearing a garment to which they are attached is considered to be carrying a burden.
|
| 95. |
The Rambam elaborates slightly in this instance to negate the opinion of Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, who maintains that it is forbidden to wear tzitzit on Friday night. He explains that since one does not fulfill a mitzvah by wearing tzitzit at night, and yet the tzitzit are important, wearing a garment to which they are attached is equivalent to carrying a burden on the Sabbath.
The Rambam does not accept this rationale, explaining that since the tzitzit are halachically acceptable, they are considered to be an adornment of the garment even when a mitzvah is not fulfilled by wearing them. In one of his responsa, the Rambam deals with this issue at length.
In this context, note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:45, which states that this applies to a man, but not to a woman. For a woman, tzitzit are always considered a burden on the Sabbath. Note, however, the Mishnah Berurah, which cites differing views.
|
| 96. |
The commentaries note a slight difficulty with the Rambam's statements. Although there are only two positive commandments whose observance supersedes the Sabbath prohibitions - circumcision and the offering of the Paschal sacrifice - it is because of a specific divine decree and not because of the fact that they are punishable by karet that these mitzvot supersede the Sabbath laws.
|
| 97. |
Used by a carpenter to see if the different pieces of wood are level (Rashi, Shabbat 11b). This and all the other items mentioned are symbols that the various artisans would wear so that people could identify their professions.
|
| 98. |
I.e., since it is not the ordinary practice for most people to carry an article in this fashion, the fact that certain people do carry in this manner is not significant.
It must be noted that this ruling (which follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir, Shabbat 11b) appears to contradict the explanation given by Rabbenu Avraham, the Rambam's son, to Halachah 5. (See the notes on that halachah.)
|
| 99. |
A man with a discharge from his sexual organ resembling that resulting from venereal disease. (See Leviticus, chapter 15; Hilchot Mechusarei Kapparah, chapter 2.)
|
| 100. |
As mentioned in the notes on Halachah 11, it is forbidden to wear an article merely to prevent one's clothes from being soiled.
|
| 101. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 7.
|
| 102. |
We have used the word "man" in consideration of the ruling of the Magen Avraham 301:53, who states that for a woman, tefillin are always considered to be a burden. (See the Mishnah Berurah301:158, which cites a differing opinion.
|
| 103. |
Halachah 14 states that a person who wears tefillin is not liable - i.e., since tefillin are worn as a garment, he is exempt. Nevertheless, the Rabbis forbade wearing tefillin, because there is no mitzvah to do so on the Sabbath. They did not, however, apply this prohibition in this instance out of reverence for the sacred articles. Were the tefillin to be left there, they might be treated with disrespect.
The Sha'agat Aryeh (Responsum 41) questions the Rambam's ruling, because - as reflected byHilchot Tefillin 4:11 - the Rambam maintains that there is a prohibition from the Torah against putting on tefillin when there is no obligation to do so. He resolves that difficulty by stating that the prohibition applies only when one puts them on at an improper time, with the intent of fulfilling a mitzvah. If that is not one's intent, there is no prohibition.
|
| 104. |
Since he will not have time to bring them in until after nightfall, it is preferable to stay there and protect them all rather than bring them in one pair at a time. When, by contrast, there is a possibility of bringing them in before nightfall, the Sages were willing to allow him to leave the remainder of the tefillin unattended briefly, so that he could complete the task earlier.
|
| 105. |
Shabbat 130a relates that the Romans made the wearing of tefillin punishable by death.
|
| 106. |
See Chapter 12, Halachah 17, which explains this leniency applies even with regard to one's personal concerns. Surely, it applies with regard to matters associated with a mitzvah.
|
| 107. |
There, a person in the courtyard should remove the tefillin from the body of the person who was carrying them while he is still walking outside the courtyard. Thus, one person will have performed the akirah (the removal of the article from its original place) and another the hanachah[the placement of the article (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:52)].
|
| 108. |
For the possibility exists that they are merely an amulet (Eruvin 97a).
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's conception of that Talmudic passage and maintains that there is no question concerning the identity of the tefillin, for we do not suspect that a person would make an amulet that resembles tefillin. The difficulty is that if the knots of the tefillin are not tied, it is forbidden to tie them on the Sabbath. Thus, it will be impossible to wear the tefillin on the Sabbath.
The difference between these two views is that, according to the Ra'avad, if one finds tefillinwithout straps, one is obligated to remain watching them until after nightfall. The Rambam, by contrast, would allow a person to leave them.
The Maggid Mishneh cites a responsum purported to be written by the Rambam to the scholars of Lunil concerning tzitzit, which indicates that he accepted the Ra'avad's position. When citing the law regarding tefillin, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 301:42) quotes the Rambam's view. The Magen Avraham 301:53 states that even if the Rambam's view would have applied in previous generations, it is not relevant at present, for amulets are not commonly made in the form of tefillin. Therefore, he suggests following the Ra'avad's ruling.
|
| 109. |
Since a Torah scroll is not usually worn as a covering, the person is not allowed to cover himself with it under ordinary circumstances. Rather, he must linger and protect the scroll until after nightfall.
|
| 110. |
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:54 states that one should cover the scroll to protect it. It is questionable why the Rambam makes such a statement with regard to tefillin (Halachah 23), but does not do so in this instance.
|
| 111. |
Although a Torah scroll is not usually worn, and indeed, doing so is not respectful to the scroll, this leniency is granted lest the scroll become ruined.
The Or Sameach questions why the person cannot carry the scroll less than four cubits at a time, as mentioned in the previous halachah. He explains that the problem is transferring the scroll from the public domain to the home. In Chapter 13, Halachah 9, the Rambam states that one should throw an article that one is carrying from the public domain into a courtyard in an abnormal manner. This would be disrespectful to the Torah scroll. Therefore, it is preferable to wear the scroll. With regard to the propriety of wearing parchment as a garment, the Or Sameach cites the use of similar substances, as mentioned in Halachah 17. See also the suggestion of Shulchan Aruch HaRav mentioned in Note 107.
|
| 112. |
The Maggid Mishneh cites Shabbat 11b, which, as the Rambam states in Halachah 21, rules that a tailor is not liable for carrying his needle stuck into his clothes. Therefore, forbidding a tailor from wearing his needle on Friday afternoon would be a "safeguard to a safeguard," a Rabbinic decree enforced to insure the observance of another Rabbinic decree. Therefore, the prohibition is directed only at carrying a needle in one's hand.
|
| 113. |
See Hilchot Tefillin 4:14, which states that the holiness of tefillin surpasses that of the tzitz, the frontlet worn by the High Priest. Hence, they are worthy of such constant attention.
|
| 114. |
Compare to Hilchot Tefillin 4:12, which mentions similar concepts.
|
| 115. |
The commentaries state that this is necessary lest others receive the impression that it is permissible to wear tefillin on the Sabbath.
|
Terumot - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
A person may appoint an agent to separate terumah and the tithes for him, as [Numbers 18:28] states: "So shall you separate, also you." [The wording implies] the inclusion of an agent.1 A gentile may not be appointed as an agent, because [the phrase] "also you" [implies an equation between you and your agent]. Just as you are a member of the covenant, your agent must be a member of the covenant.2
Halacha 2
There are five [types of individuals] who should not separate terumah and [even] if they do, [the produce] they separated is not considered as terumah: A deaf-mute,3 a mentally or emotionally unstable person, a minor,4 a gentile who separated terumah from produce belonging to a Jew, even with his permission,5 and a person who separate terumah from produce that does not belong to him without the owner's permission.6 If, however, a person separatesterumah from his own produce for the produce of others, the produce isterumah and [the colleague's] produce has been prepared for use. The satisfaction [of allocating the terumah] belongs [to the person who separated it and he may] give to whichever priest he desires.
Halacha 3
[The following rules apply when a person] separates terumah [from a colleague's produce] without permission or descends into his colleague's field and gathered produce without permission so that he could take them [for himself], but separate some as terumah. When the owner comes and says: "You should have taken better ones,"7 if there are better ones than those separated as terumah, the separation is effective,8 because [the owner] did not object.9 If there are not better ones, his separation is not effective, for his statements were made as an objection.10If the owner came and gathered produce and added it to the quantity separated,11whether he possesses better produce or not, his separation is effective.
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
When a minor reaches the age when his vows may be of consequence17- even though he has not manifested signs of physical maturity and he has not attained majority - separates terumah, his separation is of consequence.18[This applies] even with regard to terumah mandated by Scriptural Law. [The rationale is that] their vows and their consecration [of property] is valid according to Scriptural Law, as explained in [Hilchot] Nedarim.19
Halacha 6
When a person tells his agent: "Go and separate terumah for me" and he goes to separate terumah, but [the principal] does not know whether he [actually] separated terumah or not, [even] when he discovers that terumah was separated from the granary, we do not assume that [he] separated terumah. For with regard to prohibitions, we apply the principle:20 "An agent can be assumed to have carried out his mission," only when that leads to a stringency, not when it leads to a leniency.21 [Instead,] we suspect that another person separated the terumah without his permission.22
Halacha 7
When a person tells his agent: "Go and separate terumah," he should separate according to the temperament of the owner. If he knows that he is parsimonious, he should separate one sixtieth. If he was generous, he should separate one fortieth. If he does not know his temperament, he should make the average separation, one fiftieth. If he intended to make the average separation, but it turned out that he separated one fortieth or one sixtieth, his separation is effective.23 If he intended to add to the average separation, and he separated even one forty-ninth,24 his separation is not effective.25
Halacha 8
There is an obligation to separate terumah and tithes from produce belonging to partners, for [Numbers 18:28] speaks of "your tithes," [using a plural term,] implying even from two people.
Partners do not have to receive permission from each other. Instead, whenever anyone separates terumah, the separation is effective. [The following rules apply when] one of them separated terumah and then the other came and separated terumah, because he did not know that his colleague had separated it. If they relied26 on each other, the terumah separated by the second is not of consequence.27 If they did not rely on each other, but the first one separated an appropriate amount, the separation of the second one is of no consequence.28If the first did not separate the appropriate amount, the separation of the second one is also of consequence.29
Halacha 9
[The following rules apply when a person] tells his agent, his attendant,30 his servant, or his maid-servant to separate terumah and they went to separate theterumah, but he nullified their agency before they made the separation. If the agent did not deviate [from the principal's instructions], his separation is effective.31 If he did deviate, e.g., the principal told him: "Separate from the northern side," and he separated from the southern side, since he nullified the agency previously, the separation is not effective.32
Halacha 10
[The following rules apply when] a sharecropper separates terumah and the owner [of the land] objects. If he objects before he completes the separation of the terumah, the separation is not of consequence.33 If he objected after the separation, the separation is of consequence.34
Guardians may separate terumah from the property of orphans.35
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
A child, a worker, a servant, and a wife should separate terumah for [produce] that they are eating, but not for the entire [crop].40 For a person should not separate terumah from [produce] that does not belong to him.
Halacha 13
Workers do not have license to separate terumah without the consent of the owner with the exception of those who tread grapes in the vat. [They are given this license because] if they desired to make the wine impure, they could do so immediately. Since the wine was thus given over to their domain and they were entrusted with it, they are considered as agents. If they separate terumah, the separation is effective.43
Halacha 14
When a worker is told by the owner: "Bring my granary in and separateterumah," but he separates and then brings the granary in, his separation is effective.44
Halacha 15
When a gentile separates terumah from his own produce, according to Scriptural Law, the separation is not effective, because he is not obligated to do so.45 [Our Rabbis] decreed that his separation should be effective, because of the wealthy,46 [i.e., they were fearful] lest the money belong to a Jew and he say that it belong to a gentile to make it exempt.
We cross-examine the gentile who separates terumah. If he says: "I separated it so that it should be like a Jew's," we give it to a priest. If not, it should be entombed, for perhaps his intent was [to dedicate it] to heaven.47
When does the above apply? In Eretz Yisrael. Our Sages did not, however, issue a decree if a gentile separates terumah in the Diaspora.48 We tell him that he is not obligated to do this and the produce is not terumah at all.
Halacha 16
When a person [makes a separation and] intends to say terumah, but instead says tithes, or intends to say tithes, but instead says terumah, his statement is of no consequence unless his mouth and his heart are in accord.49
If one separates terumah in his mind without uttering anything verbally, the separation is effective, as [implied by Numbers 18:27]: "And your terumah will be considered50 for you as the terumah of the granary." Through thought alone, it becomes terumah.
Halacha 17
[The following rules apply when a person] separates terumah with a stipulation. If the stipulation is fulfilled, the separation is effective. If not, it is not effective.51
When a person separates terumah and/or the tithes and then regrets [his act], he may approach a sage and ask for its repeal as other vows are repealed.52The produce then reverts to being ordinary produce as it was before53 until he makes a separation a second time, [setting aside] either the same produce he separated initially or other produce.
Halacha 18
[The following rules apply when a person] separates terumah from a cistern of wine, saying: 54 "Behold [the contents of] this [container] are terumah on the condition that it ascends intact [from the cistern]," [for the condition to have been met, the container] must ascend intact from being broken or spilt. [The stipulation does not cover the wine] becoming impure.55 If [the container] is broken [and the wine] spills back into the cistern, it does not cause the mixture to become meduma.56 If [he lifted the container from the cistern and] put it in a place where if it breaks or rolls, it will not reach the cistern, [should the wine later spill into the cistern], it causes the mixture to become meduma, because the stipulation was fulfilled.
Halacha 19
When does the above apply? With regard to the great terumah.57 With regard to terumat ma'aser, by contrast, [different rules apply] because it is permitted to make this separation from produce that is not in the same place.58 [Hence as soon as the container] ascends [from the cistern], his stipulation is considered to have been fulfilled and [the wine separated] is terumat ma'aser, even though [afterwards, the container] breaks or [the wine] spills.59 Needless to say, this applies if [the terumat ma'aser] becomes impure.
Halacha 20
When a person says: "The produce in the upper portion [of this container] isterumah and that in its lower portion is ordinary produce" or "The produce in the upper portion [of this container] is ordinary produce and that in its lower portion is terumah," his statements are effective.60 For the matter is dependent on the thought of the person making the separation.
Halacha 21
When a person separates terumah from [grain in] a granary, he must have the intent in his heart that [the produce separated] will be terumah for this grain heap, the stalks of wheat that were cut [and not threshed], [the grain] on the side of the grain heap, and [the kernels] in the straw.61 When a person separates terumah from a vat [of wine], he must have the intent in his heart that he is separating terumah for [the wine absorbed] in the kernels and the peels.
When a person separates terumah from a cistern of wine,62 he must have the intent in his heart that he is separating terumah for [the wine absorbed] in the peat.63 [in all the above instances,] if he separates terumah without having a specific intent, all of the produce is included. For it is a condition of the court that [when one separates terumah, it] includes everything.64 When a person separates terumah from a basket of figs and other figs are found at the side of the basket, terumah need not be separated from them, because in his heart, a person has the intent to separate terumah for all the produce.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
By saying "also you," the verse implies that there is someone other than you - an agent - that may also separate terumah [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumah 1:1)].
|
| 2. |
This is a general principle applying not only with regard to terumah. A gentile cannot serve as an agent for a Jew in any matter (Kiddushin 41b).
|
| 3. |
As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumah 1:2) although the termcheresh refers to someone who cannot hear, in a halachic context, the intent is someone who also cannot speak. He is referred to as a cheresh because it is his inability to hear that prevents him from learning how to speak.
|
| 4. |
These three individuals are considered as incapable of controlling their affairs. Hence they are not obligated in the observance of the Torah and its mitzvot. Just as they are not responsible for themselves, they cannot discharge the responsibilities of others.
|
| 5. |
For as stated above, a gentile cannot act as an agent for a Jew.
|
| 6. |
If he is granted the owner's permission, he is considered as his agent and the separation is effective as stated above.
|
| 7. |
Our translation is based on Rashi's commentary (Bava Metzia 22a).
|
| 8. |
According to this approach, the statement "You should have taken better ones" is understood simply. The owner in truth desired that the person give the priest the best produce possible asterumah.
|
| 9. |
Thus we consider it as if the person acted with the owner's consent and thus functioned as his agent. Since a mitzvah is involved and ultimately, he consented, we assume that this was his intent from the outset (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh). Also, implied is that the owner was willing to allow the person to take a certain amount of the produce as his own. Note the Turei Zahav 331:15 who maintains that the Rambam's ruling runs contrary to the simple meaning of the passage inBava Metzia, loc. cit., and rejects the resolutions offered by the Kessef Mishneh. Note, also, the contrast to Hilchot Ishut 5:8.
|
| 10. |
I.e., we assume that he was speaking facetiously.
|
| 11. |
We interpret that as an expression of consent to the other person's actions.
|
| 12. |
Terumah 1:4 also mentions a person who had a seminal emission. He is prohibited, because he is not allowed to recite a blessing until he immerses himself in a mikveh. The Rambam does not mention such a person here, because - as stated in Hilchot K'riat Shema 4:8; Hilchot Tefilah 4:4-6 - Ezra's decree restricting a person who had a seminal emission from prayer and Torah study was never fully accepted and ultimately, nullified by the Rabbis. In the present age, such a person should recite blessings even though he has not yet immersed.
|
| 13. |
This category is not mentioned in the mishnah, loc. cit. The Rambam mentions it, based on the principle (see Hilchot Berachot 1:7) that a person who recites a blessing should recite it in a manner that enables him to hear it.
|
| 14. |
A person who cannot speak is physically incapable of reciting the blessing. A person who is naked is forbidden to recite the blessing, because his personal state is not considered as appropriate for the recitation of a blessing (see Shabbat 23b).
|
| 15. |
This is speaking about a person who is slightly intoxicated, but still able to function. If a person is intoxicated to the extent that is not at all in command of his mental faculties, he is considered as one who is intellectually incapable and his separation is of no consequence whatsoever. SeeHilchot Mechirah 29:18.
|
| 16. |
And as an initial and preferable measure, the finest portion of the produce should be separated asterumah (see Chapter 5, Halachah 1). When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah331:32) states that in the present age, when the terumah is ultimately destroyed, we are not precise in separating the finest portion of the crops as terumah. Hence, it is also acceptable if individuals in the latter two categories also separate terumah.
|
| 17. |
I.e., a male minor who is twelve years old and a female minor who is eleven years old, provided they know the significance of vows, or a male of thirteen and a female of twelve who have not manifested signs of physical maturity, .
|
| 18. |
In one of his responsa, however, the Rambam writes that as an initial preference, it is not desirable for a minor to separate terumah until he manifests signs of physical maturity.
|
| 19. |
Hilchot Nedarim 11:1-5.
|
| 20. |
Eruvin 31b; Gittin 64a,b et al.
|
| 21. |
I.e., we are uncertain whether we can rely on the fact that an agent will carry out his mission. Hence, if his doing so would lead to a prohibition, we rule stringently and assume that he carried out his mission (see Hilchot Ishut 9:6). If, however, his doing so would lead to a leniency, we do not make such an assumption.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:34) quotes the Rambam's ruling. The Tur and the Rama, however, rule that in such a situation, we can assume that the agent carried out his mission, for failing to do so would create a spiritual stumbling block for the principal.
|
| 22. |
In which instance, the separation of terumah would not be effective, as stated in Halachah 2.
|
| 23. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 4:4), the Rambam writes that if the agent gave more or less than the average measure unintentionally, his separation is effective. In contrast to the situation described in Chapter 5, Halachah 5, here the agent is acting with the principal's permission. Hence, even if he deviated from the amount he could be expected to give, his act is of consequence.
|
| 24. |
Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard published text has a slightly different version.
|
| 25. |
The Radbaz interprets this as meaning that the agent knew the amount the principal would prefer giving and intentionally gave more. Since he intentionally set aside a measure that differs from the principal's wishes, he is considered as acting without permission.
|
| 26. |
Our translation is based on the glosses of the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh. Other definitions have been offered in different sources.
|
| 27. |
Because the mitzvah was completed by the terumah separated by the first. Had the second known that the first had made the separation, he would not have separated terumah. Thus the separation of the second was made in error.
|
| 28. |
Had the second known that the first separated the appropriate amount, he would not have separated the terumah. Hence, here also, we say that the separation of the second was made in error.
|
| 29. |
And it completes the requirement made by our Sages (Kessef Mishneh).
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:35) emphasizes that in the present age, when it is sufficient to separate even the slightest amount as terumah, the first person's separation is always sufficient and the second's separation is never of consequence.
|
| 30. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 3:4).
|
| 31. |
Even though the principal nullified the agency. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit), the Rambam explains the rationale for his ruling. The nullification of the agency was brought about through speech and speech does not have the power to effect such a change.
The Ra'avad and the Tur question the Rambam's decision, for seemingly, just as the appointment of the agent was made through speech, the nullification of his agency can also be made through speech. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that in fact, the Rambam himself accepts this concept in Hilchot Ishut 9:20 with regard to appointing an agent to consecrate a woman as one's wife. Both of these commentaries quote possible rationales to distinguish between the separation of terumah and the consecration of a woman.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:36) quotes the Rambam's ruling, while the Rama cites that of the Ra'avad and the Tur.
|
| 32. |
Here too, the Tur questions the Rambam's wording. Seemingly, since the agent deviated from the principal's instructions, the agency is nullified even if the principal did not state that he was nullifying it. The Radbaz explains that a deviation as slight as the side of the produce from whichterumah should be separated would not be sufficient to nullify the agency unless the principal had already expressed his willingness to do so.
|
| 33. |
The Radbaz notes that, in all instances, he is allowed to separate the tithes for his own portion of the crops.
|
| 34. |
The Siftei Cohen 331:67 states that his separation is effective, because we can assume that he appointed him as an agent.
|
| 35. |
The Kessef Mishneh refers to the Rambam's ruling, Hilchot Nachalot 11:9:
|
| 36. |
One who compelled a person to give him or sell him produce.
|
| 37. |
From a comparison to the following clause, we assume that this clause is speaking about a situation where the owners already despaired of receiving their produce again. Since the separation of terumah changed the status of the crops, the thief or robber acquires them because of the owner's desperation and their change of status. Since the thief is now the owner, his separation is effective.
|
| 38. |
With the intent of retaking his produce.
|
| 39. |
Since the owner has not given up hope for the recovery of the produce, it has not left his possession. Thus the thief is not separating terumah from produce that belongs to him.
|
| 40. |
Since this produce was given to them to eat, we assume that license was also given for them to separate terumah from it.
|
| 41. |
Since he is eating together with his father - in contrast to the child mentioned in the previous halachah - we assume that his father gives him license to separate the terumah.
|
| 42. |
Since she is given the responsibility of preparing the dough, she is also given the license to separate terumah from it.
|
| 43. |
Since we are all impure in the present age, this law no longer applies and it is not cited by theShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:42) together with the first part of the halachah.
|
| 44. |
Although he has deviated from the principal's words, we still consider him as an agent. The rationale is that the principal did not make an explicit statement that he was particular that the worker take these steps in this order. Indeed, the common practice is to separate terumah before one brings in the granary. This represents the Rambam's understanding of the Tosefta, Terumot1:9 (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 45. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 11. This ruling could be understood as a reversal of the Rambam's position in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 3:9). There he writes that although the gentiles are not obligated to fulfill the mitzvot, if they do, their deeds are effective and they receive a reward. (See Hilchot Melachim 10:10).
|
| 46. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 13.
|
| 47. |
And hence it is considered like consecrated property and we are forbidden to benefit from it.
|
| 48. |
Rabbinic decrees are considered as safeguards and generally, we do not make a safeguard for a safeguard. Hence, since the need to separate terumah in the Diaspora is only a Rabbinic decree, we do not add an additional Rabbinic decree and consider the gentile's separation effective (Radbaz).
|
| 49. |
For the separation of terumah is equivalent to a vow and when making a vow, one's intent and one's statements must be in accord (Siftei Cohen 331:75).
|
| 50. |
Venechshav translated as "considered" shares the root chashav meaning "thought," thus leading to the interpretation (Beitzah 13b) that terumah can be separated through thought alone. See also the notes to Chapter 3, Halachah 4.
|
| 51. |
This principle is derived from the law stated in the following halachah (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 52. |
See Hilchot Nedarim 4:5.
|
| 53. |
Based on Nedarim 59a, the Kessef Mishneh explains that this halachah applies only when theterumah has not yet been given to a priest or the tithes to a Levite. If these portions have already been given, there is no way the separations can be retracted.
|
| 54. |
I.e., he lets down a utensil into the cistern, allows it to fill, and makes the stipulation cited. Making the stipulation is desirable so that if the terumah falls back into the cistern - because the container breaks or because the wine spills from it - it does not cause the remaining wine to becomemeduma (mixed with terumah). As indicated by the following halachah, it is preferable to do this - instead of separating the terumah after the container has been lifted from the cistern, so that theterumah and the produce from which it is being separated will be in the same location (see Chapter 3, Halachah 17).
|
| 55. |
Since this is not a frequent occurrence, we do not assume the person had it in mind when he made the stipulation.
|
| 56. |
The term meduma refers to a mixture of terumah and ordinary produce, as explained in Chapter 13, Halachah 2. In this instance, although the wine in the container flows back into the cistern after it was designated as terumah, since that designation was made conditionally and the condition was not fulfilled, the wine separated is not considered as terumah. Hence the mixture is notmeduma.
|
| 57. |
For, as mentioned above, the terumah and the produce from which it is being separated should be in the same location.
|
| 58. |
See Chapter 3, Halachah 20.
|
| 59. |
The rationale for the Rambam's ruling can be explained as follows: Terumat ma'aser can be separated when the produce is not in the same place as the produce for which it is being separated. Hence, were the person making the separation to be concerned that the produce separated as terumat ma'aser might fall into the cistern, he should have made the separation outside the cistern. The fact that he did not do so, nor make a specific statement acknowledging this possibility in his stipulation shows that this was not the intent motivating his stipulation. Hence, as soon as the container ascends from the cistern, his condition is met, even if the wine spills back in afterwards.
|
| 60. |
I.e., even though physically, the produce was not separated, since a separation was made in the mind of the owner, it is sufficient and it is permitted to eat from the portion of the produce that is designated as "ordinary."
|
| 61. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 5:4), the Rambam writes that the intent is that he should separate terumah for the entire crop, that which he sees and that which he does not see.
|
| 62. |
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:50) speaks of a vat of oil. There are some who maintain that the wording in the Mishneh Torah should also read in that manner. Nevertheless, the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah read as above.
|
| 63. |
I.e., the dregs. In truth, the term gefet is used more frequently in connection with oil than with wine.
|
| 64. |
Hence, since we assume that every Jew desires to perform the mitzvot in keeping with our Sages' desires, it is as if the person separating the terumah had this intent in mind. Preferably, however, a person should consciously have such thoughts when separating terumah.
|
Terumot - Chapter 5
Halacha 1
We should separate terumah only from the most choice [produce], as [implied by Numbers 18:30]: "When you separate its most choice portion from it."1 If, however, there is no priest accessible,2 one should separate terumah from produce that will last3 even though there is more choice produce but it will not last.
What is implied? A person should separate fresh figs as terumah for dried figs.4In a place where there are no priests, he should separate dried figs for fresh figs.5 If he is accustomed to dry fresh figs, he may separate fresh figs asterumah for dried figs even in a place where there is no priest.6 In a place where there is a priest, by contrast, dried figs are never separated as terumahfor fresh figs, even in a place where it is customary to dry fresh figs.
Halacha 2
One may separate an entire onion as terumah even if it is small,7 but not half an onion, even if it is large in all places.8 We do not separate one type of produce as terumah for another type of produce, as [implied by Numbers 18:30]: "As grain from the granary and as wine from the vat."9 If one made such a separation, it is not considered terumah.
Halacha 3
Zucchini and cucumbers are considered as one species.10 All of the types of wheat are one species. All of the types of figs,11 dried figs, and blocks of figs are one species. [In the above instances,] one may separate terumah from one type for the other. [By contrast,] all types of produce which are considered as a mixture of species may not be separated as terumah for each other, even when one separates the choicest produce as terumah for produce of lesser quality.
What is implied? A person has 50 se'ah of wheat and 50 se'ah of barley in one building. If he separates two se'ah of wheat [as terumah] for the entire amount, his separation is not effective.12 When types of produce are not considered as a mixture of species, one may separate the better type as terumah for the lesser type, but not the lesser type as terumah for the better type. If one did separate [the lesser type of produce as terumah for the better type, after the fact,] the separation is effective with one exception. Zunin13may not be separated asterumah for wheat, because it is not used as food for humans.
Halacha 4
We do not separate terumah from produce for which all the work [in preparing it] was completed14 for produce for which the work [in preparing it] is incomplete, from produce for which the work [in preparing it] is incomplete for [other] produce for which the work [in preparing it] is incomplete, nor from produce for which the work [in preparing it] is incomplete for produce for which all the work [in preparing it] was completed.15 [This is also derived from the above prooftext:] "As grain from the granary and as wine from the vat."16[Implied is that terumah should be separated from produce] for which [all work] was completed for similar produce. If, however, one separated terumah [in any of the above instances], the separation is effective [after the fact].17
Halacha 5
When should terumah be separated from a granary? When the kernels are separated.18 If a person separated part [of the grain], he may designate the kernels he separated as terumah for the produce that was not separated. When one brings stalks of grain into his home to eat husked grain, he should separateterumah while the grain is in the stalks.19
Halacha 6
Halacha 7
We should not separate terumah from ritually pure produce for produce that is not ritually pure.22 If, however, one separated terumah [in this manner], the separation is effective [after the fact].
It is a halachah conveyed to Moses at Sinai that when a portion of a cake of dried figs has become impure, we may separate terumah from the pure portion of it for the impure portion of it as an initial preference.23 This applies not only to a cake of dried figs which appears as one mass, but also to a bundle of vegetables and even a mound of wheat.24 If a portion of it became impure, one may separate terumah from the pure portion for the impure portion.
If, however, there were two cakes of dried figs, two bundles of vegetables, or two mounds of wheat, one impure and one pure at its side, as an initial preference, one should not separate terumah from the produce that is pure for the produce that is impure.25 One may, however, separate terumat ma'aserfrom produce that is pure for produce that is impure as an initial preference. [This is derived from Numbers 18:29:] "its sacred portion from it." [Implied is that] one should take from the sacred portion in it.26
Halacha 8
We may not separate produce that is ritually impure as terumah for produce that is ritually pure.27 If one made such a separation inadvertently, the portion separated is terumah.28 If one made the separation intentionally, he did not fulfill the obligation for the remainder [of the produce], but [the produce] separated is terumah. He must separate terumah a second time.
When does the above apply? When he did not know of the impurity. If, however, he knew of the impurity, but erred in that he thought it was permitted to separate produce that is ritually impure as terumah for produce that is ritually pure, he is considered as if he acted intentionally.29 Similar laws apply with regard to terumat ma'aser.
Halacha 9
We may not separate produce that is still attached to the earth as terumah for produce that has already been detached.30 Nor may produce that has already been detached be separated as terumah for produce that is still attached to the earth.
What is implied? A person had produce that was detached and said: "This produce will be terumah for this produce which is attached to the earth" - and even if he said "...when [the attached produce] is detached,"31 his words are of no consequence. [This ruling also applies] if he possessed two rows [of produce] and said: "The produce of this row which is detached will be terumahfor this row which is attached," or "The produce of this row which is attached will be terumah for this row which is detached."
[Diferent rules apply should] he say: "The produce of this row which is detached will be terumah for this row when it will be detached," if [the produce] is [later] detached - since it is within his potential to detach it32 - when they are both detached, his words are binding, provided both [types of produce] had attained at least a third of their standard size33 at the time he made his statements.
Halacha 10
We may not separate fresh produce as terumah for dried produce, nor dried produce as terumah for fresh produce. If, however, one made such a separation, it is effective.34
What is implied? One reaped a type of vegetable one day and then reaped the same [type of vegetable] the following day. One may not separate one asterumah for the other unless this vegetable remains fresh for two days. Similarly, if a vegetable usually remains fresh for three days, e.g., cucumbers, all [of that type of vegetable] that are harvested for three days may be joined together and terumah may be separated from one for the other. When a type of vegetable remains fresh for only one day and one harvested some in the morning and some in the evening, one may separate one as terumah for the other.
Halacha 11
One may not separate produce from the present year as terumah for produce of the previous year,35 nor may one separate produce from the previous year as terumah for produce of the present year. If one made such a separation, it is not effective,36 as [indicated by Deuteronomy 14:22]: "From year to year."37Thus if one harvested a vegetable on the day preceding Rosh HaShanah before sunset and harvested another after sunset, one may not separate terumah from one for the other. For one is considered "old" and the other, "new."
Similarly, if one harvested an esrog38 on the day before the fifteenth of Shvat on the evening before sunset and harvested another one after sunset [that day], one may not separate terumah from one for the other.39 [The rationale is that] the first of Tishrei is the Rosh HaShanah for tithing grain, legumes, and vegetables and the fifteenth of Shvat is Rosh HaShanah for tithing [of the produce] of trees.
Halacha 12
We may not separate produce from Eretz [Yisrael] as terumah for produce of the Diaspora, nor may produce of the Diaspora be separated for produce fromEretz Yisrael,40 nor may produce of Eretz Yisrael be separated for produce from Syria, and nor may produce of Syria be separated for produce from Eretz Yisrael.41
Similarly, [we may not separate terumah] from produce for which terumah need not be separated, e.g., leket, shichachah, and pe'ah42 or from produce from which terumah was already separated for produce for which terumah must be separated. Nor may we separate terumah from produce for which terumahmust be separated for produce for which there is no obligation.43 [Even] if theterumah was separated, the separation is not of consequence.
Halacha 13
When a person separates terumah [for other produce] from produce that was designated as the first tithe, but from which its terumah44 had not been separated45 or from produce which was designated as the second tithe46 or that had been consecrated,47 but which had not been redeemed, the separation is not effective.48
Halacha 14
We may not separate terumah from produce for which we are required to separate terumah according to Scriptural Law for produce for which we are required to separate terumah [only] according to Rabbinic Law,49 nor from produce for which we are required to separate terumah [only] according to Rabbinic Law for produce for which we are required to separate terumahaccording to Scriptural Law.50 If one separated terumah [in the above instance], the produce separated is considered as terumah,51 but he must separateterumah again [for the obligation incumbent on this produce to be fulfilled].52
Halacha 15
A flowerpot with a hole is considered as [connected] to the earth.53 How large must the hole be [for this law to apply]? Large enough for a small root to pass through it.54 This is smaller than an olive.
[The following rules apply when a person] planted grain in a flowerpot that did not have a hole and it reached a third of its maturity.55 Afterwards, he perforated [the flowerpot]56and the grain completed [its growth] while [the flowerpot] was perforated. It is, [nevertheless,] considered as if it grew in [a flowerpot] without a hole. [This ruling changes] only when [the flowerpot] was perforated before [the grain] reached a third of its maturity.
Halacha 16
When a person separates terumah from produce which grows in the earth for produce that grows in a perforated flowerpot or from produce which grows in a perforated flowerpot for produce which grows in the earth, the separation is effective.57
If he separates terumah from [produce growing] in a [flowerpot] that was not perforated for [produce growing] in a perforated [flowerpot], the produce separated is considered as terumah,58 but he must separate terumah again.59
If he separates terumah from [produce growing] in a perforated [flowerpot] for [produce growing] in a [flowerpot] that was not perforated, the produce separated is considered as terumah. [Nevertheless, the priest to whom it was given] should not partake of it until [the owner] separates terumah and tithes for [the portion separated] from other produce.60
Halacha 17
When a person separates terumat [ma'aser] from produce that is demai61 for other produce that is demai or from produce that is demai for produce from which we are certain that the tithes were not separated, the produce separated is considered as terumat [ma'aser].62 [Nevertheless,] he should separateterumah again for each type of produce individually.63
When he separates terumah from produce from which we are certain that the tithes were not separated for produce that is demai, the produce separated is considered as terumat [ma'aser].64 [Nevertheless, the priest to whom it was given] should not partake of it until [the owner] separates terumah and tithes for [the portion separated].65
Halacha 18
We may not separate stalks of grain as terumah for kernels of grain, olives [asterumah] for oil, or grapes [as terumah] for wine.66 If one made such a separation, it is not effective.67 This is a decree [enacted] lest one cause the priest to undertake the difficulty of treading [on the grapes] or pressing [the olives].
One may, however, separate oil as terumah for olives that are in a press68 or wine as terumah for grapes that are being dried as raisins. What does this resemble? To separating terumah from two species that are not consideredkilayim, separating from the good for the bad.69
Similarly, one may separate terumah from olives from which oil will be squeezed70 for olives that will be pickled,71 but not from olives that will be pickled for olives from which oil will be squeezed.72 [One may separateterumah] from wine that has not been boiled for wine that has been boiled,73but not from [wine] that has been boiled for [wine] that has not been boiled. [One may separate terumah] from [wine that is] clear74 for [wine that is] not clear, but not from [wine that is] not clear for wine [that is] clear.
[One may separate terumah] from a specific number of fresh figs for a specific number of dried figs75 and from a measure of dried figs for a measure of fresh figs,76 but not from a measure of fresh figs for a measure of dried figs, nor for a specific number of dried figs for a specific number of fresh figs. [The rationale for all the above is that] one should always separate terumah in a generous manner.77
Halacha 19
We do not separate terumah from oil for olives that are being pressed, nor [do we separate terumah] from wine for grapes that are being tread, for this resembles separating terumah from produce for which all work has been completed for produce for which the work has not been completed.81 If he did separate terumah [in such a situation], the produce separated is considered asterumah, but he must separate terumah from the olives and the grapes from them themselves.82
Halacha 20
When a person separated oil as terumah for olives that he intended to eat or he separated olives for olives when he intended to eat the entire quantity and then changed his mind and decided to press the olives [for oil] and indeed pressed them after separating terumah for them, he is not required to separate terumahagain.87 [This law also applies if] one separated wine for grapes that he intended to eat or grapes for grapes when he intended to eat the entire quantity and then changed his mind and decided to tread the grapes for wine and indeed had them tread upon after separating terumah for them.
Halacha 21
We do not separate vinegar as terumah for wine,88 but we may separate wine as terumah for vinegar, for wine and vinegar are one type of produce.89 If one had the intent of separating wine for wine and it was discovered that what he separated was vinegar, the separation is not effective.90 If one had the intent of separating vinegar for vinegar and it was discovered that what he separated was wine, the separation is effective.91
Halacha 22
[The following rules apply when a person] separates a barrel of wine asterumah for wine and it is discovered to be vinegar. If it was known to be vinegar before it was separated, the separation is not effective.92 If it became vinegar after it was designated as terumah, the separation is effective.93 If there is a doubt, the separation is effective,94 but he should make a second separation.95 The same laws apply when one separates squash as terumahand it is discovered to be bitter or one separates a watermelon as terumah and it has become spoiled96 or perforated.97 If he separated a barrel of wine asterumah and it was discovered to have been left open in which instance, it is forbidden to drink it,98 it is terumah, but he should make a second separation.99
Halacha 23
What is implied? If one [of the two portions separated as terumah] fell into ordinary produce, it does not cause it to be considered as dimua. If the other [portion] fell into other produce, it does not cause it to be considered asdimua.102If, however, both fell into the same produce, it is considered as dimuaaccording to the size of the smaller of the two.103
Halacha 24
[The following rules apply when a person] checks a barrel [of wine]107 and then leaves it to separate terumah [from it] on other [wine] until it becomes terumahin its entirety, [at which point,] he would give it to the priest.108 After a certain time, he checked the barrel again and discovered that it had become vinegar.109 [We rule that the wine] certainly remained wine for three days after the inspection. [The obligations for terumah] have certainly been met for all of the wine for which he considered the wine in the barrel as its terumah during those [three days]. From that time afterwards, there is a doubt [whether the wine had already turned to vinegar] and a second separation [of terumah] must be made.110
Halacha 25
At three times [during the year], it is necessary to check the wine that one set aside to separate terumah from111 lest it have become vinegar. They are: When the east wind blows after the Sukkos holiday, when grapes form,112 when fluid begins to enter the unripened grapes.113 [When one has wine] from the vat,114he may use it for the separation [of terumah] for 40 days with the presumption that it is still wine.115
Halacha 26
[The following rules apply when a person] sets aside produce to separateterumah from until [the entire amount] becomes terumah.116 Although as an initial preference, one should separate terumah only from the same collection of produce,117 if one separates terumah [in such a manner], we operate under the presumption that the produce continues to exist. If he discovers that they perished, he should entertain doubts that all [the produce for which he thought he separated terumah is in fact tevel].118 For perhaps, he did not make any separation until [the produce set aside] perished. Therefore he should separateterumah a second time for them.119
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Chelbo, translated as "most choice portion," literally means "fat."
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:52) states that in the present age, when terumah will be destroyed regardless, there is no need to separate the most choice portions as terumah.
See also the Ramban's Hosafot to Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Mitzvah 7) which considers the adjuration against separating lower quality produce as terumah as one of the Torah's 613 prohibitions.
|
| 2. |
And thus the terumah will not be able to be given to the priest immediately.
|
| 3. |
I.e., since there is no priest immediately available, it is preferable to separate produce that will not spoil, so that ultimately, it can be given to a priest.
|
| 4. |
For fresh figs are tastier and considered as a higher grade produce.
|
| 5. |
I.e., since there is no priest immediately available, it is preferable to separate produce that will not spoil, so that ultimately, it can be given to a priest.
|
| 6. |
For he will dry the figs himself and prevent them from spoiling before they are given to the priest.
|
| 7. |
A whole onion is considered more important and choicer than a portion of an onion [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 2:5)].
|
| 8. |
I.e., in places where a priest is present or those where he is not present, for a whole onion will keep longer than a cut one (ibid.).
|
| 9. |
Implied is that the terumah and the produce for which it is being separated must be of the same species.
|
| 10. |
They are also considered as one species with regard to the prohibition against kilayim (Hilchot Kilayim 3:3).
|
| 11. |
I.e., light figs and dark figs.
|
| 12. |
Because wheat and barley are different species. Moreover, it is considered as if terumah has not been separated even from the wheat alone. The rationale is that separating terumah is considered equivalent to taking a vow and if a portion of a vow has been nullified, the entire vow is nullified.
|
| 13. |
A coarse species of wild wheat.
|
| 14. |
At which point the obligation to separate terumah and the tithes falls upon it (see Chapter 1, Halachah 11, and notes).
|
| 15. |
The commentaries note that the order of the clauses employed by the Rambam deviates slightly from the order of his source, Terumot 1:10.
|
| 16. |
The Rambam and previous Rabbinic sources cite several prooftexts for this law. Nevertheless, the Siftei Cohen 331:80 maintains that the law is a Rabbinic decree and the prooftexts are merelyasmachteot, allusions cited for support. For that reason, after the fact, the separation is effective.
|
| 17. |
See Halachot 18-20 for more particulars concerning this issue.
|
| 18. |
When the grain has been threshed and winnowed and then the kernels separated from the chaff. Different commentaries suggest a slight change in the Rambam's wording which would cause the produce to be considered as complete at an earlier stage.
|
| 19. |
Because they will not be processed any further.
|
| 20. |
For then, the wine has been separated from the grapes.
|
| 21. |
For then, the oil has been separated from the olives.
|
| 22. |
The Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 2:1) derives this concept from the prooftext cited above: "As grain from the granary and as wine from the vat." It is impossible that a vat will be partially pure and partially impure, so, too, terumah and the produce for which it is being separated must be either pure or impure."
|
| 23. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 2:1), the Rambam explains the rationale for this law. Since the cake of figs is made from several discrete elements, it is not considered as a single entity with regard to the laws of ritual impurity. Hence, the fact that one portion has been touched by a source of ritual impurity does not cause another portion to become impure. Nevertheless, since it is one body of produce, terumah can be separated from one portion for the other.
|
| 24. |
In these instances as well, since the whole is made up of discrete entities, the fact that they are connected or somewhat associated is not of consequence (ibid.; see also Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 6:14).
|
| 25. |
For the two are not considered as being "in the same place" (min hamukaf). After the fact, however, the separation is acceptable.
|
| 26. |
The verse indicates that when one is separating terumat ma'aser, it is possible that there be a "sacred." i.e., pure, portion, and a portion that is not "sacred," i.e., impure, and the pure should be separated for the impure. As stated at the conclusion of ch. 3, the produce separated asterumat ma'aser need not be located together with the produce for which it is being separated.
|
| 27. |
The Radbaz states that this is a Rabbinic decree instituted so that the priest will not suffer a loss.
|
| 28. |
For according to Scriptural Law, the separation is effective. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 2:2), the Rambam explains that this is speaking about a situation where initially, at the time the obligation to separate terumah took effect, the produce separated as terumah was pure. If, however, it became impure before the work associated with its preparation was completed, even if it was inadvertently separated as terumah, the separation is not effective.
|
| 29. |
And he must make another separation.
|
| 30. |
The Sifri derives this from the exegesis of Numbers 18:26: "And you shall separate from it...." Since the produce is still attached to the earth, it is not considered as the same type as the produce which is detached.
|
| 31. |
To reconcile the apparent contradiction between the Rambam's ruling here and that in the following clause, the commentaries explain that here we are speaking of attached produce that does not belong to the person who wishes to separate terumah. Ordinarily, if a person separatedterumah from produce belonging to him for produce that does not belong to him, his separation is valid, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 2. In this instance, however, since the attached produce does not belong to him and he has no control of when it will be detached, he does not have the potential to designate his own produce as terumah for it.
|
| 32. |
This is his own produce which he is allowed to detach.
|
| 33. |
For until produce reaches this size, there is no obligation to separate terumah, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 10. Therefore, even if one separated terumah for it, the separation is not effective.
|
| 34. |
The Siftei Cohen 331:83 states that this is a Rabbinic decree, enacted as a safeguard so that one will not separate produce from one type over another. Hence, after the fact, the separation is effective.
|
| 35. |
To clarify the point under discussion in this halachah: As indicated by the concluding phrase of the halachah, "produce from the previous year" does not necessarily mean produce that is a year old. Instead, every Rosh HaShanah, the year of the agricultural cycle changes with regard to vegetables (Rosh HaShanah 14b). As the Rambam proceeds to explain, a Scriptural decree causes such produce to be considered as a discrete entity, distinct from the same type of produce harvested in the present year.
|
| 36. |
Even after the fact.
|
| 37. |
In its entirety, the verse reads: "Tithe all the crops of your sowing produced by the field, year by year." Implied is an exclusion: that the produce of each year is a separate entity. Although the verse refers to the tithes, the same principles also apply to terumah.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 1:5), the Rambam cites a different prooftext for the derivation of this principle.
|
| 38. |
In that era, esrogim were eaten as fruit, not only used for the mitzvah on Sukkot.
|
| 39. |
An esrog is singled out, because unlike other fruit, the time when it is picked - and not the time it reaches the stage of development when we are required to separate the tithes - determines the year of the agricultural cycle we follow. See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 1:1-4.
|
| 40. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 1:5), the Rambam explains that this concept is derived from Leviticus 27:30: "All the tithes of the land from the plantings of the land." Implied is that both the tithes and the produce must be from "the land," from Eretz Yisrael. Although the verse speaks of the tithes, the principle derived is also applied to terumah.
|
| 41. |
For according to Scriptural Law, Syria is also part of the Diaspora.
|
| 42. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 9.
|
| 43. |
In this instance, the fundamental point the Rambam is emphasizing is the following clause: that even if the terumah was separated, the separation is not of consequence.
|
| 44. |
I.e., terumah ma'aser, the terumah that must be separated from the tithes.
|
| 45. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 1:5, Rav Kapach's edition), the Rambam explains that this is referring to a situation in which a Levite took produce that he had been given as tithes by an Israelite, but from which he had not separated terumat ma'aser and desired to use it to separate terumah for produce from his own field from which he is obligated to separate terumah. This is unacceptable, because there is no longer any obligation to separate terumah from the produce given as tithes, even though there is an obligation to separate terumat ma'aser from it.
This explanation is somewhat unique. Most commentaries interpret the mishnah as referring to a situation where the person tithed his crop, but did not separate terumah from it. Nor did he separate terumat ma'aser. Afterwards, he desired to separate terumah for other produce from the tithes. The Rambam's interpretation avoids several difficulties that arise according to the other approach.
|
| 46. |
Produce separated as the second tithe must be eaten in Jerusalem in a state of ritual purity. It is not considered as the person's private property.
|
| 47. |
Since it is consecrated, there is no obligation to separate terumah or the tithes from it.
|
| 48. |
In all these instances, the produce that is being separated is holy and is not the owner's individual property. (For even the tithes which the Levites own have a dimension of holiness to them, because of the terumat ma'aser that has not been separated.) The Ra'avad raises objections to the Rambam's ruling. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh respond to them. If, however, they would have followed the Rambam's explanation in his Commentary to the Mishnah as explained above, the difficulties would not arise.
|
| 49. |
According to Scriptural Law, there is no obligation to separate terumah from this produce. Hence, it is as if one is separating terumah from produce obligated in terumah for produce for which there is no obligation. The Kessef Mishneh explains that this general principle is derived from the law quoted in the following halachah.
|
| 50. |
For this is as if one is separating terumah from produce for which there is no obligation to separate terumah, for produce for which such an obligation exists.
|
| 51. |
This is a Rabbinic stringency. According to Scriptural Law, the separation is of no consequence at all.
|
| 52. |
According to the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh, this applies only to the second clause. The laws regarding the situation described in the first clause are explained in Halachah 16.
In the situation described in the second clause, the priest is allowed to partake of the produce, for although according to Scriptural Law, the separation is insignificant, there is no difficulty in having the priest partake of the produce for there is no obligation incumbent upon it.
|
| 53. |
Because the nurture from the power of growth in the earth is drawn to the earth in the flowerpot through the hole. This concept is relevant not only in this particular context, but in many others.
|
| 54. |
For then it can be considered to have derived nurture from the earth through its root. Hence, we are obligated to separate terumah from produce which grows within such a flowerpot according to Scriptural Law [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 5:10)].
|
| 55. |
If produce grows in a flowerpot without a hole, there is no obligation to separate terumah from it according to Scriptural Law (ibid.). Here a question arises, because the flowerpot was perforated afterwards. The Rambam clarifies that as long as the produce reaches a third of its growth, the point at which we are obligated to separate terumah, under conditions in which we are not obligated to separate terumah, an obligation is not incurred even though afterwards, those conditions change. See Halachah 9; see also Chapter 1, Halachot 11-13.
|
| 56. |
And thus enabled the produce to derive nurture from the earth.
|
| 57. |
For in both instances, we are obligated to separate terumah from both sets of produce according to Scriptural Law.
|
| 58. |
This is a Rabbinic decree, as stated in Halachah 14 and notes.
|
| 59. |
In order to fulfill the obligation of terumah as stated in Halachah 14.
|
| 60. |
The setting aside of the produce as terumah is not effective according to Scriptural Law. Hence, according to Scriptural Law, not only is this produce not terumah, it remains tevel, produce from which terumah and the tithes were not separated. Although our Sages ruled stringently and determined that it must be considered as terumah, they did not change its status as tevel. Hence, for the priest to partake of it, it is necessary that he separate terumah and tithes for it from other produce [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 5:10)].
The terumah and the tithes for this produce must be separated from other produce, lest one think that what remains is ordinary produce and can be eaten be a person other than a priest (Tosafot, Yevamot 89b).
|
| 61. |
The term demai refers to produce concerning which we are uncertain whether the tithes were separated from it or not. According to Rabbinic Law, we are required to separate terumat ma'aser, terumah which the Levites are required to separate from the tithes from such produce (see Hilchot Ma'aserot, Chapter 9).
|
| 62. |
By Rabbinic decree. According to Scriptural Law, the produce separated is not terumat ma'aser, because it is possible that previously tithes and terumat ma'aser had been separated from the produce that was demai. Were that to be the case, one would be separating terumat ma'aserfrom produce for which one is obligated to make a separation from produce for which no such obligation exists. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).
|
| 63. |
Since it is possible that the separation of the terumat ma'aser is not effective, the owner must make a second separation.
In this instance, the priest is allowed to partake of the produce given him. The rationale is that in the second instance, when one separates terumat ma'aser from produce that is demai for produce from which we are certain that the tithes were not separated, the priest is certainly allowed to partake of the produce given him. If terumat ma'aser had not been separated from such produce previously, it is being made at present. And if it had been made previously, according to Scriptural Law, the produce to be given the priest is ordinary produce that may be consumed.
If the separation was made from produce that is demai for other produce that is demai, there is a difficulty, for it is possible that a separation had previously been made for the produce for which the terumat ma'aser is being separated, but not from the produce from which the separation is being made at present. Since such a separation is invalid according to Scriptural Law, in such an instance, the priest is being given produce from which tithes and terumat ma'aser have not been separated. Nevertheless, since the majority of the people do in fact separate tithes and the prohibition of demai is just a stringency, in this instance, our Sages were lenient (Rabbi Akiva Eiger).
|
| 64. |
This is a Rabbinic stringency as mentioned above.
|
| 65. |
For as in the previous halachah, if the original separation of terumat ma'aser is not effective - as would be the case if a separation had been made from the produce classified as demai - there is an obligation to separate terumat ma'aser from the produce being separated as terumat ma'aser. Hence, until that separation is made, the priest is forbidden to partake of the produce given him.
There is, however, a difference between this halachah and the previous one. In the previous instance, the separation had to be made from other produce, while in this instance, the separation can be made from the produce given to the priest. In the previous instance, care had to be taken because of the impression that might be created, i.e., an onlooker might not realize that there is a Rabbinic obligation to separate terumot and tithes from produce growing in a flowerpot that is not perforated. No such difficulty exists in this instance, because the obligations incumbent on demai are well known. See the gloss of Ra'avad to Hilchot Ma'aser 13:19.
|
| 66. |
This applies even if one separates a measure of produce sufficient to produce the said quantity of wheat, wine, or oil.
|
| 67. |
The Radbaz states that, after the fact, if a priest agrees to accept such produce, the separation is acceptable, for there are times when one will consider that preferable.
|
| 68. |
But have not been squeezed yet.
|
| 69. |
This is permissible as stated in Halachah 3.
|
| 70. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 2:6), the Rambam explains that the Hebrew terms refers to olives that contain much oil and their oil is of high quality.
|
| 71. |
I.e., these olives have little oil. Hence, they are set aside to be used for pickling. Thus making such a separation would be considered as separating terumah from higher quality produce for lower quality produce which is permitted as stated above.
|
| 72. |
For this is considered as separating terumah from lower quality produce for higher quality produce which is forbidden as an initial preference, as stated in Halachah 3.
|
| 73. |
Boiling detracts from wine's flavor. Hence, one is separating terumah from higher quality produce for lower quality produce.
|
| 74. |
I.e., does not have dregs suspended in it.
|
| 75. |
When a priest is present and he is being given the figs, fresh figs are obviously considered as more desirable than dried figs.
|
| 76. |
For the measure of dried figs will be more compact than that of fresh figs. Thus the priest will be receiving a greater quantity of fruit.
|
| 77. |
E.g., giving and produce of a higher quality or giving more ample portions.
|
| 78. |
Kernels of wheat are considered as having an advantage over grain, because a) one can use them for whatever purposes one desires, and b) they store longer than grain.
|
| 79. |
i.e., how many kernels of wheat it would take to produce this quantity of bread.
|
| 80. |
As stated in Halachah 3. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:63) states that in the present era when the produce separated as terumah is discarded, there is no need to show these precautions.
|
| 81. |
See Halachah 4 above. In the situation described in that halachah, the person is not required to make a second separation, because our Sages felt that people understood that terumah should not be separated in such an instance and did not see the need for an additional safeguard. In this situation, since work with that produce has already begun, they felt that a safeguard was necessary (Rambam LeAm). Other commentaries offer different rationales for the difference in the rulings.
|
| 82. |
I.e., after he completed pressing the olives or treading the grapes, he should separate terumah a second time for that oil or wine [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 1:8)].
|
| 83. |
A mixture of terumah and ordinary produce, as mentioned in Chapter 13, Halachah 2.
|
| 84. |
I.e., even if it is not mixed with the produce separated a second time in contrast to the situation described in Halachah 22. The rationale is that, in this instance, after the fact, the first separation is effective, as stated in Halachah 4 above.
|
| 85. |
See Chapter 6, Halachah 6.
|
| 86. |
For it is terumah only as a result of Rabbinic decree.
|
| 87. |
For at the time the terumah was separated, the work associated with this produce was completed according to his intent at that time [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 1:9)]. Although he changed his mind, we do not penalize him for making such a decision (Radbaz).
|
| 88. |
For this is equivalent to separating produce of inferior quality for produce of superior quality which should not be done at the outset, as stated in Halachah 3. Nevertheless, if one made such a separation, after the fact, the separation s effective.
|
| 89. |
For when wine sours, it becomes vinegar.
|
| 90. |
For his separation was made in error and the error lowers the quality of the terumah (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 91. |
For in this instance, his error improves the quality of the terumah (Kessef Mishneh; Siftei Cohen331:95).
|
| 92. |
As in the previous halachah, this is speaking about an instance where the person had the intent of separating wine as terumah. If, however, he intended to separate vinegar, the separation is effective after the fact (Radbaz).
|
| 93. |
For at the time of the separation, wine was separated as the person intended. The fact that it soured afterwards is not his responsibility.
|
| 94. |
Because of the doubt involved. Perhaps it had not become sour at the time it was separated and the first separation was effective.
|
| 95. |
For perhaps it was sour before the first separation was made and thus the separation was not effective.
|
| 96. |
I.e., its contents are not fit for consumption [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 3:1)].
|
| 97. |
In which instance, we fear that the holes were made by a poisonous snake which deposited its venom in the watermelon.
|
| 98. |
Because of the danger involved. We fear that perhaps a poisonous snake or the like deposited venom in it (Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat Nefesh 12:2).
|
| 99. |
This appears to be speaking about a situation in which he is unsure when the snake drank from the wine before the terumah was separated or not.
|
| 100. |
I.e., since we are unsure which of the separations is effective, neither alone is considered asterumah.
|
| 101. |
As is required when one partakes of terumah inadvertently, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 6.
|
| 102. |
Although one of the two is obviously dimua, since we do not know which one, we rule leniently with regard to both.
|
| 103. |
In this instance, the terumah has obviously become mixed with the ordinary produce. Nevertheless, since we do not know which of the two is terumah, we require him to be concerned only with the smaller amount.
|
| 104. |
As is required when one partakes of terumah inadvertently, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 6.
|
| 105. |
Although both must be considered as terumah, because he does not have a definite obligation to give either to a priest.
|
| 106. |
For he is obligated to give at least the value of the smaller portion to the priest; for the remainder the priest must pay. Nevertheless, the price he pays for produce designated as terumah is less than that than he would pay for ordinary produce.
|
| 107. |
To make sure that it had not become vinegar.
|
| 108. |
I.e., the person took a barrel of wine and set it aside with the intent that he would consider an appropriate measure of wine from it as terumah for all the wine that he would continue to produce until the barrel became terumah in its entirety.
|
| 109. |
Thus there is a question regarding the status of the produce that he separated previously. For if the barrel had become vinegar earlier, the separation of terumah would not be effective, as stated above.
|
| 110. |
As explained above.
|
| 111. |
I.e., the person took a barrel of wine and set it aside with the intent that he would consider an appropriate measure of wine from it as terumah for all the wine that he would continue to produce until the barrel became terumah in its entirety.
|
| 112. |
When the flowers of the grape vine fall and the actual fruit begins to form.
|
| 113. |
When the juice of the grape begins to collect within the fruit.
Since these are times of change for grapes, there is also a possibility that wine will also be affected.
|
| 114. |
I.e., freshly squeezed grape juice.
|
| 115. |
For it is unlikely to turn into vinegar before then.
|
| 116. |
I.e., he sets aside produce to serve the same purpose as the wine mentioned in Halachah 24.
|
| 117. |
See Chapter 3, Halachah 17. As explained there, after the fact, such a separation is acceptable.
|
| 118. |
I.e., he should entertain the possibility that perhaps from the outset, the separation of theterumah was not acceptable.
|
| 119. |
As explained in Halachah 22.
|
Terumot - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
The great terumah and terumat ma'aser may be eaten by priests, both adults and minors, both males and females and their Canaanite servants,1and their livestock,2 as [Leviticus 22:11] states: "When a priest will purchase a man, he is a financial acquisition...."
Halacha 2
Terumah required by Scriptural Law may only be eaten by a priest whose lineage [has been affirmed].5 Priests whose status is accepted on the basis of a prevailing assumption6 may partake only of terumah required by Rabbinic decree.
Terumah that is ritually pure, whether the great terumah or terumat ma'aser, whether required by Scriptural or Rabbinic Law is given only to a priest who is a Torah scholar7 because it is forbidden to partake of terumah that is ritually impure.8 All of the unlearned people are presumed to be ritually impure.9For these reasons, one may give impure terumah to any priest one chooses.10
Halacha 3
When an Israelite woman marries a priest, even a minor three years and one day old,11 she may partake of terumah and the breast and thigh [given the priests from the peace sacrifices].12
According to Scriptural Law, she may partake of these foods from the time that she was consecrated. Our Sages, however, forbade her from partaking of them until she enters the chupah.13 [This is] decree, [instituted] lest she give her father and brother terumah to eat while she is a consecrated woman in her father's home.
Halacha 4
A deaf-mute and a mentally or emotionally unstable woman who is married to a priest may not partake of terumah. [This restrictions applies] even if her father concluded her marriage.14 [This is] decree, [instituted] lest a priest who is himself a deaf-mute marry a woman who is a deaf-mute and give her [terumah] to eat.15 For this reason, our Sages decreed that a deaf-mute who is the daughter of an Israelite16 should not partake of terumah at all.
Halacha 5
A non-priest is forbidden to partake of terumah, as [Leviticus 22:10] states: "All non-priests17 shall not partake of the consecrated food."18 [This prohibition applies] even to a resident [worker] of the priest or his hired [worker], as [ibid.] states: "A resident [worker] of the priest or his hired [worker] shall not partake of the consecrated food."19 [The term] "resident [worker]" refers to one hired forever. [The term] "hired [worker]" refers to one hired for years.20 A Hebrew servant is comparable to a resident [worker] or a hired [worker].21
A woman of priestly lineage who is married to a non-priest is considered as a non-priest, as [implied by the wording] "all non-priests" - i.e., neither he nor his wife.
Halacha 6
A non-priest who willfully partook of terumah - regardless of whether he was ritually pure or impure and regardless of whether [the terumah] was ritually pure or impure22 - is liable for death at the hand of heaven, as [ibid.:9] states: "They shall die because of it, for they have defiled it." He is liable for lashes,23 but does not make financial restitution for what he consumed, because [a transgressor] is never subjected to both lashes and a financial penalty.24 If he partook [of terumah] inadvertently, [he must make restitution and] add a fifth, as [ibid.:14] states: "When a person eats sanctified food inadvertently, he should add a fifth."25
Halacha 7
[Leviticus 22:12] states: "When the daughter of a priest will marry a non-priest, she should not partake of the sanctified terumah." There are two concepts included in this prohibition:26
a) that if a woman engages in sexual relations with a man prohibited to her and thus become a zonah27 or a chalalah,28 as we explained in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, is forbidden to partake of the terumot forever,29 as is the law with regard to anychallal. For a challal is considered as a non-priest with regard to all matters;30and
b) that if she marries an Israelite, she is forbidden to partake of the portions of the sacrifices given the priests, the breast and the thigh forever,31 even if she is divorced or widowed.
Halacha 8
She may, however, partake of terumah after [her husband] the Israelite divorces her or dies provided he did not leave any children that she bore, as [ibid.:13] states: "When the daughter of a priest will become a widow or a divorcee and she has no descendants,32 she shall return to her father's home as in her youth. She may partake of the bread of her father."
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
[This concept applies] not only to the daughter of a priest, but to the daughter of a Levite or an Israelite. If she engage in relations with a man forbidden to her, since she became a zonah, she is forbidden to partake of terumah forever, even if she has a descendant born to her from a priest.35
Halacha 11
For this reason, a woman who was taken captive36 may not partake of terumaheven though she says that she was not defiled. Whenever the word of a captive woman who says that she was not defiled is accepted37 or there is a witness38[who testifies to this effect] and she is permitted to her husband,39 she is permitted to partake of terumah. When a woman engaged in sexual relations with an animal, she is not disqualified from the priesthood40 and may partake ofterumah.
Halacha 12
A daughter of an Israelite who has an offspring [she bore] a priest may partake of terumah by virtue of her child. 41 [This applies] whether the child is male or female or even a tumtum42 or an androgynus.43 Even the offspring of offspring until the end of time44 [enable her to partake of terumah], as [indicated by the prooftext]: "She has no descendants."45
Halacha 13
Just as the descendants from an Israelite [born] to the daughter of a priest disqualify her [from partaking of terumah], so too, the descendants from a priest [born] to the daughter of an Israelite entitle her [to partake of terumah]. [This applies] even if the descendants are of blemished lineage.
What is implied? A daughter of an Israelite married a priest or the daughter of a priest married an Israelite and [that woman] gave birth to a daughter. A person who is an ervah46 for the daughter entered into relations with her or [the daughter] married a mamzer47 [and the daughter gave birth to a baby which is a mamzer]. [Afterwards,] the daughter dies, but the mamzer remains alive.48
Halacha 14
If [the mamzer's] grandmother was the daughter of an Israelite who [married] a priest, she may partake of terumah. If she was the daughter of a priest who [married] an Israelite, she may not partake of terumah. Thus we learn that [the daughter of an Israelite] may partake of terumah by virtue of her descendants even though the lineage of that descendant is blemished, even though [the descendant] is not even [on the level of an ordinary] Israelite.49 Needless to say that if a woman [who married a priest] has a daughter born to her by him - even if the daughter is married to an Israelite and even if she became a challalah - she may partake of terumah by virtue of the daughter of blemished lineage.50
Halacha 15
Similarly, the daughter of a priest may not eat by virtue of her descendant from an Israelite husband, even if that descendant is a priest.51
What is implied? A daughter of a priest married an Israelite and gave birth to a daughter that he conceived. That daughter married a priest and gave birth to a son that he conceived. [This son] is fitting to become a High Priest. He enables his mother52 to partake of terumah and disqualifies his maternal grandmother [from doing so].53 [This applies] even if [the priest's] mother dies. [The grandmother] can say: "[One should] not be like my grandson, the High Priest, who disqualifies me from partaking of terumah."
Halacha 16
The descendants of a servant do not disqualify [a woman from partaking ofterumah], nor do they enable [a woman to do so].
What is implied? The daughter of a priest married an Israelite or the daughter of an Israelite married a priest. A son was born to that woman. The son [then] went and became attached to a Canaanite maid-servant and conceived [a son] with her. [That son is] a servant.54 [The following rules apply if the woman's son] dies and the servant remains alive: If the servant's paternal grandmother was the daughter of an Israelite who had married to a priest, she may not partake of terumah.55 If she was the daughter of a priest who had married an Israelite, she may partake [of terumah], because this offspring is not considered as a descendant, because the concept of parental lineage does not apply with regard to servants.56
Halacha 17
[The above concepts are also relevant in the following instance.] The daughter of an Israelite married a priest and he died. She had borne a son to him. Afterwards, she married an Israelite. [Hence,] she may not partake of terumah. If her Israelite [husband] died, but she bore him a son, she may not partake ofterumah because of that son. If that son dies, she may partake of terumah by virtue of her first son.57
Halacha 18
[Similar concepts apply when] the daughter of a priest marries an Israelite. [If] she bore him a son and then married a priest, she may partake of terumah.58 If [her second husband] dies, but she had borne him a son, she may partake ofterumah.59 If her son conceived by the priest dies, she is forbidden to partake of terumah because of her son conceived by [her first husband,] the Israelite. If her son conceived by the Israelite dies, she returns to her father's home as in her youth. She may partake of terumah, but not of the breast and thigh [of the peace offerings].60
Halacha 19
[Similar laws apply when] a daughter of an Israelite marries an Israelite first and has a son that she bore to him. If she marries a priest [after her first husband dies], she may partake of terumah. If [her second husband, the priest,] dies, but she bore him a son, she may partake [of terumah] by virtue of the son [she bore him]. For he enables her to partake of terumah as his father did.61
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Because Canaanite servants do not have a separate personal identity, but instead are considered as part of their master's possessions. A Hebrew servant, by contrast, is forbidden to partake ofterumah as explained in Halachah 5.
|
| 2. |
The Sifra states that this applies only to animal fodder. Produce that is fit for human consumption may not be given to an animal.
|
| 3. |
In which instance, his master is no longer obligated to provide him with his sustenance.
|
| 4. |
The term "rebels" has a very specific meaning when used in this context: to deny a husband marital intimacy. In such an instance, her husband has the right to divorce her and is not obligated to pay for her sustenance, as stated in Hilchot Ishut, ch. 14. Nevertheless, until he divorces her, she is entitled to partake of terumah.
|
| 5. |
Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 20:2 defines this term as follows:
The restriction of the consumption of terumah to such priests is alluded to in the Book of Ezra (2:62-63): "These sought their genealogical records, but they could not be found, so they were disqualified from the priesthood. [Nechemiah] told them that they should not eat of the most holy offerings [which includes terumah] until there would arise a priest [who would inquire of] the Urimand Tumim [concerning their lineage]."
|
| 6. |
I.e., they are regarded as priests by people at large even though there is no definite proof of their lineage.
|
| 7. |
For only a Torah scholar can be expected to be versed in the knowledge and practice of the laws of ritual purity. The Sifri (to Numbers 18:28) cites a Biblical verse as support for this concept.
This is also alluded to by a Biblical narrative. II Chronicles, ch. 30, relates how King Chezekiah affected a renewal of Torah observance among the Jewish people. Among his efforts was to renew the observance of terumah and tithes, as it is written (30:4): "He told the people... to give the portions of the priests and the Levites so that they could strengthen themselves in the Torah of God." Chulin 130b interprets this to mean that these gifts should be given only to a priest or Levite who "is strong in his observance of the Torah of God." In the revision of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 4:9), the Rambam writes that it is desirable and advisable to follow this restriction, but there is no prohibition against giving terumah to an unlearned priest.
|
| 8. |
We are concerned that the impure priest will cause the terumah to become ritually impure and then partake of it while it is in that state.
|
| 9. |
The commentaries explain that we do not think that a common person will willingly transgress and eat terumah that is impure. Instead, the suspicion is that he will be impure and therefore make theterumah impure. Nevertheless, he will not realize what has transpired and will eat the terumah that he himself made impure.
|
| 10. |
For it has to be burnt and any priest can perform that act. The Ra'avad differs with this ruling, maintaining that even such terumah should not be given to a priest who is unlearned. The Rambam's position can be supported based on the explanation given above that we do not suspect that the unlearned priest will deliberately transgress.
|
| 11. |
If a girl is younger than that, her consecration is not binding, as stated in Hilchot Ishut 3:11.
|
| 12. |
Which may be eaten by all the members of a priest's household (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbonot10:5).
|
| 13. |
According to Jewish law, marriage is a two-staged process involving kiddushin or erusin(consecration) and nissuin (living as man and wife). Today, it is customary to perform both stages at the same time. In the Talmudic era, by contrast, a significant amount of time - usually a year - was granted between the two. In this interim period, the woman was consecrated to her husband and relations between her and another man would be considered adulterous. Nevertheless, she lived in her parents' home and did not engage in intimacy with her husband. Nor was he obligated to support her. Our Sages feared that were a woman given terumah in this intermediate period, she might give it to her father or brother to eat.
|
| 14. |
Both of these types of women are considered as incapable of marrying according to Scriptural Law. Since a deaf-mute's ability to communicate is so restricted, our Sages placed him in this category. Contemporary Rabbinic experts debate the status of a deaf-mute who was trained to communicate through other means.
Were such women to conclude marriages on their own, the marriage would not be binding (Hilchot Ishut 4:9). Nevertheless, the father of such a woman has the potential to conclude her marriage before she reaches the age of majority. If he does so, the marriage is binding according to Scriptural Law (ibid. 3:11). Even so, our Sages forbade such woman from partaking of terumah for the reason stated by the Rambam.
|
| 15. |
In contrast to a mentally sound priest, the marriage of a priest who is a deaf-mute is binding only according to Rabbinic decree. According to Scriptural Law, the marriage is of no consequence. Hence, such a priest's "wife" has no right to eat terumah
|
| 16. |
If, however, she is the daughter of a priest, she may partake of terumah by virtue of her father's privilege until she marries.
|
| 17. |
We have employed a literal translation, though somewhat clumsy in English, because of the exegesis of the verse later in the halachah.
|
| 18. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 133) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 280) include this as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 19. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 134) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 281) include this as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 20. |
Even when a priest is obligated to provide for his worker's sustenance, since the worker possesses an independent financial capacity, he is not considered as the priest's "financial acquisition" (see Halachah 1) and may not partake of terumah.
|
| 21. |
Although a Hebrew servant is purchased by his master, he retains an independent financial capacity. Hence, even if he becomes nirtzah (see Hilchot Avadim, ch. 3), in which instance he must work for his master until the Jubilee year, he remains independent and may not partake ofterumah.
We have followed the simple meaning of the Rambam's words which appear to interpret the verse as referring to an ordinary worker. The Kessef Mishneh notes that in Yevamot 70a and other sources, our Sages interpret the verse as referring specifically to a Hebrew servant. Why then, he asks, does the Rambam single out a Hebrew servant? He explains that the Rambam is implying that there is no difference in this regard between a servant sold by the court and one who sells himself into slavery.
|
| 22. |
The Radbaz notes that when a priest who is ritually impure partakes of terumah that is ritually impure is not liable for death. He asks: Why then is a non-priest liable for partaking of suchterumah? He explains that for a priest who is holy by nature, impure terumah is considered defiled and he is not liable for partaking of it. For a non-priest, however, impure terumah is also considered holy and he is liable for partaking of it.
|
| 23. |
I.e., the court must administer lashes if witnesses observed the transgression and administered a warning. And if they do administer lashes, the sinner's transgression is expiated and he does not receive punishment by the hand of heaven.
|
| 24. |
This is a general principle applying in many different contexts. See Hilchot Na'arah Betulah 1:11;Hilchot Geneivah 4:9; Hilchot Sanhedrin 16:12. The Radbaz notes that generally, whenever there is a financial penalty and the obligation for lashes, the person is given the financial penalty and freed of lashes. In this instance, the opposite is true. He is given lashes and freed of the financial penalty. The Radbaz explains that in this instance, the person was originally liable for death at the hand of heaven. Hence, it is inappropriate that the transgression be absolved through a mere financial payment.
|
| 25. |
One fifth of the new total; one fourth of the original amount.
|
| 26. |
This charge is considered as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah by Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 137) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 283) .
|
| 27. |
As explained in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:1, the halachic definition of the term zonah is: "A Jewish woman who engaged in relations with a man she was forbidden to marry, violating a prohibition that is universally applicable, or a woman who engaged in relations with a challal."
|
| 28. |
The definition of the term chalalah is: "[A woman] born from [relations] forbidden to the priesthood. Similarly, any woman who is forbidden to the priesthood who engaged in relations with a priest becomes a challalah" (ibid. 19:1).
|
| 29. |
The Radbaz emphasizes that although she is prohibited to partake of terumah, she is not liable for death at God's hands for willfully doing so. Nor is she required to pay an additional fifth if she does so inadvertently.
|
| 30. |
None of the mitzvot and prohibitions associated with the priesthood apply to him. The Radbaz emphasizes that a challal is not entirely comparable to a non-priest, for a non-priest is liable for death at God's hand and a challal is not subject to such a punishment.
|
| 31. |
I.e., in contrast to terumah as stated in the following halachah.
|
| 32. |
From that marriage.
|
| 33. |
See Yevamot 87a.
|
| 34. |
Hence, if she willfully partakes of these foods even after being widowed or divorced, she is a transgressor and should be punished by lashes. See Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:4.
|
| 35. |
As the Rambam explains in Halachah 12, as long as an Israelite woman who was married to a priest has a descendant from the priestly seed, she is permitted to continue partaking of terumaheven though she is divorced or widowed. This halachah explains that there is an exception to that rule. If such a woman becomes a zonah, she can no longer partake of terumah.
The Radbaz maintains that such a woman also is not liable for death at the hand of God if she partakes of terumah willfully, nor an additional fifth if she does so inadvertantly.
|
| 36. |
Whom we suspect engaged in relations, either willingly or unwillingly, with her captors and thus became a zonah. See the latter portion of Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, ch. 18.
|
| 37. |
See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:21 which explains that if a woman says "I was taken captive, but I was not defiled" before witnesses testify to her being taken captive, her word is accepted.
|
| 38. |
See ibid.:17 which states that in this instance, the testimony of one witness is acceptable. Moreover, the witness need not fit all the criteria that are usually required for witnesses in court.
|
| 39. |
Even though he is a priest.
|
| 40. |
See ibid.:1.
|
| 41. |
Provided she does not marry an Israelite as stated in Halachah 17.
|
| 42. |
A child whose genital area is covered by a mass of flesh and thus his gender cannot be determined.
|
| 43. |
A person with both male and female sexual organs.
|
| 44. |
I.e., her grandchildren or great-grandchildren who are descendants from a priest are alive even though her children themselves have died.
|
| 45. |
I.e., the prooftext does not say, "She has no children" (Radbaz).
|
| 46. |
Marriage between the two would be either adulterous or incestuous.
|
| 47. |
A person of blemished lineage coming from either an adulterous or incestuous relationship.
|
| 48. |
Thus the offspring descendant that initially either enabled or disqualified a woman from partaking of terumah is no longer alive. Nevertheless, since there is a descendant of the relationship alive - even though the descendant is of blemished lineage - the woman's status remains the same as the Rambam concludes in the following halachah.
|
| 49. |
Our translation follows the version found in authentic manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The version found in the standard published text translates as "even if he is not Jewish" which is obviously incorrect as indicated by Halachah 16. See also Radbaz.
|
| 50. |
Obviously, as long as her husband, the priest, is alive, she may partake of terumah regardless. The entire issue of the status of her descendants arises only when her husband has died.
|
| 51. |
If, however, she remarries a priest she may partake of terumah, as stated in Halachah 18.
|
| 52. |
Who is the daughter of an Israelite.
|
| 53. |
In this instance as well, obviously, as long as her husband, the Israelite, is alive, she is disqualified regardless. The entire issue of the status of her descendants arises only when her husband has died.
|
| 54. |
See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 12:13.
|
| 55. |
For it is as if she has no offspring from her marriage to the priest.
|
| 56. |
As stated in Hilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah 1:4 and Hilchot Avadim 9:3, among the implications of this concept is that we pay no attention to the parental lineage of a servant's father. Instead, it is as if he was conceived by his mother alone. There are other implications of this statement, as indicated by Hilchot Ishut 15:6, et al.
|
| 57. |
Who is a priest.
|
| 58. |
By virtue of her marriage to the priest.
|
| 59. |
By virtue of her son.
|
| 60. |
As stated in Halachot 7-9.
|
| 61. |
Similarly, if her son conceived by the priest fathers children, she may continue to eat by virtue of them, even if her son dies. If, however, the son conceived by the priest dies childless (or he and his descendants die), she may no longer partake of terumah.
|
• Monday, Iyar 1, 5775 · 04/20/2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: K'doshim, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 1-9.
Tanya: The said two (p. 235) to...Ahavat Olam ("eternal love") (p.237).
At a farbrengen during the days of sefira (at some time in the years 5651-5653, 1891-1893) someone said to my father, "The Alter Rebbe's chassidim were always keeping count." My father took a great liking to the saying, and he commented: "That idea characterizes man's avoda. The hours must be 'counted hours,' then the days will be 'counted days.' When a day passes one should know what he has accomplished and what remains yet to be done... In general, one should always see to it that tomorrowshould be much better than today."
Daily Thought:
The Bridge
Animals do not gaze at the stars, and angels are confined to the realm of the spirit, but Man is G‑d’s bridge between heaven and earth.
Our bodies are formed from the dust; our souls are of the essence of G‑d. We alone can look at a physical world and see spiritual life and beauty. We who are beyond both heaven and earth, form and matter, spirit and body—we alone can fuse the two.[Likutei Sichot vol. 15, pg. 13ff.]
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment