Today's Laws & Customs:
• Count "Twenty-Four Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the twenty-fourth day of the Omer Count. Since, on the Jewish calendar, the day begins at nightfall of the previous evening, we count the omer fortomorrow's date tonight, after nightfall: "Today is twenty-four days, which are three 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'Netzach -- "Harmony in Ambition"
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:
• First Crusade Massacres Begin (1096)
In the early 1070s, the Muslim Turks commenced an offensive against the Christian pilgrims in Jerusalem. Pope Gregory VII offered his help to defend the Greek Christians, but the army he promised never materialized.
In 1095, his successor, Urban II, began to call for a holy war to liberate the Christians in Jerusalem. By the next year, more than 100,000 men had rallied to his call, forming the First Crusade. Urban and the local clergymen in Europe felt that the Crusade had another purpose as well--to annihilate all non-Christians in Europe who refused to convert to Christianity.
On their way to the Holy Land, the mobs of crusaders attacked many Jewish communities. On Shabbat, the 8th of Iyar, the Jews of Speyer (Rhineland-Palatinate), Germany were massacred. Many of the Jews of Worms, Germany were also massacred on this day; some of them took refuge in a local castle for a week before being slaughtered as they recited their morning prayers (see "Today in Jewish History" for Sivan 1).
Link: The First Crusade
Daily Quote:
O how she sits alone, the city once so populous, has become like a widow... She that was great among the nations, a princess among the provinces, has become tributary...[Opening verse of the the Book of Lamentations (Jeremiah's lament on the destruction of Jerusalem and the Holy Temple, read on the eve of Tisha B'Av)]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Acharei-Kedoshim, 2nd Portion Leviticus 16:25-17:7 with Rashi
• Chapter 16
25And he shall cause the fat of the sin offering to go up in smoke upon the altar. כה וְאֵת חֵלֶב הַחַטָּאת יַקְטִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחָה:
the fat of the sin-offering: [This refers to] the sacrificial fats of the bull and the he-goat. ואת חלב החטאת: אימורי פר ושעיר:
And he shall cause [the fat of the sin-offering] to go up in smoke upon the altar: On the outer altar, for, concerning the inner altar, it is written: “You shall offer up on it no alien incense, burnt offering, or meal offering” (Exod. 30:9), [and likewise, no sin-offering shall be brought on the internal altar since “burnt offering” includes any sacrifice of which any part is burned]. יקטיר המזבחה: על מזבח החיצון, דאלו בפנימי כתיב (שמות ל ט) לא תעלו עליו קטרת זרה ועולה ומנחה:
26And the person who sent off the he goat to Azazel, shall immerse his garments and immerse his flesh in water. And after this, he may come into the camp. כווְהַמְשַׁלֵּחַ אֶת הַשָּׂעִיר לַעֲזָאזֵל יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְרָחַץ אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּמָּיִם וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן יָבוֹא אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה:
27And the sin offering bull and he goat of the sin offering, [both of] whose blood was brought to effect atonement in the Holy, he shall take outside the camp, and they shall burn in fire their hides, their flesh, and their waste. כזוְאֵת פַּר הַחַטָּאת וְאֵת | שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר הוּבָא אֶת דָּמָם לְכַפֵּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ יוֹצִיא אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וְשָׂרְפוּ בָאֵשׁ אֶת עֹרֹתָם וְאֶת בְּשָׂרָם וְאֶת פִּרְשָׁם:
whose blood was brought: into the heichal and into the very interior. אשר הובא את דמם: להיכל ולפני ולפנים:
28And the person who burns them shall immerse his garments and immerse his flesh in water. And after this, he may come into the camp. כחוְהַשּׂרֵף אֹתָם יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְרָחַץ אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּמָּיִם וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן יָבוֹא אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה:
29And [all this] shall be as an eternal statute for you; in the seventh month, on the tenth of the month, you shall afflict yourselves, and you shall not do any work neither the native nor the stranger who dwells among you. כטוְהָיְתָה לָכֶם לְחֻקַּת עוֹלָם בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי בֶּעָשׂוֹר לַחֹדֶשׁ תְּעַנּוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם וְכָל מְלָאכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ הָאֶזְרָח וְהַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּתוֹכְכֶם:
30For on this day He shall effect atonement for you to cleanse you. Before the Lord, you shall be cleansed from all your sins. לכִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם לְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם מִכֹּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי יְהוָֹה תִּטְהָרוּ:
31It is a Sabbath of rest for you, and you shall afflict yourselves. It is an eternal statute. לאשַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן הִיא לָכֶם וְעִנִּיתֶם אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם חֻקַּת עוֹלָם:
32And the Kohen who is anointed or who is invested to serve in his father's stead, shall effect [this] atonement, and he shall don the linen garments, the holy garments; לבוְכִפֶּר הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר יִמְשַׁח אֹתוֹ וַאֲשֶׁר יְמַלֵּא אֶת יָדוֹ לְכַהֵן תַּחַת אָבִיו וְלָבַשׁ אֶת בִּגְדֵי הַבָּד בִּגְדֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ:
And the Kohen who is anointed: This atonement on Yom Kippur is valid only through a Kohen Gadol [since anointment in this context exclusively refers to that of a Kohen Gadol (see Lev. 21:10)].-[Yoma 32b] Since this entire passage is stated concerning Aaron, Scripture found it necessary to state that the Kohen Gadol who succeeds him is like him. -[Torath Kohanim 16:79] וכפר הכהן אשר ימשח וגו': כפרה זו של יום הכיפורים אינה כשרה אלא בכהן גדול, לפי שנאמרה כל הפרשה באהרן, הוצרך לומר בכהן גדול הבא אחריו שיהא כמוהו:
or who is invested: [Without this phrase,] we would know only that [the Kohen Gadol] anointed with the anointing oil (see Exod. 30:22-33) may perform the Yom Kippur service]. How would we know that [a Kohen Gadol who was invested only by] wearing the many garments [i.e., eight, as opposed to the four of an ordinary kohen, may also perform Yom Kippur service]? Scripture, therefore, says here, "or who is invested to serve [for their authorized wearing of the eight golden garments of a Kohen Gadol is their very investiture (see Rashi Exod. 29:9)]. — [Torath Kohanim 16:79] These [Kohanim Gedolim referred to here,] are all the Kohanim Gedolim who were appointed from the time of Josiah and onwards, for in the days [of Josiah], the jug of anointing oil was hidden away. — [see Yoma 52b] ואשר ימלא את ידו: אין לי אלא המשוח בשמן המשחה, מרובה בגדים מנין, תלמוד לומר ואשר ימלא את ידו וגו', והם כל הכהנים הגדולים שעמדו מיאשיהו ואילך, שבימיו נגנזה צלוחית של שמן המשחה:
to serve in his father’s stead: This teaches us that if his son can take his place [meaning that he is his equal], he takes precedence over everyone else. — [Torath Kohanim 16:80] לכהן תחת אביו: ללמד שאם בנו ממלא את מקומו הוא קודם לכל אדם:
33And he shall effect atonement upon the Holy of Holies, and he shall effect atonement upon the Tent of Meeting and upon the altar, and he shall effect atonement upon the kohanim and upon all the people of the congregation. לגוְכִפֶּר אֶת מִקְדַּשׁ הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְאֶת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְאֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ יְכַפֵּר וְעַל הַכֹּהֲנִים וְעַל כָּל עַם הַקָּהָל יְכַפֵּר:
34[All] this shall be as an eternal statute for you, to effect atonement upon the children of Israel, for all their sins, once each year. And he did as the Lord had commanded Moses. לדוְהָיְתָה זֹּאת לָכֶם לְחֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְכַפֵּר עַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִכָּל חַטֹּאתָם אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה וַיַּעַשׂ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָֹה אֶת משֶׁה:
And he did as the Lord had commanded [Moses]: [i.e.,] when Yom Kippur arrived, [Aaron] performed [the service] according to ths order, and [this verse is written] to tell Aaron’s praise, namely, that he did not don those [special garments of the Kohen Gadol] for his self-aggrandizement, but rather, as one who is fulfilling the King’s decree [thus, “he did as the Lord had commanded”]. — [Torath Kohanim 16:85] ויעש כאשר צוה ה' וגו': כשהגיע יום הכפורים עשה כסדר הזה, ולהגיד שבחו של אהרן שלא היה לובשן לגדולתו, אלא כמקיים גזירת המלך:
Chapter 17
1And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: אוַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָֹה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
2Speak to Aaron and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say to them: This is the thing the Lord has commanded, saying: בדַּבֵּר אֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל בָּנָיו וְאֶל כָּל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם זֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָֹה לֵאמֹר:
3Any man of the House of Israel, who slaughters an ox, a lamb, or a goat inside the camp, or who slaughters outside the camp, גאִישׁ אִישׁ מִבֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחַט שׁוֹר אוֹ כֶשֶׂב אוֹ עֵז בַּמַּחֲנֶה אוֹ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחָט מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה:
Who slaughters an ox, a lamb, [or a goat]: Scripture is speaking of [slaughtering] holy sacrifices [not of slaughtering ordinary animals], for Scripture continues, “to offer up as a sacrifice” (next verse). - [Torath Kohanim 17:91] אשר ישחט שור או כשב: במוקדשין הכתוב מדבר, שנאמר להקריב קרבן:
inside the camp: But outside the Courtyard. — [Torath Kohanim 17:89; Zev. 107b] במחנה: חוץ לעזרה:
4but does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to offer up as a sacrifice to the Lord before the Mishkan of the Lord, this [act] shall be counted for that man as blood he has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people; דוְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא הֱבִיאוֹ לְהַקְרִיב קָרְבָּן לַיהֹוָה לִפְנֵי מִשְׁכַּן יְהוָֹה דָּם יֵחָשֵׁב לָאִישׁ הַהוּא דָּם שָׁפָךְ וְנִכְרַת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא מִקֶּרֶב עַמּוֹ:
shall be counted [for that man] as blood: As though he had shed human blood, for which one is liable to the death penalty. דם יחשב: כשופך דם האדם שמתחייב בנפשו:
He has shed blood: [This comes] to include one who dashes the blood [of a holy sacrifice] outside [the Temple Courtyard]. — [Zev. 107a] דם שפך: לרבות את הזורק דמים בחוץ:
5in order that the children of Israel should bring their offerings which they slaughter on the open field, and bring them to the Lord, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to the kohen, and slaughter them as peace offerings to the Lord. הלְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יָבִיאוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת זִבְחֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר הֵם זֹבְחִים עַל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה וֶהֱבִיאֻם לַיהֹוָה אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד אֶל הַכֹּהֵן וְזָבְחוּ זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים לַיהוָֹה אוֹתָם:
which they slaughter: which they are accustomed to slaughter. אשר הם זבחים: אשר הם רגילים לזבוח:
6And the kohen shall dash the blood upon the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and he shall cause the fat to go up in smoke, as a pleasing fragrance to the Lord. ווְזָרַק הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַדָּם עַל מִזְבַּח יְהֹוָה פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְהִקְטִיר הַחֵלֶב לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַיהוָֹה:
7And they shall no longer slaughter their sacrifices to the satyrs after which they stray. This shall be an eternal statute for them, for [all] their generations. זוְלֹא יִזְבְּחוּ עוֹד אֶת זִבְחֵיהֶם לַשְּׂעִירִם אֲשֶׁר הֵם זֹנִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם חֻקַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה זֹּאת לָהֶם לְדֹרֹתָם:
to the satyrs: Heb. לַשְּׂעִירִים, to the demons, like, “and satyrs (וּשְּׂעִירִים) will dance there” (Isa. 13:21). - [Torath Kohanim 17:100] לשעירם: לשדים, כמו (ישעיה יג כא) ושעירים ירקדו שם:Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 44 - 48
• Chapter 44
The psalmist cries and laments painfully over this bitter exile, where we and our Torah are shamed daily, when the nations say that God has exchanged us for another nation, and where we are considered as sheep for the slaughter, as a byword and taunt. It is therefore fitting that God redeem us, for the sake of His great Name that abides with us in exile.
1. For the Conductor, by the sons of Korach, a maskil.1
2. God, with our ears we have heard, our fathers have told us, of the deeds You wrought in their days, in the days of old.
3. You drove out nations with Your hand, and planted [Israel in their place]; You afflicted peoples and banished them.
4. For not by their sword did they inherit the land, and their own arm did not save them, but by Your right hand, Your arm and the light of Your countenance-for You favored them.
5. You are my king, O God; decree the salvation of Jacob.
6. Through You will we gore our adversaries; with Your Name we will trample our opponents.
7. For I do not trust in my bow, and my sword cannot save me.
8. For You have delivered us from our foes, and You shamed those who hate us.
9. In God we glory all day, and forever thank Your Name, Selah.
10. Though You abandon and disgrace us, and do not go forth with our armies;
11. You cause us to retreat from the oppressor, and those who hate us plunder for themselves;
12. You deliver us like sheep to be devoured, and scatter us among the nations;
13. You sell Your nation without gain, and do not set a high price upon them;
14. You make us a disgrace to our neighbors, the scorn and derision of those around us;
15. You make us a byword among the nations, [a cause for] nodding the head among the peoples;
16. all day long my humiliation is before me, and the shame of my face covers me
17. at the voice of the reviler and blasphemer, because of the foe and avenger-
18. all this has come upon us, yet we have not forgotten You, nor have we been false to Your covenant.
19. Our hearts have not retracted, nor have our steps strayed from Your path.
20. Even when You crushed us in the place of serpents, and shrouded us in the shadow of death-
21. did we forget the Name of our God, and extend our hands to a foreign god?
22. Is it not so that God can examine this, for He knows the secrets of the heart.
23. For it is for Your sake that we are killed all the time; we are regarded as sheep for the slaughter.
24. Arise! Why do You sleep, my Lord? Wake up! Do not abandon [us] forever!
25. Why do You conceal Your countenance and forget our affliction and distress?
26. For our souls are bowed to the dust, our bellies cleave to the earth.
27. Arise! Be our help, and redeem us for the sake of Your kindness.
Chapter 45
The psalmist composed this psalm referring to Moshiach. He describes his greatness, his attributes, his glory, his wealth, and his reign; and states that Israel anticipates him, remembering and saying in every generation, "When will King Moshiach come?"
1. For the Conductor, upon the shoshanim,1 By the sons of Korach; a maskil,2 a song of love.
2. My heart is astir with a noble theme; I say, "My composition is for the king;3 my tongue is the pen of a skillful scribe.”
3. You are the most handsome of men, charm is poured upon your lips; therefore has God blessed you forever.
4. Gird your sword upon your thigh, O mighty one-it is your majesty and splendor.
5. And with your splendor, succeed and ride on for the sake of truth and righteous humility; and your right hand will guide you to awesome deeds.
6. Your arrows are sharpened-nations fall beneath you-[the arrows fall] into the hearts of the king's enemies.
7. Your throne, O ruler, is forever and ever, [for] the scepter of justice is the scepter of your kingdom.
8. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore has God, your God, anointed you with oil of joy above your peers.
9. Myrrh, aloes and cassia are [the fragrance] of all your garments, which are from ivory palaces that bring you joy.
10. Daughters of kings visit you, and the queen stands erect at your right hand, adorned in the fine gold of Ophir.
11. Hear, O daughter, and observe, incline your ear; forget your people and your father's house.
12. Then the king will desire your beauty. He is your master-bow to him.
13. The daughter of Tyre, the wealthiest of nations, will seek your favor with a gift.
14. All the glory of the princess is within; her clothing surpasses settings of gold.
15. In embroidered garments she will be brought to the king; the maidens in her train, her companions, will be led to you.
16. They will be brought with gladness and joy, they will enter the palace of the king.
17. Your sons will succeed your fathers; you will appoint them ministers throughout the land.
18. I will cause Your Name to be remembered throughout the generations; therefore will the nations praise You forever and ever.
Chapter 46
This psalm tells of the Gog and Magog era (the Messianic age), when man will cast aside his weapons, and warfare will be no more.
1. For the Conductor, by the sons of Korach, on the alamot,1 a song.
2. God is our refuge and strength, a help in distress, He is most accessible.
3. Therefore, we will not be afraid when the earth is transformed, when mountains collapse in the heart of the seas;
4. when its waters roar and are muddied, and mountains quake before His grandeur, Selah.
5. The river2-its streams will bring joy to the city of God, the sacred dwelling of the Most High.
6. God is in her midst, she will not falter; God will help her at the approach of morning.
7. Nations clamor, kingdoms stumble; He raises His voice and the earth dissolves.
8. The Lord of Hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our stronghold forever.
9. Go and see the works of the Lord, Who has wrought devastation in the land.
10. To the end of the earth He causes wars to cease; He breaks the bow, snaps the spear, and burns the wagons in fire.
11. Stop [waging war]! And know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, exalted upon the earth.
12. The Lord of Hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our stronghold forever.
Chapter 47
Following the battle of Gog and Magog (in the Messianic era), war will be no more. God will grant us salvation, and we will merit to go up to the Holy Temple for the festivals, Amen.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. All you nations, clap hands; sound [the shofar] to God with a sound of jubilation.
3. For the Lord is most high, awesome; a great King over all the earth.
4. He subdues peoples under us, nations beneath our feet.
5. He chooses our heritage for us, the glory of Jacob whom He loves eternally.
6. God ascends through teruah, the Lord-through the sound of the shofar.
7. Sing, O sing to God; sing, O sing to our King.
8. For God is King over all the earth; sing, O man of understanding.
9. God reigns over the nations; God is seated on His holy throne.
10. The most noble of the nations are gathered, the nation of the God of Abraham; for the protectors of the earth belong to God; He is greatly exalted.
Chapter 48
The psalmist prophesies about the Messianic era, singing the praises of a rebuilt Jerusalem and the sacrifices brought there. At that time Israel will say, "As we heard from the mouths of the prophets, so have we merited to see!"
1. A song, a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. The Lord is great and exceedingly acclaimed in the city of God, His holy mountain.
3. Beautiful in landscape, the joy of the whole earth is Mount Zion, on the northern slopes, the city of the great King.
4. In her citadels, God became known as a tower of strength.
5. For behold, the kings assembled, they advanced in concert [to invade her].
6. They saw [the wonders of the Almighty] and were astounded; they were terror-stricken, they hastened to flee.
7. Trembling seized them there, pangs as of a woman in the throes of labor;
8. [they were crushed as] by an east wind that shatters the ships of Tarshish.
9. As we have heard, so have we seen, in the city of the Lord of Hosts, in the city of our God; may God establish it for all eternity.
10. God, we have been hoping for Your kindness [to be revealed] within Your Sanctuary.
11. As Your Name, O God, [is great,] so is Your praise to the ends of the earth; Your right hand is filled with righteousness.
12. Let Mount Zion rejoice, let the towns of Judah exult, because of Your judgments.
13. Walk around Zion, encircle her, count her towers.
14. Consider well her ramparts, behold her lofty citadels, that you may recount it to a later generation.
15. For this God is our God forever and ever; He will lead us eternally.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 45• Lessons in Tanya
• Monday, Iyar 8, 5775 · April 27, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 45
The Alter Rebbe goes on to explain that it was our forefather Jacob whose entreaties secured an abundance of divine compassion for all Jews, throughout the generations. Even when their misdeeds cast them into exile, they are able through their study of Torah and performance of mitzvot to be raised from this state and become reunited with the Ein Sof.
וזה שאמר הכתוב: וישק יעקב לרחל וישא את קולו ויבך, כי רחל היא כנסת ישראל, מקור כל הנשמות
This is the meaning of the verse:1 “And Jacob kissed Rachel and lifted up his voice and wept.” For Rachel is Knesset Israel, the community of Israel, the fount of all souls; Rachel represents the supernal attribute of Malchut of Atzilut, the source of all Jewish souls.
ויעקב, במדתו העליונה שהיא מדת הרחמים שבאצילות, הוא המעורר רחמים רבים עליה
And Jacob — with his supernal attribute, the attribute of Mercy of Atzilut — is the one who arouses great compassion for her, for Rachel, the source of all Jewish souls.
וישא את קולו: למעלה, למקור הרחמים העליונים
“And he lifted up his voice” — upwards, to the fount of the Higher Mercies, to the source of the Thirteen Divine Attributes of Mercy.
The Thirteen Divine Attributes of Mercy are far loftier than the supernal attribute of Mercy of Atzilut. For the latter is but an attribute of a spiritual world, and is hence bounded, while the Thirteen Divine Attributes of Mercy, transcending all worlds, are boundless. They are the fount of all mercies, including the level called the Mercy of Atzilut.
הנקרא אב הרחמים ומקורם
Indeed, they are called the “Father of Mercies,” and their source;
The supernal attribute of Mercy of Atzilut is known as Av Harachaman (“the Merciful Father”), while the Thirteen Divine Attributes of Mercy are called Av Harachamim (“the Father and source of Mercy”).2 (It is for this reason that on especially propitious occasions, the termAv Harachamim is used in the prayers, rather than Av Harachaman.)
This, then, is the meaning of “And Jacob lifted up...”: Jacob elevates his supernal attribute, the Mercy of Atzilut, to the level of the Mercies of the Thirteen Divine Attributes of Mercy. The verse goes on to say:
ויבך: לעורר ולהמשיך משם רחמים רבים על כל הנשמות, ועל מקור כנסת ישראל
“and he wept” — in order to awaken and draw from there, from the boundless Divine Mercies, abundant compassion upon all the souls and upon the fount of the community of Israel,
להעלותן מגלותן, ולייחדן ביחוד העליון, אור אין סוף ברוך הוא, בבחינת נשיקין
to raise them from their exile3 and to unite them in the Yichud Elyon (Higher Unity) of the light of the blessed Ein Sof, at the level of “kisses”,
שהיא אתדבקות רוחא ברוחא, כמו שכתוב: ישקני מנשיקות פיהו
which is “the attachment of spirit with spirit,” as it is written,4 “Let Him kiss me with the kisses of His mouth,”
The community of Israel begs of the Almighty that He unite with them in a manner of “kisses”. In the case of “kisses of the mouth” there is not only an external union of mouth and mouth, but also a more internal union, that of “spirit” (breath) and “spirit” (breath). And so it is regarding this manner of unity of Jews with G‑d, which is brought about by Torah and mitzvot.
דהיינו: התקשרות דבור האדם בדבר ה׳, זו הלכה, וכן מחשבה במחשבה
which means the union of the word of man who studies Torah with5 “the word of G‑d, namely, the Halachah,” which is G‑d’s speech. This union resembles the “kisses of the mouth.” So too, through thinking Torah thoughts, mortal thought is united with divinethought,
ומעשה במעשה, שהוא מעשה המצות
and so too, mortal action is united with Divine action, through active observance of the commandments,
ובפרט: מעשה הצדקה והחסד
and, in particular, the practice of charity and lovingkindness.
דחסד: דרועא ימינא
For6 “Chesed (‘kindness’) is the [Divine] right arm,” and man’s kindness is a fitting vessel for G‑d’s kindness,7
והוא בחינת חיבוק ממש
and this is, as it were, an actual embrace,
Just as in physical terms an embrace manifests one’s love of the beloved, so too, so to speak, G‑d’s kindness embraces the Jew who performs acts of charity and lovingkindness.8
כמו שכתוב: וימינו תחבקני
as it is written:9 “And His right arm — Divine kindness — embraces me,”
ועסק התורה בדבור ומחשבת העיון הן בחינת נשיקין ממש
while one’s occupation in the Torah by word of mouth and concentrated thought constitutes the level of actual “kisses”.10
The unity of Jew and G‑d accomplished through speech and thought of Torah — “actual kisses” — is twofold: the external level of kisses, mouth to mouth, is attained through the words of Torah, while the internal level of kisses, spirit to spirit, is attained through concentrated thinking on one’s Torah studies.
והנה על ידי זה
In this way, through arousal of deep compassion for his soul, which brings about the study of Torah and the performance of mitzvot,
יכול לבוא לבחינת אהבה רבה בהתגלות לבו
one is able to attain the level of Ahavah Rabbah (“great love”) in the consciousness of his heart — his intense love of G‑d will be palpable,
כדכתיב: ליעקב אשר פדה את אברהם
as it is written,11 “Of Jacob, who redeemed Abraham,”
In the context of man’s spiritual service Abraham denotes man’s love of G‑d, while Jacob symbolizes the attribute of compassion. When “Abraham” — the individual’s love for G‑d — is hidden and must be “redeemed” and revealed, it is “Jacob” — the attribute of compassion — that brings about this redemption. The arousal of profound compassion for one’s soul enables his latent love of G‑d to become manifest,
כמו שכתוב במקום אחר
as is explained elsewhere.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Bereishit 29:11. |
| 2. | Likkutei Torah, Devarim 62d. (— Note of the Rebbe). |
| 3. | The Rebbe notes that in the glosses of the Tzemach Tzedek to Eichah (p. 23), he cites this text as stating “to raise them from their descent” (rather than “from their exile”). That is to say, through Torah and mitzvot Jewish souls are raised up from their descent. |
| 4. | Shir HaShirim 1:2. |
| 5. | Shabbat 138b. |
| 6. | Tikkunei Zohar, Introduction, p. 17a. |
| 7. | The Rebbe quotes Iggeret HaKodesh, Epistle 32, wherein the Alter Rebbe says: “and the whole body is included in the right side.” This serves as an explanation, says the Rebbe, as to why the Alter Rebbe says “in particular, the practice of charity and lovingkindness.” They are singled out because “the whole body is included in the right side.” |
| 8. | The Rebbe explains that by using the term “actual embrace” the Alter Rebbe forestalls the following question: It was taught in ch. 4 that Torah study is also likened to an embrace from G‑d; what, then, is the distinctive merit of tzedakah? The Alter Rebbe therefore writes that tzedakah is not merely likened to an embrace: it is an “actual embrace.” |
| 9. | Shir HaShirim 2:6. |
| 10. | The Rebbe explains that by using the term “actual kisses” the Alter Rebbe anticipates the following question: The performance of mitzvot, too, is often likened to a kiss, as previously mentioned. He therefore writes “actual kisses”: Torah study is not merely likened to kisses, but constitutes “actual kisses.” |
| 11. | Yeshayahu 29:22. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Monday, Iyar 8, 5775 · April 27, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 127
The First Tithe
"But the tithes of the Children of Israel which they offer to G‑d as a gift..."—Numbers 18:24.
We are commanded to separate a tenth of our crops and give it to a Levite.
This biblical precept only applies in the Land of Israel.
Tithe
Positive Commandment 127
Translated by Berel Bell
The 127th mitzvah is that we are commanded to separate ma'aser from produce which grows from the ground.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "[The inheritance I am giving the Levites shall consist of] the ma'aser of the Jewish people which they shall separate."
The verse itself explains that ma'aser is given to the Levites.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Ma'aseros.
This is called ma'aser rishon, and is a Biblical requirement only in Eretz Yisroel.2
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 27:30.
2.By Rabbinic law, ma'aser must be given from some lands which surround Eretz Yisroel. See Hilchos Terumos, 1:1.
Shabbos - Chapter Twenty Six
Halacha 1
All the utensils used for weaving, including the cords and the reeds, may be carried [according to the rules governing] other utensils that are used for forbidden tasks.1 An exception is made regarding the upper weaver's beam and the lower weaver's beam. They may not be carried, because they are [usually] fixed [within the loam].2
Similarly, the pillars [of the loam] may not be moved, lest one fill the hole [in the earth created when they are removed]. It is permitted to move the other utensils of a weaver.3
Halacha 2
Brooms made of date branches and the like, which are used to sweep the ground, are considered utensils that are used for a permitted purpose, since sweeping is permitted on the Sabbath.4
Bricks that remain after a building [was completed] are considered utensils that are used for a permitted purpose, for they are fit to recline upon,5, as is obvious from the fact that they are filed and adjusted for this purpose.6 If, however, one collects them, [it is evident] that they have been set aside [for building], and it is forbidden to carry them.7
Halacha 3
A small shard may be carried, even in the public domain.8[This leniency is granted] because it is fit to be used in a courtyard to cover the opening of a small utensil.9 [When] the stopper of a barrel has been cut off, both it and its broken pieces are permitted to be carried. If one threw it into a garbage dump10before the commencement of the Sabbath,11 carrying it is forbidden.
When a utensil has been broken [but not shattered into pieces], one should not remove a shard from it to use to cover [another utensil] or to use as a support.
Halacha 4
It is permitted to bring three rounded12 stones into a lavatory to clean oneself.13Of what size may they be? A fistful.14A clod of earth, by contrast, which is likely to crumble, is forbidden to be taken to clean oneself.15
It is permitted to take these stones up to a roof [so that one will be able] to clean oneself with them.16 When rain descends upon them and they sink in the mud, they may be taken if there is a distinct mark [showing their location].17
[When] a stone has filth on it, one can be certain that it is used to clean oneself. Therefore, carrying it is permitted it even though it is large.18
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
The remnants of mats that have become tattered are considered utensils that may be used for a permitted purpose, for they are fit to be used to cover filth.23In contrast, the remnants of clothes24 that are less than three [thumbbreadths] by three [thumbbreadths],25 and have become tattered may not be carried, for they are not fit - neither for the poor nor for the rich.26
Halacha 7
A ladder leading to a loft is forbidden to be carried [on the Sabbath], since it is not considered to be a utensil.29 [A ladder leading] to a dovecote [by contrast, is not considered muktzeh30 and] is permitted to be tilted. One should not, however, carry it from one dovecote to another, lest one follow one's ordinary course of conduct and come to snare [the doves].
[The following rule governs the use of] a rod that is used to harvest olives:31When it is categorized as a utensil,32 it is considered to be a utensil that is used for a forbidden purpose. [The following rule governs the use of] a reed that is adjusted by a homeowner to open and lock [his door]:33 When it is categorized as a utensil,34 it is considered to be a utensil that is used for a permitted purpose.
Halacha 8
[The following rules apply to] a door35 that once had a hinge - though at present it does not have a hinge36 - which is prepared to close a yard,37 but which drags on the ground when it is opened and closed: If the door is attached to and hanging on the wall, it may be used to close the space and may be locked.38 If not, it may not be used to close the space. If the door is [suspended] above the ground, it may be used to close the space.39 The same rules apply to a [partition made from] brambles or a mat that drags on the floor.
Halacha 9
[The following rules apply to] a door that is made from a single piece of wood and which is placed in [a doorway] to close it and removed [to open it]. If [the doorway] does not have a base at the bottom that resembles a doorstep that would indicate that [the door] is a utensil that is used for [opening and] closing, [the door] may not be used to close [the doorway].40 If [the doorway] has a doorstep, one may use [the door].41
Similarly, a bolt that has a bulb at its end that indicates that it is a utensil used to bolt a door, and is not merely an ordinary beam, may be used to bolt a door on the Sabbath.42
Halacha 10
[The following rules apply to] a bolt that does not have a bulb at its end: If it is tied to the door and suspended from it, we may use it to bolt the door on the Sabbath.43 [This ruling] also applies when it is carried together with the rope attaching it to the door.44
If, by contrast, the rope attaching it is fixed permanently to the door and the bolt is removed like a beam, placed in a corner, and then reattached when one desires, its use as a bolt is forbidden [on the Sabbath].45 This is forbidden because [the bolt] is not considered to be a utensil, nor is there any indication [that it is being used as a utensil], for it is not attached to the door, nor is it connected to a rope.46
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
We may remove a shoe from a shoemaker's block on the Sabbath.51 We may release a clothes press belonging to an ordinary person on the Sabbath. We may not, however, set the press in place.52 A press belonging to a launderer should not be touched at all; it is set aside not to be used, because of the financial loss [that might be incurred through its improper use].53
Similarly, unprocessed rolls of wool may not be carried,54 because [their owner] objects [to their use for purposes other than spinning fabric].55 Therefore, if they have been set aside for a particular purpose,56 it is permitted to use them. Unprocessed hides - regardless of whether they belong to a private person or to a [leather] craftsman - may be carried,57 because [their owner] does not object to their [use].58
Halacha 13
All filth - e.g., feces, vomit, excrement, and the like - that is located in a courtyard where [people] are dwelling may be removed to a dung heap or to a latrine.59 Such entities are referred to as a chamber pot.60 If it is located in another courtyard, it should be covered by a utensil so that a child will not become soiled by it.
One may step on spittle that is lying on the ground without taking any notice of it.61 One may carry a warming-pan because of its ash. [This leniency is granted] despite the fact that it contains chips of wood,62 because it is equivalent to a chamber pot.
At the outset, we may not bring about the creation of a repulsive entity63 on the Sabbath. If, however, [such an entity] comes about as a natural process, or one transgresses and creates it, it may be removed.
Halacha 14
It is permitted to partake of oil that flows from beneath the beam of an olive press on the Sabbath64 and from dates and almonds that are prepared to be sold.65 One may even begin to take grain from a storehouse66 or from a grain pile on the Sabbath, for food never becomes muktzeh on the Sabbath at all. On the contrary, all [types of food] are [always] prepared for use.67
[There is, however, one] exception: figs and raisins that have been set aside to dry. Since they pass through an intermediate stage when they become repulsive and are unfit to eat,68 they are considered muktzeh and are forbidden [to be carried] on the Sabbath.69
A barrel [of wine] or a watermelon that was opened may be carried and stored away, even though it is no longer fit to eat.70 Similarly, an amulet that has not proven its efficacy may be moved, although one is forbidden to go out [into the public domain] wearing it.71
The oil that remains in a lamp or in a bowl that was kindled on a particular Sabbath may not be used on that Sabbath. It is muktzeh because of the forbidden [labor with which it was associated beyn hash'mashot].72
Halacha 15
Although taking [produce] from a storehouse of grain or of barrels of wine is permitted, it is forbidden to begin73 to empty [the storehouse]74 unless this is being done for a purpose associated with a mitzvah - e.g., emptying it to host guests or to establish a hall of study.
[In the latter situations,] how should the storehouse be emptied? Every person should take [out] four or five75 containers until it has been completely [cleared].76 We may not sweep the floor of the storehouse, as has been explained.77
[Even when one is forbidden to empty the storehouse,] one may enter and leave and create a path with one's feet by entering and leaving.
Halacha 16
Any substance that is fit to be used as food for an animal, beast, or fowl that is commonly found may be carried on the Sabbath. What is implied? One may carry dry turmos beans78 because they are food for goats. Fresh [turmosbeans,] by contrast, may not [be carried].79 [One may carry] chatzav80 because it is food for deer, mustard seed because it is food for doves,81and bones because they are food for dogs.
Similarly, we may carry all the shells and seeds [of produce] that are fit to serve as animal fodder. Concerning those that are not fit to be eaten: One should eat the food and throw [the shells or seeds] behind one's back;82 carrying them is forbidden.
Halacha 17
We may not carry broken pieces of glass even though they are edible by ostriches,86 nor bundles of twigs from a vine even though they are edible by elephants, nor luf,87 even though it is edible by ravens. [These restrictions were instituted] because these and similar [species] are not commonly found among most people.88
Halacha 18
[The following rules apply to] bundles of straw, bundles of wood, and bundles of twigs: If they were prepared89 to be used as animal fodder, one may carry them. If not, one may not carry them.
Halacha 19
We may not rake food that was placed before an ox that is being fattened for slaughter. [This applies regardless of whether the food has been placed] in a feeding trough that is a [separate] utensil92 or in an earthen feeding trough. [Similarly,] one may not shift [the food] to the side so that [it does not become mixed with] feces. [These restrictions are] decrees, [instituted] lest one level grooves [in the floor].93
One may take food that had been placed before a donkey and place it before an ox.94 One may not, by contrast, take food that had been placed before an ox and place it before a donkey. [This restriction was instituted] because the food that is before an ox becomes soiled by its spittle95 and is not fit to be eaten by another animal.96
Leaves that produce a foul and repulsive odor and are not eaten by animals may not be carried. For similar reasons, carrying the hook on which fish are hung is forbidden.97 By contrast, the hook on which meat is hung is permitted to be carried. The same applies in all similar situations.
Halacha 20
Although carrying a corpse on the Sabbath is forbidden, one may anoint it and wash it, provided one does not move any of its limbs.98 We may slip out a pillow from underneath it99 so that it will be lying on the ground100 to enable it to remain without decomposing.
We may bring a utensil that will cool [a corpse] or a metal utensil and place it on the belly [of the corpse] so that [the corpse] will not swell. We may stop up [the corpse's] orifices so that air will not enter them. We may tie its jaw - not so that it will close101 - but so that it will not [open] further. We may not close [a corpse's] eyes on the Sabbath.102
Halacha 21
When a corpse is lying in the sun, we may place a loaf of bread103 or a baby on it and carry it [into the shade]. Similarly, if a fire breaks out in a courtyard where a corpse is lying, we may place a loaf of bread or a baby on it104 and carry it [out from the fire].105
Indeed, even if a loaf of bread or a baby are not available, one may save a corpse from a fire. [This leniency is granted] lest one extinguish the fire out of apprehension that the corpse not be consumed [by the flames].
[The leniency of carrying an entity with] a loaf of bread or a baby upon it is granted only in the case of a corpse, because a person is distraught over the corpse [of his loved ones].106
Halacha 22
[The following procedure should be adhered to when] a corpse is lying in the sun and there is no place to carry it, or [the people] do not desire to move it from its place: Two people should come and sit, one on either side [of the corpse]. If it is [too] warm for them [to sit on the ground], they may both bring couches and sit on them. If it is [too] warm for them [to sit in the sun], they may both bring mats and spread them over the couches.107
[Afterwards,] they both may [depart], overturn their couches, and remove them [leaving the mats suspended over the corpse]. In this manner, the covering is created on its own accord, [as it were], for the two mats are next to each other and their two ends are located on the ground on either side of the corpse.
Halacha 23
When a corpse has decomposed108 in a house [to the extent that it produces a foul odor] and thus is being disgraced in the eyes of the living, and their honor is being compromised because of it, carrying it109 into a carmelit is permitted.110
[This leniency was granted because] the honor of the creatures is great enough to supersede [the observance of] a negative commandment of the Torah, namely: "Do not swerve right or left from the words they tell you" [Deuteronomy 17:11].111
If [the people in the home] have an alternative place to go, they may not remove the corpse. Instead, the corpse should be left in its place and they should depart.112
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
I.e., the object may be carried to perform a permitted task or because the place in which it is lying is needed (Chapter 25, Halachah 3).
|
| 2. |
The Maggid Mishneh writes that, for this reason, it is as though they are not considered to be utensils.
|
| 3. |
See Chapter 10, Halachah 3, and the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 15:2, which mention the use of a weaver's rope.
|
| 4. |
See Chapter 21, Halachah 3, which states that one may sweep a floor on the Sabbath only if it is paved. Since sweeping is permitted in that instance, however, it is considered a permitted activity.
Nevertheless, according to the Ramah (Orach Chayim 337:2), who forbids sweeping with these brooms even on a paved floor, a broom would be considered a utensil used for a forbidden purpose. The notes on that halachah mention the views of the later authorities.
|
| 5. |
Rashi, Shabbat 124b, states "to sit upon."
|
| 6. |
For this reason, a more lenient ruling is given than with regard to the row of stones mentioned in Chapter 25, Halachah 21, where one must indicate one's desire to use them on the Sabbath. (See Mishnah Berurah 306:73.)
|
| 7. |
Since they are not considered to be utensils. (See Chapter 25, Halachah 6.)
|
| 8. |
Although there is no utensil to cover there, since it is fit to cover a utensil one may take it to use for another purpose (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 306:7). Needless to say, one may carry it only less than four cubits.
|
| 9. |
As the Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) emphasize, this leniency applies only to the broken pieces of a utensil. Since it was originally considered a utensil, it remains in this category as long as it can serve a useful purpose. In contrast, a stone is not considered a utensil, even though it is fit to cover another utensil, unless it is designated for this purpose.
|
| 10. |
Although it is useful, since its owner discarded it before the commencement of the Sabbath, there was no intent of using it at the time the Sabbath commenced. Therefore, it becomes forbidden. (See Ramah, Orach Chayim 308:7.)
|
| 11. |
If, however, it is discarded on the Sabbath itself, its use is permitted, since at the time of the commencement of the Sabbath it was still deemed to be a useful article (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 12. |
Our translation is taken from the dictionary of Rabbi Tanchum of Jerusalem. The Maggid Mishneh renders the term מקורזלות as "sharp."
|
| 13. |
Although stones are not considered to be utensils and therefore may not ordinarily be carried, an exception is made in order to allow a person to take care of his basic hygienic needs.
Because of the advances in civilization, the situations described in this and the following halachah are no longer common practice. Nevertheless, the motivating principle behind these laws - that our Sages allowed certain leniencies for the sake of human dignity and hygiene - is pertinent at all times.
In this context, it is worthy to note the difference of opinion mentioned by the Ramah (Orach Chayim 312:1): According to one opinion, it is permitted to carry these stones only in one's own courtyard; i.e., only the prohibition against carrying stones is lifted. A second opinion, however, maintains that the prohibition against bringing an article from a carmelit into the private domain is also lifted in this instance. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 312:4 and the Mishnah Berurah 312:8 favor the latter view.
|
| 14. |
I.e., the size of all three together may not exceed a fistful (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 15. |
Rashi (Shabbat 81a) relates that since the earth is likely to crumble - and then it will no longer be useful for this purpose - the prohibition against carrying it was never lifted.
|
| 16. |
Rashi (loc. cit.) and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 312:1) explain that carrying the stones might entail extraordinary difficulty, which is normally forbidden on the Sabbath. An exception is made in this instance, however, for the reasons mentioned above.
|
| 17. |
There is no concern that one might be performing a derivative of the forbidden labor of grinding, nor of the forbidden labor of demolishing.
|
| 18. |
As a corollary to this principle, the Mishnah Berurah 312:6 mentions that it is permitted to carry toilet paper. Although paper is generally considered to be muktzeh, since the purpose for which this paper is used is clearly designated, it is not placed in this category. The Mishnah Berurah, however, emphasizes that tearing the paper on the Sabbath is forbidden.
|
| 19. |
Since a shard is sharp and might tear one's membranes (Rashi, Shabbat 82a).
|
| 20. |
Because in this instance the shard is smooth and will not tear one's membranes. Since the shard comes from a useful article, it is not muktzeh, as the stones are.
|
| 21. |
Since the grass is useful as animal fodder, it is not considered muktzeh. Therefore, using it is preferable to using the stone. Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 312:6), which states that one may use grasses that are still attached to the ground, provided one does not uproot them.
|
| 22. |
If the grasses are firm, there is a possibility that their sharp edges will perforate one's membranes (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:5).
|
| 23. |
The Ramban states that if they were discarded before the commencement of the Sabbath, they are considered to be muktzeh. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim308:12).
|
| 24. |
The Maggid Mishneh cites the Ra'avad who states that this refers to the remnants of a tallit used for prayer, which are inappropriate to be used to clean filth. The Rambam, however, interprets this as referring to the remnants of all garments. Although the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:13) quotes both views, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 308:41 favors the Rambam's opinion, explaining that even though smaller pieces of cloth are fit to be used to clean filth, this does not cause them to be considered to be a כלי, "useful article," unless they are explicitly designated for this purpose. Therefore, they are placed in the category of muktzeh like stones.
|
| 25. |
The minimum size of a piece of cloth that is susceptible to ritual impurity (Hilchot Keilim 22:20).
|
| 26. |
Hilchot Keilim (op. cit.) mentions that a cloth three thumbbreadths by three thumbbreadths is fit only for the poor. A rich person, by contrast, will not consider a cloth valuable until it is a minimum of three handbreadths by three handbreadths. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 308:41 and the Mishnah Berurah 308:52 also apply these concepts with regard to our present halachah.
|
| 27. |
See Chapter 25, Halachah 12.
|
| 28. |
And thus perform a forbidden labor. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 308:16) applies this concept to other articles - e.g., a bench that has one leg broken off.
|
| 29. |
Hence, moving it at all is forbidden. (See Hilchot Eruvin 3:7, from which one can derive the following: A ladder leading to a loft is usually left there permanently. Therefore, it is a heavy structure that is not considered to be a כלי, a utensil, but rather a permanent part of the building's structure.)
|
| 30. |
Since it is usually moved from dovecote to dovecote, it is light and is therefore considered to be a כלי. Accordingly, if there were no room for suspicion that one would snare doves, one would be allowed to move it.
The Maggid Mishneh draws attention to Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 5:4, which states that the only reason the Sages permitted moving such a ladder on a holiday was to allow for festive joy (i.e., to permit one to bring doves to slaughter). Therefore, on the Sabbath, when slaughtering is forbidden, there is no reason to allow one to move such a ladder. A household ladder, by contrast, may be moved (Mishnah Berurah 308:78).
|
| 31. |
The Rambam describes the construction and use of such a rod in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 17:3).
|
| 32. |
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 313:1), which states that for a reed to be "categorized as a utensil," it is not sufficient merely to think about using it for that purpose; one must actually adapt the article to fit the purpose for which it is intended to be used.
|
| 33. |
I.e., it is used as a door stop. Thus, it resembles slightly the bolt mentioned in the following halachah.
|
| 34. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 313:1) mentions two perspectives on this matter. Rashi states that one must prepare the reed for use as a utensil that can be employed for other purposes. Otherwise, using it as a door stop will be considered to be building. Rabbenu Tam explains that as long as the reed is prepared for use as a door stop, it is sufficient.
Although in this halachah, the Rambam's perspective appears to follow that of Rashi, in his gloss to Chapter 23, Halachah 13, the Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam follows the position of Rabbenu Tam. The later authorities agree that one may rely on Rabbenu Tam's view (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 313:2; Mishnah Berurah 313:7).
|
| 35. |
Rashi and others explain that the difficulty with the doors mentioned in this halachah is that since they do not meet all the criteria of ordinary doors, closing an opening with them resembles building. The Rambam, by contrast, appears to maintain that the difficulty is whether doors of this nature are considered to be כלים, useful articles, or not. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim313:3) follows Rashi's view.
|
| 36. |
If the board used as a door lacks any sign of a hinge, it is not considered a כלי, a useful article, and carrying it is forbidden. In this instance, since it has the mark of a hinge, it was obviously used as a door in the past. Therefore, if it meets either of the other conditions mentioned by the Rambam, it may be moved on the Sabbath.
|
| 37. |
Our translation is based on Rashi (Eruvin 101a) and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.). More precisely, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 10:8), the Rambam defines the Hebrew term מוקצה as "a distinct place that is not used for any purpose, nor is it required by its owner - e.g., a barn or stable."
The Shulchan Aruch emphasizes that the ruling concerning moving the partition used as a door is dependent on the fact that this enclosure is used infrequently. If an entrance that is frequently used were closed with such a partition, it would be considered as having been set aside for this purpose. However, since this is not the case, there is reason for the restrictions mentioned.
|
| 38. |
According to the Rambam, the fact that they were attached to the wall before the Sabbath indicates that they were intended to be used as a door. According to Rashi, it is sufficient to indicate that one is not building on the Sabbath.
|
| 39. |
The Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam's wording appears to indicate that two criteria must be met: The partition used as a door must have at least the remnant of a hinge, and it must either be attached to the wall or be suspended above the ground. He objects to this conception, explaining that based on Eruvin 101a, it would appear that if a partition is suspended above the ground, it is considered to be a door even if it never had a hinge.
The Maggid Mishneh states, however, that it is possible that the Rambam also shares this conception. (Merkevet HaMishneh postulates that he surely does. Otherwise, the Rambam's words would be redundant, since it is impossible for a door to be suspended above the ground unless it hangs from the wall or is attached by a hinge.) The Maggid Mishneh's view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 313:3).
|
| 40. |
As in the previous halachah, Rashi and others explain that the reason the prohibition was instituted is that this door does not resemble an ordinary door. Hence, one appears to be building when closing it. The Rambam, by contrast, explains that the prohibition stems from the fact that the door is not prepared to serve as a כלי, a useful article. Therefore, moving it is forbidden, as explained in the previous chapter.
|
| 41. |
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 313:4), which states that even if the entrance has a doorstep, since it is uncommon to use a door made of a single piece of wood, such a door may not be used on the Sabbath. Moreover, the Shulchan Aruch continues, this prohibition applies even when the door has a hinge.
The Magen Avraham 313:8 and other later authorities, however, maintain that one may rely on the Rambam's opinion if a door is used frequently as an entrance and an exit. This is surely true in the present age, when it is very common for doors to be made from a single piece of wood.
|
| 42. |
Eruvin 10:10 relates that there was a synagogue in Tiberias that had such a bolt. Its congregants refrained from using it on the Sabbath until Rabban Gamliel and the elders ruled that using it was permitted.
In this instance as well, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit:1) is more stringent and requires the bolt to be tied to the door even when it has a bulb at the end. (See the following halachah and notes.)
|
| 43. |
For the fact that it is tied to the door clearly indicates that it has been set aside for a purpose.
|
| 44. |
This refers to an instance where the bolt is attached to a rope that is, in turn, attached to the door. If the bolt is removed by detaching the rope from the door and carrying the bolt and the rope together, the presence of the rope serves as an indication that the bolt has been set aside to be used for a significant purpose. Therefore, there is no prohibition involved. If, as in the following clause, the bolt is detached from the rope, there is nothing to indicate that it is a useful article. Hence, it is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's interpretation of the Hebrew ניטל באגדו. Instead, he offers a different explanation: that the rope with which the beam is attached to the door with a knot that is strong enough to hold the beam when it is removed. This is the interpretation that Rav Yosef Karo follows in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 313:1).
|
| 45. |
It was permitted to use such a bolt in the Temple, because none of the Rabbinic prohibitions in the category of sh'vut were in effect there. Outside of the Temple, using such a bolt was prohibited for the reasons mentioned by the Rambam (or according to others, because this resembles building, Eruvin 102a).
|
| 46. |
Rav Moshe Cohen of Lunil and others question the distinction between this halachah and Chapter 22, Halachah 30, which mentions a piece of wood that is used to close a window. TheMaggid Mishneh explains that in that instance, leniency was granted only when the piece of wood is prepared for that purpose. In the present halachah, by contrast, nothing has been done to indicate that the bolt is set aside for purposeful use.
It must be emphasized that the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) takes a different perspective and maintains that the restrictions were instituted lest it appear that one is building when using such a door. According to this perspective, unless the conditions mentioned above are met, it is forbidden to use this bolt, even if it was prepared for this purpose before the Sabbath.
|
| 47. |
This applies even when one has not lit this candelabrum at the commencement of the particular Sabbath in question. Had the candelabrum been lit at that time, carrying it would have been forbidden, as reflected by Chapter 25, Halachah 23.
|
| 48. |
See Chapter 22, Halachah 26.
|
| 49. |
The Kessef Mishneh questions the phrase "because of its weight," for seemingly Shabbat 46a considers that as another rationale for stringency, not at all dependent on the fact that the candelabrum has grooves. Indeed, these rationales offered by two separate sages seem to be mutually exclusive. He and other commentators attempt to resolve this difficulty. Rav Kapach notes that many authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah omit this problematic phrase.
|
| 50. |
In the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 279:7), Rav Yosef Karo follows the reasoning he mentions in his Kessef Mishneh and forbids the use of all candelabra with grooves, whether large or small.
|
| 51. |
A new shoe will most likely be firmly fixed on the shoemaker's block, and removing it would necessitate moving the block. This is, nevertheless, permitted, because the shoemaker's block is considered to be a utensil that is used for a forbidden intent. Accordingly, it may be moved when one desires to use the space it takes up - in this instance, the space within the shoe where one puts one's foot [Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 308:14)].
|
| 52. |
Rashi (Shabbat 141a) explains that putting clothes in a press is forbidden, because it appears to be an activity performed for the sake of the weekdays that follow, and not for sake of the Sabbath itself.
|
| 53. |
Rashi (loc. cit.) offers a different rationale for this prohibition: that setting up a professional press resembles building and opening it resembles the labor of demolishing. The Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 302:4) quotes Rashi's view.
|
| 54. |
Shabbat 49a,b mentions the use of such wool for the purpose of insulating food to keep it warm.
|
| 55. |
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 259:1), which follows the ruling of Rabbenu Asher (in his gloss on Shabbat 49a), who permits picking up such rolls if they are used as insulation, unless they are explicitly set aside for sale. Although these rolls are generally used for spinning wool, since they are not very valuable, the fact that they are employed for the purpose of insulation is sufficient for them to be considered to have been set aside for that purpose (Mishnah Berurah 259:6).
|
| 56. |
Note the Magen Avraham 259:2, which states that they must be set aside to be used for this purpose - e.g., insulation - forever. It is not sufficient that one decide to use them for this purpose on merely one Sabbath.
|
| 57. |
These are likely to be used as mats to sit on (Shabbat, loc. cit.).
|
| 58. |
The Ramah (Orach Chayim 308:25) mentions an opinion that states that this leniency applies only to cow hides, but not to sheep hides. The later authorities, however, do not accept this view (Mishnah Berurah 308:107).
|
| 59. |
It would appear that the Rambam's intent is that although these repulsive entities should be forbidden to be removed since they are not כלים, it is permitted to remove them because of the discomfort their presence causes.
|
| 60. |
I.e., this term is used as an idiom to describe all repulsive entities.
|
| 61. |
Note Chapter 11, Halachah 4, for a more specific definition of the Hebrew wording used.
|
| 62. |
The Ra'avad accepts the Rambam's ruling only when the warming-pan has coals that had turned to ash before the commencement of the Sabbath. The Ra'avad offers a different explanation of the leniency, stating that it is granted because the warming-pan is the base for a permitted article (the ash that existed before the commencement of the Sabbath) and a forbidden article (the remainder of the ash and the chips of wood). The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 310:8) quotes the Ra'avad's interpretation.
|
| 63. |
Our translation is based on the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 308:36).
|
| 64. |
Although the oil had not been separated before the commencement of the Sabbath, one is allowed to partake of it on the Sabbath. As mentioned previously, the Rambam follows the view of Rabbi Shimon (Shabbat 19b) who permits the use of nolad (objects that come into existence on the Sabbath).
|
| 65. |
In contrast to utensils that are forbidden in this instance, as mentioned in Chapter 25, Halachah 9.
|
| 66. |
See, however, the following halachah.
|
| 67. |
As examples of this principle, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 310:2) states that one may pick up seeds from the ground which fell before the Sabbath that have not become rooted or eggs that were laid before the Sabbath from beneath a chicken. (See also Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 1:18.)
|
| 68. |
I.e., fresh grapes and figs and dried grapes and figs are desirable foods. In the process by which these fruits dry out, they pass through a stage when they become repulsive.
|
| 69. |
The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) states that there are two drawbacks to such fruit: a) it is unfit to be eaten; b) the owners intentionally set it aside, not to be used until it became dried. Therefore, the restriction is placed upon it.
|
| 70. |
See Hilchot Rotzeach 11:9, which explains that partaking of such foods is forbidden, because it is possible that a poisonous snake deposited venom there.
|
| 71. |
See Chapter 19, Halachah 14.
|
| 72. |
See Chapter 5, Halachah 12 and Chapter 25, Halachah 10.
|
| 73. |
From the use of the word "begin," the Beis Yosef (Orach Chayim 331) derives the following ruling: If one begins emptying the storehouse before the commencement of the Sabbath, one may complete the removal of its contents on the Sabbath, even if one's purpose is not directly associated with a mitzvah.
The Turei Zahav 331:1 objects to this leniency, however, for this appears to be unnecessary work that should not be permitted on the Sabbath.
|
| 74. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 18:1, based on Shabbat 127a), the Rambam explains the reason that this restriction was instituted. It is very likely that there are grooves or cavities in the floor of a storeroom, and a person would be tempted to level the floor if he were allowed to empty the entire room. The Turei Zahav 333:1 explains that the prohibition was instituted to prevent a person from exerting himself excessively.
Significantly, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 331:1 quotes both rationales, indicating that they are not mutually exclusive.
|
| 75. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that this number is not intended as a limitation. Indeed, every person may take out as many containers as he needs at one time.
It must be emphasized that this interpretation is dependent on a version of Shabbat 126b-127a that is not accepted by many other authorities, including the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim333:1).
|
| 76. |
I.e., a single individual is not allowed to clear out the entire storehouse. Instead, each individual - or a substitute for him - must clear out the area he needs. Although one person may remove as many containers as he can carry at one time, he may not, however, return to take more (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit.). See also the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim333:3).
|
| 77. |
See Chapter 21, Halachah 2.
|
| 78. |
See the notes on Chapter 3, Halachah 12, for a more specific definition of the type of bean referred to.
|
| 79. |
Because they are very bitter, they are not eaten at all (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 80. |
A shrub whose roots penetrate deeply into the ground.
|
| 81. |
The Maggid Mishneh objects to the mention of mustard seed. Although it is used as food for doves, it is also commonly used to prepare food for humans. There is a general principle that whenever a substance is considered to be food both for animals and for humans, it is considered to be set aside for use for humans and not for animals. The Kessef Mishneh, however, justifies the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 82. |
A person should throw the shells - and similarly, any other waste left after eating - over his shoulder so that he will not create a repulsive situation on the table before him. For, as mentioned above (Halachah 13), at the outset creating a repulsive situation is forbidden (Maggid Mishneh). Significantly, this point is not emphasized by the later authorities.
|
| 83. |
Or dogs (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 308:31).
|
| 84. |
According to most authorities, although meat must be salted to remove the blood before cooking, there is no prohibition against eating uncooked unsalted meat. (See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 67:2.) Nevertheless, according to the Rambam (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 6:12), it is necessary to salt raw meat before one eats it. From the juxtaposition of these two rulings, Rav Kapach derives that, according to the Rambam, it is permitted to salt meat on the Sabbath to remove its blood.
|
| 85. |
For it is unfit for both human and animal consumption.
|
| 86. |
Rav Kapach explains that the intent is not that the broken glass is actually considered to be food by the ostriches. Instead, the intent is that ostriches have strong digestive organs, which will not be torn by the glass. As such, the glass will assist them in the process of digestion, because it will help shred the other food that they have consumed.
|
| 87. |
A wild vegetable of the onion family (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 18:1).
|
| 88. |
Nevertheless, a person who owns a species of animal that is rarely found may carry whatever food is necessary for it, even though it is not usually consumed by other animals (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 308:29).
|
| 89. |
Preparation is necessary, because we assume that these substances would ordinarily be used for kindling (Maggid Mishneh). Note the Magen Avraham 308:53, which states that straw is usually employed at present as a mattress or for animal fodder. Hence, it is permitted to be carried even though it was not prepared before the Sabbath.
|
| 90. |
At times these substances are used for kindling, at times for animal fodder, and at times for other purposes that serve humans.
|
| 91. |
Since these substances are less likely to be used for kindling, everything depends on the person's intent when he brought them home. Note the Magen Avraham 321:1, which states that if one brings them home without any specific intent, they are considered to be animal fodder. (See also Chapter 21, Halachah 19.)
|
| 92. |
This is forbidden, lest one follow the same practice in an earthen feeding trough.
|
| 93. |
Note the Mishneh Berurah 324:41, which gives another reason for the prohibition against shifting food to the side: Some of the straw has surely become repulsive and is no longer fit to be carried.
|
| 94. |
For an ox will not hesitate to eat food from before a donkey.
|
| 95. |
Because oxen chew their cud.
|
| 96. |
The Mishnah Berurah 324:37 emphasizes that the intent is that an animal of another species will not eat food that is soiled with the spittle of an ox. One ox will, however, eat food that is soiled with the spittle of another ox.
|
| 97. |
The Maggid Mishneh explains that, in contrast to a meat hook, a fish hook is not a proper utensil and will be discarded after use. Hence, it may not be carried on the Sabbath. Rav Kapach objects to this interpretation, noting that if this explanation were correct, it would have been more appropriate to state this halachah in Chapter 25, which differentiates between entities that are considered utensils and those that are not.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 310:1) states that it is permitted to carry a fish hook, because it is not considered too repulsive to move.
|
| 98. |
All the leniencies mentioned in this halachah are intended to inhibit the process of the corpse's decomposition.
|
| 99. |
Moving the pillow, and not the corpse, by hand. Although the corpse will also be moved, this is of no consequence.
|
| 100. |
If a corpse is covered by blankets or sheets, it is possible that they will serve as insulator and keep heat from diffusing, thus causing the corpse to decompose more quickly.
|
| 101. |
For this would involve moving a limb (Rashi, Shabbat 151b).
|
| 102. |
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 311:13 and the Mishnah Berurah 311:22 relate that, based on the Zohar, it has become customary to close a corpse's eyes and straighten its limbs on the Sabbath, for the failure to do so will lead to danger.
|
| 103. |
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 311:4), which mentions an opinion that allows a corpse to be carried if it is dressed in the clothes it wore while it was alive. Shulchan Aruch HaRav311:10 accepts this ruling; the Mishnah Berurah 311:16, by contrast, does not.
|
| 104. |
Thus, it is as if the corpse were merely a medium to enable one to carry the bread or the baby.
|
| 105. |
This refers to carrying a corpse within a private domain. (See also Halachah 23 and notes.)
|
| 106. |
If a baby or a loaf of bread is not available, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 311:1) allows one to move a corpse by shifting it from one bed to another. The Ramah (loc. cit.:2) offers another alternative - to have a gentile carry the corpse.
|
| 107. |
Spreading the mats constitutes the construction of a temporary tent. This is permitted only because of the discomfort suffered by a living person, and not for the sake of preserving the corpse. Therefore, it is necessary to undertake all the stages in this process, so that it will not be obvious that this is being done for the sake of the corpse (Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch HaRav 311:11; Mishnah Berurah 311:19).
|
| 108. |
Or will shortly reach that state (Ramah, Orach Chayim 311:2).
|
| 109. |
The Maggid Mishneh notes that the Rambam does not mention carrying the corpse with a baby or a loaf of bread on it, as in Halachah 21. The commentaries differ on whether this is necessary. The Rashba maintains that it is desirable to place another article on the corpse, so that one will be carrying the corpse for the sake of a permitted article.
The Ramban, by contrast, explains that since one is carrying the corpse into a carmelit and violating a Rabbinic prohibition associated with a forbidden labor, it is preferable to minimize the violation of that prohibition by not carrying another article. Although the prohibition against carrying an entity (the corpse) that is muktzeh will be violated in a more serious way, it is preferable to violate that prohibition (which is associated with a sh'vut) than the prohibition against carrying into a carmelit, which has its source in the forbidden labor of transferring articles.
Although the Rashba's view is accepted by the later authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 311:2;Mishnah Berurah 311:9), one may rely on the Ramban's view if there is not another useful article available, and carry the corpse out without anything else.
|
| 110. |
The corpse may be carried into a carmelit, but not into a public domain (Shulchan Aruch HaRav311:5; Mishnah Berurah 311:10).
The Tur allows carrying a corpse even into the public domain; since one does not intend to use the corpse, carrying it is a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, and the prohibition against performing such an activity is waived in this instance. The Rambam would surely not accept this premise, for he maintains that one is liable according to the Torah for performing a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. Even the later Ashkenazic authorities who accept the basic principle of the Tur do not accept this leniency.
|
| 111. |
See Hilchot Mamrim 1:2, which interprets this as a commandment prohibiting us from transgressing a directive instituted by the Rabbis. All the Rabbinic commandments have their source in this mitzvah from the Torah. See also Hilchot Kilayim 10:29.
|
| 112. |
The commentaries emphasize that this ruling indicates that according to the Rambam, the main source for leniency is the regard for the honor of the living, that they are forced to remain in a house permeated by the odor of a decaying corpse.
[It is possible to explain that according to the view of the Ramah cited in Note 106, the honor of the corpse is also considered, and removing it is allowed even if the people in the home have an alternative place to spend the Sabbath (Mishnah Berurah 311:7)].
|
Maaser - Chapter 10
Halacha 1
When a person makes a commitment to be considered trustworthy1 with regard to the tithes [so that] his produce will not be considered as demai, he must tithe [the produce] he eats,2 that which he sells, and that which he purchases,3 and he must not accept the hospitality of a common person. He must make these commitments in public.4 When trustworthy witnesses5 [testify] that he made these commitments in public and that he continually observe these practices, he is considered trustworthy [and his word is accepted if] he says that his produce has been tithed.
Halacha 2
Every Torah scholar is always considered trustworthy. There is no necessity to investigate his [conduct]. His children, the members of his household, his servants, and his wife, are given the same status. When a Torah scholar dies and leaves produce, even if it was gathered on the day of his death, we assume that [the appropriate separations were made].6
Halacha 3
When the daughter of a common person or his wife7 marries a chavair or the servant8 [of a common person] was sold to a chavair, they must accept the [above] requirements as at the outset.9 When the daughter of a chavair or his wife marries a common person or the servant [of a chavair] was sold to a common person, we assume that they maintain their observance10 until they act in a manner that arouses suspicion. A son or a servant of a chavair who would frequently visit a common person must formally accept [the above requirements].11When a son or a servant of a common person would frequently visit a chavair, as long as he is in his domain, he is considered like a chavair. When he departs, he is considered as a common person.12
Halacha 4
When a person himself is not considered as trustworthy, but one of his sons or servants or another member of his family is, food may be taken from him based on their statements.13 We do not harbor suspicions concerning the matter.
Halacha 5
If a person was considered trustworthy, but his wife was not considered trustworthy,14 we may purchase produce from him,15 but we do not accept his hospitality. If his wife is trustworthy and he is not, we may accept his hospitality, but we do not purchase produce from him. May a curse be visited on one whose wife is trustworthy, but he is not.
Halacha 6
A chavair should not serve as a waiter at a drinking party or a feast of a common person unless all [the food and drink] have been tithed and the appropriate separations made under his supervision.16 Therefore if one sees achavair serving at a drinking party or a feast of a common person, he can operate under the presumption that the tithes and other separations have been made.17
If we see such a person eating together with a common person, we cannot assume that the food served at the feast has been tithed. Perhaps the chavairis relying on the stipulations made in his heart.18
Halacha 7
Just as a person may eat with a common person and rely on the conditions in his heart, so too, he must make a stipulation with regard to what his son eats.19[This applies] even if his son is in another place.20 He does not have to make a stipulation with regard to another person aside from his son even if that person was together with him at the feast.
Therefore if the son of a chavair is present at a feast with a common person, we cannot assume that the food was tithed, for perhaps [the chavair] made a stipulation for [the food] his son ate.21
Halacha 8
When a common person gives a meah22 to a chavair and tells him: "Buy me a bunch of vegetables or a cake," he may purchase it for him without any qualification and is not obligated to tithe it.23 If [the agent] exchanged the meah, he is obligated to tithe [the produce he purchased].24
If the chavair was explicit and did not buy the produce without explanation, but instead said: "This bunch of produce that I am purchasing from you is being bought for my colleague and this bunch is being bought for myself," he is obligated to tithe [only] the produce that he took for himself. He does not have to tithe [the bunch he purchased for his colleague].25If these [two batches of produce] became intermingled, even if one measure [belonging to the chavair] becomes mixed with 100 [belonging to the common person], he must make the separations as if the entire quantity was demai.26 [Only] afterwards27 may he give the produce to the colleague who sent him to purchase them for him.
Halacha 9
When five people tell one person: "Bring us five bunches of vegetables," and [the agent] brings each person one bunch individually, the chavairim among [the recipients] are required to tithe only their portions.28 If [the agent] brought [the entire quantity] mixed together, the chavairim among [the recipients] are required to separate tithes for the entire amount.29
Halacha 10
When a common person tells a chavair: "Collect figs for me from my fig tree," the chavair may snack from them30 and tithe them as one tithes demai.31
If a chavair told a common person to gather figs for him and another chavairheard him, the latter may partake [of the figs] without tithing them. [The rationale is that] a chavair will not release produce from his domain unless the appropriate separations were made. [Thus] we can assume that [the owner] separated [terumah and the tithes for this produce] from other [produce]. Although [generally] we do not suspect that a chavair will separate terumahfrom produce that is not in the same place as the terumah,32 he may do so to prevent the common person from confronting a spiritual stumbling block.33
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
The collectors of charity collect from all people36 without clarifying [whether separations have been made] and they divide the donations without specifications. If one desires to make the appropriate separations, he should.
Halacha 13
When a doctor who is a chavair is feeding a common person who is sick37 from the produce of a common person, he should place [the food] in his hand, but not in his mouth.38 If the demai belonged to the doctor, he should not even place it in his hand. And similarly, if he knows that it is definitely tevel,39 it is forbidden to place it in his hand.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Such a person is called a chavair. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 2:3), the Rambam explains that this term is used because, as indicated by the following halachah, the term refers to Torah scholars. Chavair means "friend." This term is appropriate to be used with regard to Torah scholars, because since their friendship is based on the Torah, it is true friendship, for its motivation is for the sake of heaven.
|
| 2. |
Whether his own produce or produce he is given by others.
|
| 3. |
Both produce that he purchases for his own consumption and that which he purchases for commercial purposes.
|
| 4. |
From Hilchot Tumat Mishkav UMoshav 10:5, it appears that he must make these statements in the presence of three people who are themselves considered as trustworthy in this regard.
|
| 5. |
I.e., witnesses who meet the criteria for acceptable witnesses spelled out in Hilchot Edut.
|
| 6. |
I.e., we assume that he separated the tithes from the produce before he died, for "We can presume that a chavair will not release anything from under his hand unless the appropriate separations have been made" (Pesachim 9a).
|
| 7. |
I.e., after she is divorced or widowed from the common person.
|
| 8. |
I.e., a Canaanite servant, for a Jewish servant is not sold to another master (Hilchot Avadim4:10).
|
| 9. |
I.e., if a woman or servant does not have a history of non-observance, it is assumed that when they become part of a chavair's home, they will accept the standards of the home. In this instance, however, because they have a history of non-observance, they must formally accept the chavair's standards.
|
| 10. |
This applies even when they are in the common person's domain.
|
| 11. |
I.e., since he freely associates with the common people, we suspect that he has accepted certain dimensions of their lifestyle.
|
| 12. |
Rambam LeAm compares the final two clauses of this halachah and draws an ethical lesson. It is more likely that a person with proper habits will become lax due to the bad habits of a friend than a person with improper habits will change to the better due a friend's positive influence.
|
| 13. |
I.e., if they state that the appropriate separations have been made from the produce, we accept their word.
|
| 14. |
The Jerusalem Talmud (Demai 2:2) compares this to dwelling with a snake in its den.
|
| 15. |
For the sale of produce will be under his direct supervision.
|
| 16. |
I.e., he cannot rely on the common person's word that the separations have been made. He must supervise the separations himself.
|
| 17. |
To cite a contemporary application of this concept: If one sees a mashgiach, kashrut supervisor, in a restaurant, one may assume that the food is kosher.
|
| 18. |
As explained in Chapter 9, Halachot 7-11, a chavair may eat at a common person's home and separate the tithes by leaving over portions of food. He separates the tithes for his portion alone and not for all the food served. If he is serving the meal, the responsibility for the kashrut of the food is his. If he is merely dining, he has no general responsibility as stated in the following halachah.
|
| 19. |
I.e., just as the previous halachah explains how the chavair must make stipulations for himself, so too, he must make stipulations for his son.
|
| 20. |
The son was eating together with a common person, but the father was not.
|
| 21. |
As the previous halachah stated with regard to his own self.
|
| 22. |
A silver coin of little value employed in the Talmudic era.
|
| 23. |
I.e., as stated in Halachah 1, a chavair must tithe what he buys and sells. Nevertheless, in this instance, he is not considered as buying or selling, but merely as acting as an agent for the common person.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 6:12), the Rambam elaborates in his description of this situation, explaining that we are speaking about a situation where the seller of the produce is also a chavair and knows that the other chavair has been sent by the common person to purchase produce. If the chavair who is the agent asks to purchase produce without qualifying his statements and explaining who he is purchasing it for, the seller must give him tithed produce. For he knows that the agent is purchasing for the common person and he does not want to cause the common person to sin.
|
| 24. |
If the seller sees that the agent uses his own money, he might suspect that he is purchasing the produce for himself and not for the common person. Hence, the seller might not tithe the produce (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 25. |
The seller will not give him untithed produce for the common person, because he fears that he will partake of it without tithing it. He may, however, give the chavair untithed produce, for he knows that the chavair will not partake of it without tithing it (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnahloc. cit.).
|
| 26. |
We do not apply the principle of bereirah and say that the produce that the agent takes as his own was in fact the produce from which he separated the tithes.
All the above applies if the purchaser does not ask the seller if the produce was tithed. If, however, he asks the seller and the seller states that the produce was tithed, the agent does not have to make any separations, since the seller is also trustworthy (ibid.). Kin'at Eliyahu questions the very basis of the Rambam's assumption. For if the seller is a chavair, he would always tithe his produce and there would be no obligation to tithe produce purchased from him. See also the Radbaz who understands the halachah as speaking about a seller who is a common person.
|
| 27. |
I.e., after he separated the tithes.
|
| 28. |
We do not require them to separate tithes for the entire amount. They are not responsible for the portion of the other individuals.
|
| 29. |
Since the portion belonging to the common person is not distinct, we do not apply the principle ofbereirah (Radbaz). Thus when making the division, it is as if each person is selling to the other (Kessef Mishneh). Alternatively, the agent indeed purchased the produce for all five individuals and then the entire mixture became intermingled (Rav Yosef Korcus).
|
| 30. |
Without tithing. Since a present is not like a sale (Chapter 5, Halachah 6), he is not considered to have purchased the figs from the common person. That would have required him to tithe (Radbaz).
|
| 31. |
If he desires to eat a significant meal of them. He cannot be certain that the produce is untithed, because it is possible that the common person separated the tithes from other produce (ibid.). The Kessef Mishneh, by contrast, explains that there is an error in the text and he is in fact making separations from produce that is definitely untithed.
|
| 32. |
See Hilchot Terumah 3:17 with regard to the great terumah, ibid.:20 with regard to terumat ma'aser.
|
| 33. |
For we fear that the common person will partake of the produce without separating the tithes and thus without separating terumat ma'aser. We do not, however, fear that the common person will partake of produce without separating the great terumah.
|
| 34. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 3:1), the Rambam explains that this wording implies that the poor are given only one meal's worth of food. If they are given a substantial amount, they must make the appropriate separations. Support for this leniency can be derived from the fact that the majority of the common people do in fact separate the tithes.
|
| 35. |
Without separating tithes from it. This is a leniency instituted so that people will give charity and show hospitality (ibid.).
Although guests may themselves be wealthy, since they are required to accept hospitality, they are considered as poor (Meiri, Sukkah 35b).
|
| 36. |
I.e., even common people.
|
| 37. |
But not in mortal danger. Needless to say, if the sick person is in mortal danger, any prohibition can be violated to save his life. A person who is not dangerously ill is generally not permitted to partake of any substance that is forbidden by Rabbinic decree (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah155:3). Nevertheless, since the prohibition against demai is more of a safeguard than an outright ban, leniency was granted.
|
| 38. |
So that he will not be directly responsible for feeding him demai.
|
| 39. |
Even if it belongs to the common person.
|
Maaser - Chapter 11
Halacha 1
It is forbidden to sell demai to a common person or to send demai [as a present to a common person], because one assists him in partaking of forbidden food. It can, however, be sold or sent to a Torah scholar, for a Torah scholar will not partake of it until he tithes it or until a trustworthy person tells him that it has been tithed.1
Halacha 2
All of those who add to the measure when they sell in large quantities, e.g., wholesalers and grain merchants are permitted to sell and send demai [as a present].2 Since they add to the measure,3 our Sages ordained that the purchaser or the recipient be the one who separates the tithes from the demai.4When, by contrast, people measure with a small measure, since the seller is the one who profits, he should make the separations. [Hence,] he should not sell or send [produce] unless the appropriate separations have been made.
Halacha 3
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
If one of them, [either the seller or the buyer] - whether the sale is made with a small measure or a large measure9 - says: "Come let us make the separations for this produce," the seller should separate terumat ma'aser and the purchaser should separate the second tithe.10 This is an edict of the court.
Halacha 6
When a chavair and a common person inherit [the estate] of their father who was a common person,11 [the chavair] may say: "Take the wheat in this-and-this place and I will take the wheat in this-and-that place. Take the wine in this-and-this place and I will take the wine in this-and-that place."12 He should not say: "Take wheat and I will take the barley. Take the produce that is fresh and I will take what is dry," for this is considered as selling demai.13
Halacha 7
When a person is carrying [a load of] vegetables,14 his load becomes heavy for him and he desires to cast some vegetables on the road to lessen his burden, he should not cast them away until he tithes them.15 [This is necessary] so that it shall not create a stumbling block for the common people who consumedemai.
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
[The following laws apply when a person] discovers produce on the way. If the majority [of the local populace] bring the produce to their homes, he is not required to tithe it, for the obligation to tithe has not yet taken effect.19 If, however, the majority bring it to sell in the marketplace, it is considered asdemai.20 If the ratio is half and half, it is considered as demai.21
Halacha 10
If a person took [the produce]22 with the intent of partaking of it and changed his mind [and decided to] store it, he should not keep it until he tithes it, so that it will not present a stumbling block to others.23 If he took it originally only so that it would not perish,24 he can store it25 until he desires to partake of it, send it [as a present], or sell it. At that point, he should tithe it as demai.
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
When a person gives [produce] to a female inn-keeper to cook or bake for him,31 he must tithe what he gives her - lest it present a stumbling block to others32 - and what he receives from her,33 for she is suspect to exchange produce belonging to one person for that belonging to another. He may, by contrast, give produce to his mother-in-law - whether her daughter is his arusahor his wife34 - or to his neighbor to cook or bake for him and he need not show concern, neither for tithes, nor for produce of the Sabbatical year,35 because [these individuals] are not suspect to exchange produce.36
When does the above apply? When he [also] gave her yeast for a dough and spices for a cooked dish. If he did not, we must show concern because of the tithes and because of [produce of] the Sabbatical year.37 Therefore in the Sabbatical year, [the bread] is forbidden, for perhaps the yeast came from produce that grew in the Sabbatical year.
Halacha 13
When a person brings wheat38 to a miller who is a common person he may assume that their status is unchanged.39 He is not suspect to exchange it [for other wheat].40If he brought them to a gentile miller, they are demai; [we suspect] that he exchanged it for the wheat of a common person.41 Similarly, if one entrusts [produce] to a common person for safe-keeping, it is permitted. He is not suspect to exchange the produce entrusted to him.42
Halacha 14
Halacha 15
When produce was entrusted to a gentile for safekeeping, [the produce one receives is] considered as the gentile's produce, for we assume that he exchanged it for his own produce.
What are laws that govern it? If the tasks necessary to prepare the produce were not completed as of yet and they were completed by the Jew after he took back the produce he entrusted, he must separate the tithes as we explained.45If the produce that he entrusted was tevel and the tasks necessary for its preparation were completed, he is obligated to separate the tithes, for perhaps the gentile did not exchange it. For this reason, it appears to me, that the status of the tithes he separates is doubtful.46
If he entrusted ordinary produce from which the required separations were made, he is not obligated to separate anything, for even if the gentile exchanged [it for his own], it is exempt. As we explained in Hilchot Terumot,47[the obligation to tithe] is on "your grain," and not the grain of a gentile.48
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Produce which definitely has not been tithed may not be sent even to a Torah scholar. It may, however, be sent to him in a pressing situation (Chapter 6, Halachah 6).
|
| 2. |
I.e., to Torah scholars, but not to common people, as stated in the previous halachah.
|
| 3. |
And the purchaser receives more than what he deserves [the Rambam's Commnentary to the Mishnah (Demai 2:4)].
|
| 4. |
Hence, the purchaser must assume that the produce is untithed.
|
| 5. |
A se'ah is 8.3 liter in modern measure according to Shiurei Torah and 16.2 liter according toChazon Ish.
|
| 6. |
A dinar is a silver coin of significant value.
|
| 7. |
I.e., instead of weighing the produce, the seller gives the purchaser a full basket or container, whatever its weight might be. One might think that since the seller is selling by estimation, he is considered as being generous like the wholesalers mentioned above. The Rambam (based onDemai 2:5) teaches us that this is not so.
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that the mishnah quotes Rabbi Yossi as exempting the seller in this situation and does not mention a differing opinion. The Radbaz and theKessef Mishneh explain that the wording of the mishnah indicates that Rabbi Yossi's view is being cited as a minority opinion and not as a view accepted by all.
|
| 8. |
I.e., he must make the required separations first.
|
| 9. |
I.e., the individual who would not be obligated to make the separations suggests that they be made as a joint effort, thus obligating himself even though he would otherwise be exempt (Radbaz in response to the Ra'avad).
|
| 10. |
I.e., the separations are not made equally.
|
| 11. |
And thus we cannot assume that the produce was tithed beforehand.
|
| 12. |
I.e., it is not considered as if he is exchanging one batch of produce for another and he is not required to separate tithes for his brother's portion. The rationale is that with regard to matters concerning Rabbinic Law, including demai, we apply the principle of bereirah, and retroactively - after the division of the property has been made - we consider that from the outset, it was as if the estate had originally been bequeathed to each of the sons separately, according to this division.
|
| 13. |
For we do not apply the principle of bereirah with regard to two different types of produce.
|
| 14. |
I.e., produce that is demai which had reached the stage where the tithes were required to be separated from it.
|
| 15. |
If produce is declared hefker, ownerless, before the obligation to tithe becomes incumbent upon it, there is no need to tithe it afterwards. If, however, that obligation has already taken effect, declaring produce ownerless does not remove that obligation (see Chapter 3, Halachah 20; Radbaz).
|
| 16. |
I.e., produce that is demai which had reached the stage where the tithes were required to be separated from it.
|
| 17. |
I.e., the owner of the store must consent to accept the produce, for as explained in the following note, the purchaser has already acquired the produce. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 3:2).
|
| 18. |
According to Rabbinic Law, once a person draws movable property (the vegetables) into his possession, he acquires it. The fact that he does not perform any of the other activities mentioned does not detract from his acquisition. Hence, by returning it to the seller, he is in effect selling it back to him. Hence, he is required to tithe it.
|
| 19. |
Since the obligation to tithe will take effect when the person brings it home, we assume that he tithed it. Hence, the person who discovers it is not required to tithe it again [(the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 2:10)]. It must be noted that the Radbaz and many other commentaries offer different interpretations of this law. Indeed, the Rambam in Chapter 3, Halachah 22, appears to operate according to another perspective.
|
| 20. |
The person bringing his produce to the marketplace may not tithe it until he reaches there, because until that point it is not common to partake of it in an substantial manner only as a snack. Hence, it is possible that it is tevel (ibid.). Nevertheless, the possibility also exists that the tithes have been separated and hence it is considered as demai.
|
| 21. |
As a safeguard. One might ask: Seemingly, the situation is a sefek-sefeikah, a situation where the doubt is compounded, i.e., perhaps it came from those who bring it home. Even if it came from those who bring it to the marketplace, perhaps these individuals tithed it. Nevertheless, extra stringency is shown with regard to the prohibition against demai than is shown with regard to other prohibitions (Kessef Mishneh to Halachah 13).
|
| 22. |
I.e., produce discovered in a community where it is customary to bring produce to the marketplace.
|
| 23. |
I.e., the members of his household who might partake of it under the impression that it has been tithed.
|
| 24. |
I.e., he took it without the intent of acquiring it as his own, but only to protect it from enemy armies, a fire, or the like [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 3:3)].
|
| 25. |
Without tithing it. Since he did not acquire it as his own, he is under no obligation to tithe it.
|
| 26. |
I.e., the leaves pruned by a gardener. Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ediot 3:3). Compare to Hilchot Terumah 11:10.
|
| 27. |
For they discard produce that is really unsuitable for ordinary consumption.
|
| 28. |
The tops and the stems of vegetables that are discarded by a homeowner when preparing the vegetables to be served.
|
| 29. |
For even though the homeowner may not desire to serve them, they are still fit to be eaten.
|
| 30. |
For they are no longer considered as food.
|
| 31. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 3:5), the Rambam explains that guests would give the mistress of an inn flour and meat and she would prepare meals for them. As the Rambam states, this woman is suspect to exchange the food given for other food of the same type, but of lesser quality. She rationalizes that since she cooks for her guests for little or no payment, she is entitled to make this exchange (Chullin 6b).
|
| 32. |
I.e., he must tithe the produce he gives her, lest she give it to others and they partake of it without tithing it.
|
| 33. |
Lest she have given him untithed produce.
|
| 34. |
According to Jewish Law, marriage is a two-staged process involving erusin, "consecration," andnisuin, "marriage." After erusin, the marriage bond has been established and the woman cannot marry another man without a divorce. Nevertheless, the couple do not begin living together as man and wife until the second stage, nisuin. The Rambam is clarifying that even if the couple have not begun living together, he still trusts his mother-in-law.
|
| 35. |
I.e., we do not suspect that he gave produce from the sixth year and these women exchanged it for produce of the seventh year which is forbidden.
|
| 36. |
This appears to represent a reversal of the Rambam's ruling in his Commentary to Mishnah (Demai 3:6). The Radbaz explains that the Rambam's ruling here is based on the Jerusalem Talmud.
|
| 37. |
For even though she is not suspect to exchange, we fear that she used forbidden yeast or spices.
|
| 38. |
From which the tithes have already been separated.
|
| 39. |
Both with regard to tithes and the prohibitions of the Sabbatical year.
|
| 40. |
Though we suspect that he is lax in his observance of the mitzvah of tithing, we do not suspect that he will commit a transgression that involves a colleague's money (see Gittin 61b).
|
| 41. |
Who also gave him wheat to grind without separating the tithes from it [the Rambam's Commentary to Mishnah (Demai 3:6)]. We do not know whether he tithed them. Therefore, they are considered as demai.
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling: Seemingly, the situation is one of compounded doubt (sefek-sefeikah). Perhaps the gentile did not exchange the grain. Even if he exchanged it, perhaps he exchanged it with grain from a common person which need be tithed only because of a doubt. (The Ra'avad himself accepts the Rambam's ruling, but uses it as support for his thesis that there is an obligation for a Jew to tithe produce belonging to a gentile if it comes into his possession, for he maintains that the possibility is that the gentile exchanged it with his own produce.)
The Kessef Mishneh does not accept that thesis and instead offers a resolution, explaining that extra stringency is shown with regard to the prohibition against demai than is shown with regard to other prohibitions. He supports that contention based on Shabbat 23a which states that the majority of the common people separate tithes and yet our Sages imposed stringencies.
|
| 42. |
With regard to produce given to a gentile for safekeeping, see Halachah 15.
|
| 43. |
Without tithing.
|
| 44. |
And is not involved in the management of every particular of its operation. This reflects a general principle with regard to questions involving the kashrut of a person's produce. As long as the owner makes his presence known from time to time, his workers - even gentiles - are not suspected to exchange his produce with other produce.
Implied is that if the owner does not enter from time to time, we would suspect that the worker would exchange the produce. The Radbaz notes that the previous ruling implies that a Jew who is a common person would not be suspect to exchange the produce even if the owner did not enter from time to time. He therefore suggests that this phrase be omitted from the text. There are, however, other commentaries who offer explanations why a manager is judged more stringently than the bailee mentioned in the previous halachah. After all, he is working on an ongoing basis.
|
| 45. |
Hilchot Terumot 1:11.
|
| 46. |
I.e., since it is possible that the gentile did exchange, it is possible that there is no obligation to tithe.
|
| 47. |
Hilchot Terumot, loc cit..
|
| 48. |
We do not suspect that the gentile exchanged the grain with grain belonging to a Jew who did not separate the tithes, because it is not that common for people to entrust their produce to others. In contrast, people do bring containers of grain to a miller. Hence as mentioned in Halachah 13, we fear that the miller exchanged one person's grain with another's (the Radbaz and Kessef Mishnehin resolution of the Ra'avad's objections).
|
Maaser - Chapter 12
Halacha 1
When a person purchases produce from a person upon whom we do not rely with regard to the tithes1 and forgot2 to tithe it before the commencement of the Sabbath or a festival - upon which he may not tithe it3 - he should ask that person regarding their status. If he tells him that it is tithed, he may rely on his word on [that] Sabbath.4
Similarly, if another person upon whom we cannot rely tells him that it was tithed, he may partake of it because of his word on that Sabbath.5 [This applies] even if he possesses other produce of that type from which the separations have been made. [The rationale is that] the awe of Sabbath affects the common people and they will not violate a transgression on that day.
Halacha 2
Even though one relies on the word of a common person to eat on the Sabbath, he should not partake of that produce after the conclusion of the Sabbath until he separates the tithes as appropriate for demai for the entire amount, what he ate on the Sabbath and what remains. For the leniency [to] trust him was granted only out of necessity for that Sabbath.6
If the Sabbath and a festival followed in succession,7 if one asked [a common person concerning produce] on one, he may partake of it on the other,8because he did not have the opportunity to tithe in the interim. Similar laws apply with regard to the two days [for each festival celebrated] in the Diaspora.
Halacha 3
When a person takes an oath9 that a colleague partake of his hospitality on the Sabbath, but [the guest] does not trust [the host] with regard to tithes, he may ask him10 and eat based on his statements the first Sabbath. On the second Sabbath, even though he took an oath not to benefit from him unless he accepts his hospitality, he should not eat until he tithes as one does for demai.
Halacha 4
When we see a person who is not trustworthy11 [with regard to the separation of tithes] separate terumat ma'aser from produce belonging to him that is demaiand we saw that it later fell back in, whether to that [store of produce] or another and he said: "I separated it,"12 we accept his word - even during the week - and may partake of the produce on that basis. Just as the common people are in dread of the Sabbath,13 so too, they are in dread of dimua,14 and they are not suspect to cause others to partake of such produce.15
Halacha 5
When we see that a person who is not trustworthy separates the first tithes from such produce and he says that he separated the second tithes, his word is accepted.16 If he separated the second tithe in our presence and said that he separated the first tithe, his word is not accepted, because the second tithe belongs to him.17 [Thus] one who is trusted with regard to the second tithe is not trusted with regard to the first, but one who is trusted with regard to the first is trusted with regard to the second.
Accordingly, when a person who is not trusted brings produce from his home and says: "This is the first tithe," his word is accepted18 and there is no need to separate terumot19 and tithes20 from [the produce separated].21 If he says: "This is the second tithe," his word is not accepted. [The produce separated] is considered as demai and we must separate terumat ma'aser from it. It appears to me that he must redeem the entire amount.22
Halacha 6
When one tells a person whose word is not accepted with regard to the tithes: "Purchase [produce] for me who tithes." And that person went and brought him produce, his word is not accepted.23 If he told him: "Purchase [produce] for me from so-and-so," the other person's word is accepted if he says that he purchased it from him, for he will fear [to lie], lest [the principal] ask that person.24 If he went to purchase [the produce] from the person who was named, but said: "I could not find him, so I purchased it for you from another person who is trustworthy," his word is not accepted.
Halacha 7
[The following rules apply when a person] enters a city where he does not know anyone and asks: "Who is trustworthy? Who tithes?" If someone answers: "I am," his word is not accepted.25 If he says: "So-and-so," his word is accepted26and [the wayfarer] may purchase [produce] from that person and eat on that basis. If [the wayfarer] went and purchased from that person and asked him: "Who here sells vintage wine?" and the person answers: "The one who sent you," his word is accepted even though it appears that they are in collusion.27
Halacha 8
When does the above apply? When [the wayfarer] is not familiar with any person in that place.28 If, however, he is familiar with people there, he should purchase only from a person [with an established reputation] for observance.29If he stays in that place for 30 days, even if he is not familiar with anyone there, he should purchase produce only from an expert.30
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
When a person sells produce in Syria35 and says that it comes from Eretz Yisrael,36 the purchaser is required to tithe it.37 If he says that it has been tithed, his word is accepted.38 [The rationale is that] the same person whose words aroused our suspicion also allayed it.39
If he says: "They are mine,"40 [the purchaser] is obligated to tithe it.41 If he says that it has been tithed, his word is accepted. [The rationale is that] the same statement that aroused our suspicion also allayed it. If it is known that [the seller] owns land in Syria and most [of the produce] he sells is from his own field, one who purchases from him is obligated to tithe,42 for we assume that he brought the produce from his own field.
Halacha 12
Halacha 13
What is implied?47 [Poor people say:] "This wheat is from leket, shichachah,and pe'ah,"48 their word is accepted.49 [If they say:] "This flour50 from leket, shichachah, and pe'ah," their word is not accepted.51 Needless to say, their word is not accepted when they say that bread comes from presents to the poor. Instead, [such articles] should be tithed as demai is.
Halacha 14
Similarly, their word is accepted with regard to kernels of rice [while in their husks]. Their word is not accepted, however, with regard to husked kernels or cooked ones.52 Their word is accepted with regard to beans [in their kernels]. Their word is not accepted, however, with regard to raw, husked beans or cooked beans.
Their word is accepted when they say that oil was from the tithe for the poor. Their word is not accepted, however, if they say it comes from leftover olives.53Their word is accepted with regard to raw vegetables, but not with regard to cooked vegetables unless we are speaking about a small quantity. For it is customary for homeowners to give a poor person some vegetables from their pot. And since he can say: "A homeowner gave it to me," he can say: "I cooked it from the presents given me."54
Halacha 15
Similarly, the word of a Levite55 who says: "This produce is from the first tithe from which terumah was separated" is always56 accepted with regard toterumat ma'aser,57 just as the word of an Israelite is always accepted with regard to the great terumah.58 [The Levite's59 word] is not accepted, however, with regard to exempting [the grain] from the second tithe.60
Halacha 16
All of the above61 applies with regard to a common person who is neither suspect [to violate these prohibitions], nor trustworthy [in their observance]. If, however, someone is suspected of selling terumah as ordinary produce, it is forbidden to purchase anything from him that has a connection to terumah and the tithes.62 Even the intestines of fish [may not be purchased from him] because oil is mixed with them.63 It is, however, only forbidden to purchase the produce that is being sold by such a person at that time. It is, by contrast, permitted to purchase from his storehouse, because he will fear to mix terumahinto his stores [of produce], lest the matter become known and he lose everything.64
Similarly, it is forbidden to purchase anything that has a connection to tithes from a person who is suspect of selling the second tithe65 as ordinary produce. All of this is a penalty [imposed] by Rabbinic decree.
Halacha 17
When a person who is suspect to transgress attests [to the tithes being separated from produce] belonging to another person, his word is accepted.66[The rationale is that we operate] under the presumption that a person will not sin without receiving any benefit. Needless to say, this applies with regard to a common person.67 Therefore, if a common person says: "[This produce] is teveland this is terumah. This is definitely untithed and this is demai," his word is accepted, even with regard to his own produce.68 If he said: "The required separations have been made from this produce," his word is accepted with regard to the produce of others69 provided it does not appear that they are acting in collusion, as we explained.70
Halacha 18
When a person sells produce to a colleague and, after the produce leaves his hand, he tells the purchaser: "The produce I sold you is tevel. The meat is meat from a firstborn animal.71 And the wine is wine that was poured as a libation to a false deity.72 The letter of the law dictates that the seller's word should not be accepted, even if he is a chavair.73 A person who is eager should be stringent with himself. If he accepts his word, [his conduct] is praiseworthy, even if [the seller] is a common person.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
From Halachah 16, it is apparent that here the Rambam is speaking about a common person whose level of observance is a matter of doubt. If, however, it is known that a person is lax with regard to the separation of tithes, his word is not accepted even on the Sabbath.
|
| 2. |
The Jerusalem Talmud (Demai 4:1) emphasizes that this leniency is granted only when a person failed to tithe out of forgetfulness. If he intentionally did not tithe the produce, there is no leniency upon which he can rely to partake of it on the Sabbath.
|
| 3. |
Hilchot Shabbat 23:9, 14; Shvitat Yom Tov 4:26.
|
| 4. |
Because of the holiness of the day, the common people regard transgressing on the Sabbath as more severe than transgressing on other days [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 4:1)].
|
| 5. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam notes that there is a general principle (Kiddushin 63b) that a person will not sin unless he personally benefits. Thus one might think that we could rely on this person's word, even during the week. Hence, it is necessary to explain that we rely on his statements only on the Sabbath. The rationale is that the presumption that he will not lie applies to most people. There are, however, some that will lie even on the Sabbath [the Jerusalem Talmud (Demai 4:1)].
|
| 6. |
The Rambam is clarifying that the statement made in Halachah 2: that we trust that the common person will not lie on the Sabbath is conditional. It is a leniency accepted to allow a person to honor the Sabbath alone.
|
| 7. |
I.e., the festival fell on Friday or on Sunday.
|
| 8. |
This leniency is granted even though the two days are not considered as a single continuum of holiness (see Hilchot Eruvin 8:5).
|
| 9. |
I.e., he takes an oath that he will never benefit from him unless he partakes of his hospitality [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 4:3)]. (Although the mishnah speaks of taking a vow, the Rambam speaks of an oath.) The oath is taken to emphasize to the colleague that the failure to accept his hospitality is a sign of serious enmity between them. Hence, this leniency was granted to encourage feelings of closeness.
Kaftor VePerach, ch. 39, states that we are speaking about a situation where the oath was taken on the Sabbath itself. Otherwise, the guest could make a stipulation allowing for a retroactive separation as described in Chapter 9, Halachah 7. The Radbaz, by contrast, states that we are speaking about a situation where the interaction took place during the week. Otherwise, there would be nothing new taught by this halachah, everything could be understood from the previous one.
|
| 10. |
Whether the tithes were separated or not.
|
| 11. |
From Halachah 16, it is apparent that here the Rambam is speaking about a common person whose level of observance is a matter of doubt. If, however, it is known that a person is lax with regard to the separation of tithes, his word is not accepted even on the Sabbath.
|
| 12. |
I.e., the terumat ma'aser fell in a manner in which it was distinct and could easily be separated from the store of produce.
|
| 13. |
As stated in Halachah 2.
|
| 14. |
Produce into which terumah or terumat ma'aser has been mixed. The rationale is that partaking of such substances is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven.
|
| 15. |
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer interpretations that substantiate the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 16. |
The Jerusalem Talmud (Demai 4:1) explains the logic: If he is willing to separate the first tithe which is given to a Levite, he is certainly willing to separate the second tithe which remains his own (but must be eaten in Jerusalem). See Halachah 15.
|
| 17. |
While the first tithe must be given away as above.
|
| 18. |
The Ra'avad objects to this ruling, stating that it is not necessarily a logical continuation of the ruling in the previous clause.
|
| 19. |
I.e., terumahand terumat ma'aser, if he said that he made these separations (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 20. |
I.e., both the first tithe and the second tithe.
|
| 21. |
This bracketed addition represents the resolution offered by the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishnehto the Ra'avad's objection.
|
| 22. |
I.e., even the amount separated as terumat ma'aser. For although we are stringent and do not accept his word, we do not reject his statements entirely. Certainly, he himself must bear their consequences and consider the separated produce as if it is required to be redeemed (Radbaz).
|
| 23. |
Since he is not trustworthy in this regard, his word is not accepted with regard to others as well. Even though one might say that he would not lie since his falsehood could easily be revealed, for it is possible to ask the identity of the seller and determine if he is trustworthy, the agent could always excuse himself saying: "I thought he was trustworthy" (Radbaz).
Although one might argue that there is no reason for him to sin, for he will not benefit from it, that argument is not accepted. For the ease the person experiences in bringing the produce from a close person could be considered enough of a benefit to influence him to lie.
|
| 24. |
And the lie be detected.
|
| 25. |
Because he would personally benefit from the wayfarer's acceptance of his statements.
The Ra'avad clarifies the Rambam's ruling, noting that his text of the Jerusalem Talmud (Demai4:5) states: "In the presence [of the person being recommended], his word is not accepted. Outside his presence, his word is accepted." The Radbaz states that this concept is implied by the Rambam's words, since "so-and-so" implies that the person is not present. The Kessef Mishneh interprets the standard version of the Jerusalem Talmud as follows: "If he says he is not trustworthy, in his presence, he is not considered trustworthy (for he would not say so unless it was true). If he says so outside his presence, he is considered trustworthy (for the other person's statements are considered as slander)." This interpretation fits the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 26. |
Because we follow the principle that a person will not sin unless he personally benefits (Kiddushin63b). This, however, is a leniency, granted to the person, because he is a wayfarer [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 4:7)].
|
| 27. |
And thus could be lying. See parallels in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 20:11.
|
| 28. |
The Ra'avad qualifies the Rambam's ruling, stating that it applies only when the person he knows is trustworthy. If he is not trustworthy, his recommendation cannot be relied upon. Rav Yosef Korcus states that this is also the Rambam's intent.
|
| 29. |
In the present age, this problem is solved by Rabbis and/or institutions giving kashrut certificates that are hung in the respective stores or institutions.
|
| 30. |
For after 30 days have passed, the person has had ample time to familiarize himself with the place and there is no need for further leniency. He will certainly have found a place that will offer him hospitality (Radbaz).
|
| 31. |
The rationale for the leniency is that the majority of the common people do separate tithes. The laws of demai are merely an additional stringency.
|
| 32. |
For the common people are generally lax in observance of these prohibitions.
|
| 33. |
Who bring produce from other places to a city for sale.
|
| 34. |
The Radbaz asks: Why are we more suspicious here than in the situation mentioned in Halachah 7. In resolution, he explains that people coming to sell their merchandise from another place are more likely to act in collusion than two businessmen in a city.
|
| 35. |
As explained in Hilchot Terumot1:3, the status of Syria is an intermediate level between that ofEretz Yisrael and the Diaspora. There terumah and the tithes have to be separated because of Rabbinic decree, but not because of Scriptural Law. For this reason, our Sages did not enforce the restrictions of demai on such produce [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai6:11)].
|
| 36. |
And was purchased from a common person so that the restrictions associated with demai apply.
|
| 37. |
The fact that they have been taken out of Eretz Yisrael is not significant.
|
| 38. |
And tithing is not required.
|
| 39. |
This is a general principle applicable in many areas, both in Jewish business law and with regard to the Torah's prohibitions. When our suspicions are based only on one person's statements, if that person makes a statement that allays those suspicions, we accept it. For our knowledge of the suspicious factor stems from his statements alone; there is no other evidence of such (ibid.). The rationale is that had he desired to lie, he would not have mentioned the factor that arouses the suspicions at the outset.
|
| 40. |
I.e. "from my field in Syria;" i.e., a place from whose produce tithes must be separated according to Rabbinic decree and he does not say that he tithed the produce.
|
| 41. |
Were he not to have said that they were from his own field, there would be no obligation to tithe the produce, because we would have assume it came from a gentile's field.
|
| 42. |
I.e., even if he does not say specifically that they are his.
|
| 43. |
Even if they are common people whose word is not ordinarily accepted with regard to tithes.
|
| 44. |
Presents given the poor that are exempt from the obligations to tithe (Chapter 2, Halachah 9).
|
| 45. |
In which instance we would assume that the terumot and the first tithe were also separated.
|
| 46. |
I.e., in the third and sixth years of the seventh year agricultural cycle.
|
| 47. |
I.e., what is meant by the last statement that the ruling depends on whether it is common for people to give such articles as leket, shichachah, pe'ah, or as tithes to the poor.
|
| 48. |
Pe'at HaSadeh states that the Rambam's words are chosen carefully. It is customary to giveleket, shichachah, and pe'ah in the field. Hence, it is not likely that they were given as flour. The tithes for the poor, by contrast, are generally given from the home (see Hilchot Matanot Aniyim6:10). Hence it is possible that flour was given to a poor person in fulfillment of that mitzvah.
|
| 49. |
For it is common for people to leave grain as leket, shichachah,and pe'ah, but not to process the grain any further before giving it [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 8:3)].
|
| 50. |
I.e., if he says that a homeowner gave him flour, his word is not accepted. If, however, he says that he was given grain and he had it ground into flour himself, his word is accepted.
|
| 51. |
Because it is not common for a person to have grain ground into flour and then give the flour to the poor.
|
| 52. |
For it was customary for people to give presents from rice while the kernels are still in their husks and not when they have been processed [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.)]. Our interpretation of the following clauses is also based on that source.
|
| 53. |
Which are left for the poor. We do not accept their word in this instance, for it is not common for a sufficient quantity of such olives to be left to make oil.
|
| 54. |
I.e., we accept his word based on the principle of miggo; were he to have desired to lie, he could have chosen a more plausible falsehood.
|
| 55. |
Even if he is a common person.
|
| 56. |
In contrast to leket, shichachah, pe'ah and the tithe for the poor concerning which the poor person's word is accepted only at certain times.
|
| 57. |
I.e., the Levite's word is accepted if he says that he separated terumat ma'aser from the tithes that he was given.
|
| 58. |
Chapter 9, Halachah 1. In both cases, the transgression is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven.
|
| 59. |
Unless he is a chavair.
|
| 60. |
I.e., if an Israelite purchases produce from a Levite who is not a chavair and the Levite states that the produce has been tithed and also the second tithe has been separated, the Levites word is not accepted. Although an Israelite's word is accepted regarding the second tithe when we see that he has separated the first tithe (Halachah 5), this does not hold true for a Levite. The rationale is that an Israelite makes a sacrifice when separating the first tithe, but a Levite does not.
|
| 61. |
I.e., that produce could be purchased from a common person and the separations made afterwards. This concept applies also with regard to the subsequent laws mentioned in this chapter. See similar concepts in Hilchot Shemitah VeYoval 8:14.
|
| 62. |
For if terumah was mixed with the produce, the prohibition is much more severe.
|
| 63. |
And we fear that the oil might be terumah or mixed with terumah.
|
| 64. |
I.e., if the Rabbis would discover that such a mixture would be made, they would declare his entire store of produce forbidden.
|
| 65. |
That has not been redeemed.
|
| 66. |
The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the word of a person who is suspect is never accepted even when he testifies with regard to the produce of another person. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh support the Rambam's view.
|
| 67. |
For his word is accepted more readily than that of one who is suspect.
|
| 68. |
For in these instances, his statements do not enable ordinary produce to be eaten.
|
| 69. |
But not with regard to his own.
|
| 70. |
In Halachah 10.
|
| 71. |
Which was slaughtered before it was clarified that it possessed a disqualifying blemish. Thus it is forbidden to partake of it and it must be buried.
|
| 72. |
And is hence, forbidden and must be destroyed.
|
| 73. |
I.e., the seller claims that the sale was made in error. He wants to nullify the sale so that he can fulfill the mitzvah of tithing the produce and destroying the forbidden produce. Since the objects have already left the seller's hand, his word is not accepted whether he is a chavair or not.
|
• Monday, Iyar 8, 5775 · 27 April 2015
Iyar 8 23rd day of the omer
Torah lessons: Chumash: Emor, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 44-48.
Tanya: Therefore did Shlomon (p. 245)...during their lifetime." (p. 245)
An emissary is one with his sender. This concept is similar to that of an angel acting as a Divine emissary, when he is actually called by G-d's name. If this is so with an angel it is certainly true1 of the soul; in fact with the soul the quality of this oneness is of a higher order, as explained elsewhere.2
Now chassidim are emissaries of the Rebbe, the Alter Rebbe. So if the chassid actively discharges his mission, he is bound up with his Rebbe, bound up in his entire being - there walks a chassid, there eats a chassid, there sleeps a chassid.
FOOTNOTES
1. See Iyar 6.
2. See Tamuz 10.___________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment