Tonight Count 18Today's Laws and Customs:
Count "Eighteen Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the eighteenth day of the Omer Count. Since, on the Jewish calendar, the day begins at nightfall of the previous evening, we count the omer for tomorrow's date tonight, after nightfall: "Today is eighteen days, which are two weeks and four 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: Netzach sheb'Tifferet -- "Ambition in Harmony"
The teachings of Kabbalah explain that there are seven "Divine Attributes" --Sefirot -- that G-d assumes through which to relate to our existence: Chessed,Gevurah, Tifferet, Netzach, Hod, Yesod and Malchut ("Love", "Strength", "Beauty", "Victory", "Splendor", "Foundation" and "Sovereignty"). In the human being, created in the "image of G-d," the seven sefirot are mirrored in the seven "emotional attributes" of the human soul: Kindness, Restraint, Harmony, Ambition, Humility, Connection and Receptiveness. Each of the seven attributes contain elements of all seven--i.e., "Kindness in Kindness", "Restraint in Kindness", "Harmony in Kindness", etc.--making for a total of forty-nine traits. The 49-day Omer Count is thus a 49-step process of self-refinement, with each day devoted to the "rectification" and perfection of one the forty-nine "sefirot."
Links:
How to count the Omer
The deeper significance of the Omer Count
Today in Jewish History:
Maharash Born (1834)
The fourth Rebbe of Chabad-Lubavitch, Rabbi Shmuel Schneersohn (1834-1882), known by the acronym "Maharash", was born in the town of Lubavitch (White Russia) on the 2nd of Iyar of the year 5594 from creation (1834). His father,Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch (the 3rd Chabad Rebbe, known as the "Tzemach Tzeddek") once remarked that Rabbi Shmuel's birthday, coinciding with the 17th day of the Omer Count, is defined by the Kabbalistic masters as Tifferet sheb'Tifferet ("Beauty of Beauty")
Although Rabbi Shmuel was the youngest of Rabbi Menachem Mendel's seven sons, he was chosen to succeed his father as "rebbe" and leader of Chabad in the movement's capital, Lubavitch (four of his brothers established branches of Chabad Chassidism in other towns in White Russia and Ukraine). In addition to leading his Chassidim, guiding and advising their spiritual and material lives and authoring many maamarim (discourses of Chassidic teaching), Rabbi Shmuel traveled extensively throughout Europe, meeting with government and bu
siness leaders to exert pressure on the Czarist regime to halt its instigation of pogroms against the Jews of Russia.
Rabbi Shmuel passed away at age 48 on the 13th of Tishrei, 5643 (1882).
Links: Rabbi Shmuel of Lubavitch
Selected Teachings of Rabbi Shmuel
Rabbi Shmuel's and His Disciples' Melodies
Rabbi Shmuel's Biography
Daily Study:
Chumash
Rabbi Shmuel passed away at age 48 on the 13th of Tishrei, 5643 (1882).
Links: Rabbi Shmuel of Lubavitch
Selected Teachings of Rabbi Shmuel
Rabbi Shmuel's and His Disciples' Melodies
Rabbi Shmuel's Biography
Daily Study:
Chumash
Chumash with Rashi
Parshat Tazria-Metzora, 3rd Portion (Leviticus 13:40-13:54)
In Israel: Acharei-Kedoshim
Chapter 1340If a man loses the hair on [the back of] his head, he is bald. He is clean. מוְאִישׁ כִּי יִמָּרֵט רֹאשׁוֹ קֵרֵחַ הוּא טָהוֹר הוּא:
he is bald. He is clean: Clean of the uncleanness of nethek lesions (Torath Kohanim; Baraitha of Rabbi Ishmael 1:5). I.e., this case is not judged by the signs of the head and beard, which are places of hair (see verses 2937). Rather, [it is judged] by the signs of a lesion on the skin of the flesh, namely: 1) white hair, 2) healthy flesh, and 3) spread. קרח הוא טהור הוא: טהור מטומאת נתקין, שאינו נדון בסימני ראש וזקן, שהם מקום שער, אלא בסימני נגע עור בשר בשער לבן, מחיה ופשיון:
41And if he loses his hair on the side toward his face, he is bald at the front. He is clean. מאוְאִם מִפְּאַת פָּנָיו יִמָּרֵט רֹאשׁוֹ גִּבֵּחַ הוּא טָהוֹר הוּא:
at the front of his head: [The area] from the slope of the crown toward one’s face is called גַּבַּחַת \'82 “forehead,” and included in this are the temples on either side as well. [The area] from the slope of the crown toward one’s back is called קָרַחַת, the “back of the head.” - [Torath Kohanim 13:144] ואם מפאת פניו: משפוע קדקד כלפי פניו קרוי גבחת, ואף הצדעין שמכאן ומכאן בכלל. ומשפוע קדקד כלפי אחוריו, קרוי קרחת:
42If there is a reddish white lesion on the back or front bald area, it is a spreading tzara'ath in his back or front bald area. מבוְכִי יִהְיֶה בַקָּרַחַת אוֹ בַגַּבַּחַת נֶגַע לָבָן אֲדַמְדָּם צָרַעַת פֹּרַחַת הִוא בְּקָרַחְתּוֹ אוֹ בְגַבַּחְתּוֹ:
a reddish-white lesion: blended [of red and white]. How do we know [that the lesion is also unclean if it has] other colors? Because Scripture says, “like the appearance of tzara’ath on the skin of the flesh” (verse 43), i.e., appearing like the tzara’ath dealt with in the passage of [lesions of the] skin of the flesh, [which begins with] “If a man has [se’eith, sapachat or bahereth] on the skin of his flesh” (verse 13:2). And what is stated regarding it [i.e., regarding a lesion on the skin]? That one becomes unclean through [it, if it appears as one of] four shades [namely: 1) the snow-white of bahereth ; 2) the white as “lime of the Holy Temple” of the secondary form (sapachat) of bahereth ; 3) the white as white wool of se’eith; and 4) the white as a “membrane that covers an egg” of the secondary (sapachat) form of se’eith (Nega’im 1:1), and that it is judged with [a possible] two weeks [of quarantine], and not like the appearance of tzara’ath stated concerning inflamed areas and burns, which is judged with [only] one [possible] week [of quarantine], and is also unlike the appearance of nethek lesions, [which are tzara’ath found] in hairy places, which do not become unclean through the four shades [as above]. נגע לבן אדמדם: פתוך. מנין שאר המראות, תלמוד לומר כמראה צרעת עור בשר כמראה הצרעת האמור בפרשת עור בשר (פסוק ב) אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו. ומה אמור בו, שמטמא בארבע מראות ונדון בשני שבועות, ולא כמראה צרעת האמור בשחין ומכוה, שהוא נדון בשבוע אחד, ולא כמראה נתקין של מקום שער שאין מטמאין בארבע מראות שאת ותולדתה, בהרת ותולדתה:
43So the kohen shall look at it. And, behold! there is a reddish white se'eith lesion on his back or front bald area, like the appearance of tzara'ath on the skin of the flesh, מגוְרָאָה אֹתוֹ הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה שְׂאֵת הַנֶּגַע לְבָנָה אֲדַמְדֶּמֶת בְּקָרַחְתּוֹ אוֹ בְגַבַּחְתּוֹ כְּמַרְאֵה צָרַעַת עוֹר בָּשָׂר:
44He is a man afflicted with tzara'ath; he is unclean. The kohen shall surely pronounce him unclean; his lesion is on his head. מדאִישׁ צָרוּעַ הוּא טָמֵא הוּא טַמֵּא יְטַמְּאֶנּוּ הַכֹּהֵן בְּרֹאשׁוֹ נִגְעוֹ:
His lesion is on his head: I know only that [these laws apply to those stricken with] nethek lesions [the tzara’ath of the head]. From where [do I know] to include other afflicted people? Therefore, Scripture says: טַמֵּא יְטַמְּאֶנּוּ, shall surely pronounce him unclean. [The double expression comes] to include them all. Concerning them all, Scripture says: “ his garments shall be torn…” (verses 4546). - [Torath Kohanim 13:154] בראשו נגעו: אין לי אלא נתקין, מנין לרבות שאר המנוגעים, תלמוד לומר טמא יטמאנו, לרבות את כולן. על כולן הוא אומר בגדיו יהיו פרומים וגו':
45And the person with tzara'ath, in whom there is the lesion, his garments shall be torn, his head shall be unshorn, he shall cover himself down to his mustache and call out, "Unclean! Unclean!" מהוְהַצָּרוּעַ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ הַנֶּגַע בְּגָדָיו יִהְיוּ פְרֻמִים וְרֹאשׁוֹ יִהְיֶה פָרוּעַ וְעַל שָׂפָם יַעְטֶה וְטָמֵא | טָמֵא יִקְרָא:
torn: Heb. פְרֻמִים, torn. — [Mo’ed Katan 15a] פרמים: קרועים:
unshorn: Heb. פָּרוּעַ, with hair grown long. — [Mo’ed Katan 15a] פרוע: מגודל שער:
He shall cover himself down to his mustache: like a mourner. — [Torath Kohanim 13:154] ועל שפם יעטה: כאבל:
mustache: Heb. שָָׂפָם, the hair on the lips (שְׂפָתַיִם) [i.e., the mustache], grenon in Old French. שפם: שער השפתים גירנו"ן בלע"ז [שפם]:
and he shall call out,“ Unclean! Unclean!”: He announces that he is unclean, so that everyone should stay away from him. — [Torath Kohanim 13:155] וטמא טמא יקרא: משמיע שהוא טמא ויפרשו ממנו:
46All the days the lesion is upon him, he shall remain unclean. He is unclean; he shall dwell isolated; his dwelling shall be outside the camp. מוכָּל יְמֵי אֲשֶׁר הַנֶּגַע בּוֹ יִטְמָא טָמֵא הוּא בָּדָד יֵשֵׁב מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה מוֹשָׁבוֹ:
He shall dwell isolated: [meaning] that other unclean people [not stricken with tzara’ath] shall not abide with him. Our Sages said: “Why is he different from other unclean people, that he must remain isolated? Since, with his slander, he caused a separation [i.e., a rift] between man and wife or between man and his fellow, he too, shall be separated [from society].”- [Arachin 16b] [This rationale is based on the premise that a person is stricken with tzara’ath as a result of his talking לְשׁוֹן הָרַע, i.e., speaking derogatorily of others, although he may be telling the truth.] בדד ישב: שלא יהיו שאר טמאים יושבים עמו. ואמרו רבותינו מה נשתנה משאר טמאים לישב בדד, הואיל והוא הבדיל בלשון הרע בין איש לאשתו ובין איש לרעהו, אף הוא יבדל:
outside the camp: Outside the three camps [of Israel, namely: 1) the camp of the Shechinah, in which the Mishkan was located; 2) the Levite camp, and 3) the camp of the Israelites]. — [Torath Kohanim 13:157, Pes. 67a] מחוץ למחנה: חוץ לשלש מחנות:
47[And as for] the garment that has the lesion of tzara'ath upon it, on a woolen garment, or on a linen garment, מזוְהַבֶּגֶד כִּי יִהְיֶה בוֹ נֶגַע צָרָעַת בְּבֶגֶד צֶמֶר אוֹ בְּבֶגֶד פִּשְׁתִּים:
48or on [threads prepared for the] warp or the woof of linen or of wool, or on leather or on anything made from leather. מחאוֹ בִשְׁתִי אוֹ בְעֵרֶב לַפִּשְׁתִּים וְלַצָּמֶר אוֹ בְעוֹר אוֹ בְּכָל מְלֶאכֶת עוֹר:
of linen or of wool: Heb. וְלַצָּמֶר לַפִּשְׁתִּים, of linen or of wool. [Here the ל, usually meaning “to,” means “of.”] לפשתים ולצמר: של פשתים או של צמר:
or the leather: This [refers to] leather upon which no work has been performed. או בעור: זה עור שלא נעשה בו מלאכה:
or anything made from leather: This [refers] to leather upon which work has been performed. או בכל מלאכת עור: זה עור שנעשה בו מלאכה:
49If the lesion on the garment, the leather, the warp or woof [threads] or on any leather article, is deep green or deep red, it is a lesion of tzara'ath, and it shall be shown to the kohen. מטוְהָיָה הַנֶּגַע יְרַקְרַק | אוֹ אֲדַמְדָּם בַּבֶּגֶד אוֹ בָעוֹר אוֹ בַשְּׁתִי אוֹ בָעֵרֶב אוֹ בְכָל כְּלִי עוֹר נֶגַע צָרַעַת הוּא וְהָרְאָה אֶת הַכֹּהֵן:
deep green: Heb. יְרַקְרַק, the greenest of greens. — [Torath Kohanim 13:161] ירקרק: ירוק שבירוקין:
deep red: אֲדַמְדָָּם, the reddest of reds. — [Torath Kohanim 13:161] אדמדם: אדום שבאדומים:
50The kohen shall look at the lesion, and he shall quarantine [the article with] the lesion for seven days. נוְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַנָּגַע וְהִסְגִּיר אֶת הַנֶּגַע שִׁבְעַת יָמִים:
51And he shall look at the lesion on the seventh day. [If] the lesion has spread on the garment, or on the warp or woof [threads], or on the leather or on any article made from leather, the lesion is a malignant tzara'ath; it is unclean. נאוְרָאָה אֶת הַנֶּגַע בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי כִּי פָשָׂה הַנֶּגַע בַּבֶּגֶד אוֹ בַשְּׁתִי אוֹ בָעֵרֶב אוֹ בָעוֹר לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה הָעוֹר לִמְלָאכָה צָרַעַת מַמְאֶרֶת הַנֶּגַע טָמֵא הוּא:
a malignant tzara’th: Heb. צָרַעַת מַמְאֶרֶת, an expression similar to “a pricking briar (סִלּוֹן מַמְאִיר), (Ezek. 28: 24),” point in Old French, stinging, pricking. The midrashic explanation is: Place a curse (מְאֵרָה) upon it [the item afflicted with tzara’ath], that you shall not derive benefit from it. — [Torath Kohanim 13:166] צרעת ממארת: לשון סילון ממאיר (יחזקאל כח כד). פוינינ"ט בלע"ז [דוקר]. ומדרשו תן בו מארה שלא תהנה הימנו:
52And he shall burn the garment, the warp or woof [threads] of wool or of linen, or any leather article which has the lesion upon it, for it is a malignant tzara'ath ; it shall be burned in fire. נבוְשָׂרַף אֶת הַבֶּגֶד אוֹ אֶת הַשְּׁתִי | אוֹ אֶת הָעֵרֶב בַּצֶּמֶר אוֹ בַפִּשְׁתִּים אוֹ אֶת כָּל כְּלִי הָעוֹר אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בוֹ הַנָּגַע כִּי צָרַעַת מַמְאֶרֶת הִוא בָּאֵשׁ תִּשָּׂרֵף:
of wool or of linen: Heb. בַּצֶּמֶר אוֹ בַפִּשְׁתִּים, of wool or of linen. [The ב, which usually means “in,” here means “of.”] This is its simple meaning. Its midrashic explanation is, however: [The words, בַּצֶּמֶר אוֹ בַפִּשְׁתִּים וְשָָׂרַף אֶת בֶּגֶד, can be understood literally, as: “And he shall burn the garment…in the wool or in the linen.” Thus,] one might think that [when burning the unclean garment,] one is required to bring wool shearings and stalks of flax and burn them along with it. Scripture, therefore, says [at the end of this verse], “for it…; it shall be burned in fire. ” [I.e., it alone] it does not require anything else [to be burned] along with it. If so, why does Scripture say, “in the wool or the linen”? To exclude [from the requirement of burning] the edges (אִימְרִיּוֹת) if they are of another material (Torath Kohanim 13:167). אִימְרִיּוֹת means “edges,” like אִימְרָא, border. בצמר או בפשתים: של צמר או של פשתים, זהו פשוטו. ומדרשו יכול יביא גיזי צמר ואניצי פשתן וישרפם עמו, תלמוד לומר היא באש תשרף, אינה צריכה דבר אחר עמה. אם כן מה תלמוד לומר בצמר או בפשתים, להוציא את האימריות שבו, שהן ממין אחר. אימריות לשון שפה, כמו אימרא:
53But if the kohen looks, and, behold! the lesion has not spread on the garment, the warp or woof [threads], or any leather article, נגוְאִם יִרְאֶה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה לֹא פָשָׂה הַנֶּגַע בַּבֶּגֶד אוֹ בַשְּׁתִי אוֹ בָעֵרֶב אוֹ בְּכָל כְּלִי עוֹר:
54the kohen shall order, and they shall wash what the lesion is upon, and he shall quarantine it again for seven days. נדוְצִוָּה הַכֹּהֵן וְכִבְּסוּ אֵת אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ הַנָּגַע וְהִסְגִּירוֹ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים שֵׁנִית:
what the lesion is upon: One might think that [one need wash] the area of the lesion alone. Scripture, therefore, says, “what the lesion is upon,” [meaning, the garment upon which the lesion is found. But if so,] one might think that the entire garment requires washing. Scripture, therefore, says, “[after] the lesion [has been washed],” (verse 55) [teaching us that only the lesion must be washed, not the entire garment]. So how [do we reconcile this apparent discrepancy]? He must wash part of the garment with it. — [see Torath Kohanim 13:169] את אשר בו הנגע : יכול מקום הנגע בלבד, תלמוד לומר את אשר בו הנגע, יכול כל הבגד כולו טעון כבוס, תלמוד לומר הנגע, הא כיצד, יכבס מן הבגד עמו
Daily Tehillim - Psalms Chapters 10-17
Chapter 10
This psalm tells of the wicked one’s prosperity and his boasting of it, until he says: “There is neither law nor judge. God pays no attention to the actions of mere mortals.”
1. Why, O Lord, do You stand afar, do You hide Yourself in times of distress?
2. The wicked man in his arrogance pursues the poor; they are caught by the schemes they have contrived.
3. For the wicked man glories in the desire of his heart, and the robber boasts that he has scorned the Lord.
4. The wicked one in his insolence [thinks], “He does not avenge”; all his thoughts are, “There is no God.”
5. His ways always succeed; Your retribution is far removed from before him; he puffs at all his foes.
6. He says in his heart, “I shall not falter; for all generations no evil will befall me.”
7. His mouth is full of oaths, deceit and malice; mischief and iniquity are under his tongue.
8. He sits in ambush near open cities; in hidden places he murders the innocent; his eyes stealthily watch for the helpless.
9. He lurks in hiding like a lion in his lair; he lurks to seize the poor, then seizes the poor when he draws his net.
10. He crouches and stoops, then the helpless fall prey to his might.
11. He says in his heart, “God has forgotten, He conceals His countenance, He will never see.”
12. Arise, O Lord! O God, lift Your hand! Do not forget the lowly.
13. Why does the wicked man scorn God? Because he says in his heart, “You do not avenge.”
14. Indeed, You do see! For You behold the mischief and vexation. To recompense is in Your power; the helpless place their trust in You; You have [always] helped the orphan.
15. Break the strength of the wicked; then search for the wickedness of the evil one and You will not find it.
16. The Lord reigns for all eternity; the nations have vanished from His land.
17. Lord, You have heard the desire of the humble; direct their hearts, let Your ear listen,
18. to bring justice to the orphan and the downtrodden, so that [the wicked] shall no longer crush the frail of the earth.
Chapter 11
This psalm declares that the suffering of the righteous one is for his own benefit, to cleanse him of his sins; whereas the wicked one is granted prosperity in this world-similar to the verse, "Wealth remains with its owner, to his detriment."
1. For the Conductor, by David. I have placed my trust in the Lord; [thus] how can you say of my soul, your mountain,1 that it flees like a bird?2
2. For behold, the wicked bend the bow, they have readied their arrow upon the bowstring, to shoot in darkness at the upright of heart.
3. They destroyed the foundations; 3 what [wrong] has the righteous man done?
4. The Lord is in His holy Sanctuary, the Lord's throne is in heaven, [yet] His eyes behold, His pupils probe [the deeds of] mankind.
5. The Lord tests the righteous, but He hates the wicked and the lover of violence.
6. He will rain down upon the wicked fiery coals and brimstone; a scorching wind will be their allotted portion.
7. For the Lord is righteous, He loves [the man of] righteous deeds; the upright will behold His countenance.
Chapter 12
This psalm admonishes informers, slanderers, and flatterers.
1. For the Conductor, upon the eight-stringed instrument, a psalm by David.
2. Help us, Lord, for the pious are no more; for the faithful have vanished from among men.
3. Men speak falsehood to one another; with flattering lips, with a duplicitous heart do they speak.
4. May the Lord cut off all flattering lips, the tongue that speaks boastfully-
5. those who have said, "With our tongues we shall prevail, our lips are with us, who is master over us!”
6. Because of the plundering of the poor, because of the moaning of the needy, the Lord says, "Now I will arise!" "I will grant deliverance," He says to him.
7. The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in the finest earthen crucible, purified seven times.
8. May You, O Lord, watch over them; may You forever guard them from this generation,
9. [in which] the wicked walk on every side; when they are exalted it is a disgrace to mankind.
Chapter 13
A prayer for an end to the long exile. One in distress should offer this prayer for his troubles and for the length of the exile.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. How long, O Lord, will You forget me, forever? How long will You hide Your countenance from me?
3. How long must I seek counsel within my soul, [to escape] the grief in my heart all day? How long will my enemy be exalted over me?
4. Look! Answer me, O Lord, my God; give light to my eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death.
5. Lest my enemy say, "I have overcome him," [and] my oppressors rejoice when I falter.
6. I have placed my trust in Your kindness, my heart will rejoice in Your deliverance. I will sing to the Lord, for He has dealt kindly with me.
Chapter 14
This psalm speaks of the destruction of the two Holy Temples-the first by Nebuchadnezzar, and the second by Titus.
1. For the Conductor, by David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God!" [Man's] deeds have become corrupt and abominable, no one does good.
2. The Lord looked down from heaven upon mankind, to see if there was any wise man who searches for God.
3. They have all gone astray together, they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.
4. Indeed, all the evildoers, who devour My people as they devour bread, who do not call upon the Lord, will [ultimately] come to know [the consequences of their actions].
5. There they will be seized with fright, for God is with the righteous generation.
6. You scorn the counsel of the lowly, that he puts his trust in the Lord.
7. O that out of Zion would come Israel's deliverance! When the Lord returns the captivity of His people, Jacob will exult, Israel will rejoice.
Chapter 15
This psalm speaks of several virtues and attributes with which one should conduct oneself. He is then assured that his soul will rest in Gan Eden.
1. A psalm by David. Who may abide in Your tent, O Lord? Who may dwell on Your holy Mountain?
2. He who walks blamelessly, acts justly, and speaks truth in his heart;
3. who has no slander on his tongue, who has done his fellowman no evil, and who has brought no disgrace upon his relative;
4. in whose eyes a despicable person is abhorrent, but who honors those who are God-fearing; who does not change his oath even if it is to his own detriment;
5. who does not lend his money at interest, nor accept a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things shall never falter.
Chapter 16
When one is in need, he should not implore God in his own merit, for he must leave his merits for his children.
1. A michtam,1 by David. Watch over me, O God, for I have put my trust in You.
2. You, [my soul,] have said to God, "You are my Master; You are not obligated to benefit me.”
3. For the sake of the holy ones who lie in the earth, and for the mighty-all my desires are fulfilled in their merit.
4. Those who hasten after other [gods], their sorrows shall increase; I will not offer their libations of blood, nor take their names upon my lips.
5. The Lord is my allotted portion and my share; You guide my destiny.
6. Portions have fallen to me in pleasant places; indeed, a beautiful inheritance is mine.
7. I bless the Lord Who has advised me; even in the nights my intellect admonishes me.2
8. I have set the Lord before me at all times; because He is at my right hand, I shall not falter.
9. Therefore my heart rejoices and my soul exults; my flesh, too, rests secure.
10. For You will not abandon my soul to the grave, You will not allow Your pious one to see purgatory.
11. Make known to me the path of life, that I may be satiated with the joy of Your presence, with the bliss of Your right hand forever.
Chapter 17
A loftily person should not ask God to test him with some sinful matter, or other things. If one has sinned, he should see to reform himself, and to save many others from sin.
1. A prayer by David. Hear my sincere [plea], O Lord; listen to my cry; give ear to my prayer, expressed by guileless lips.
2. Let my verdict come forth from before You; let Your eyes behold uprightness.
3. You have probed my heart, examined it in the night, tested me and found nothing; no evil thought crossed my mind; as are my words so are my thoughts.
4. So that [my] human deeds conform with the words of Your lips, I guard myself from the paths of the lawbreakers.
5. Support my steps in Your paths, so that my feet shall not falter.
6. I have called upon You, for You, O Lord, will answer me; incline Your ear to me, hear what I say.
7. Withhold Your kindness-O You who delivers with Your right hand those who put their trust in You-from those who rise up against [You].
8. Guard me like the apple of the eye; hide me in the shadow of Your wings
9. from the wicked who despoil me, [from] my mortal enemies who surround me.
10. Their fat has closed [their hearts]; their mouths speak arrogantly.
11. They encircle our footsteps; they set their eyes to make us stray from the earth.
12. His appearance is like a lion longing to devour, like a young lion lurking in hiding.
13. Arise, O Lord! Confront him, bring him to his knees; rescue my soul from the wicked [who serves as] Your sword.
14. Let me be among those whose death is by Your hand, O Lord, among those who die of old age, whose portion is eternal life and whose innards are filled with Your concealed goodness; who are sated with sons and leave their abundance to their offspring.
15. Because of my righteousness, I shall behold Your countenance; in the time of resurrection, I will be sated by Your image.
Lessons in Tanya
Tuesday, Iyar 2, 5775 · April 21, 2015Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 44
In the previous chapter the Alter Rebbe explained that there are two broad categories in the love of G‑d, ahavah rabbah and ahavat olam. Ahavah rabbah cannot be attained by man unaided. It is granted as a gift from above when an individual merits it; reflection alone on G‑d’s greatness can in no way engender this level of love. Ahavat olam, however, results from intense and sustained meditation on the greatness of G‑d.
והנה כל מדרגת אהבה מב׳ מדרגות אלו, אהבה רבה ואהבת עולם, נחלקת לכמה בחינות ומדרגות לאין קץ, כל חד לפום שיעורא דיליה
Each of the two grades of love — ahavah rabbah and ahavat olam — is subdivided into limitless shades and gradations, in each individual according to his [spiritual] capacity,
כמו שכתוב בזהר הקדוש על פסוק: נודע בשערים בעלה, דא קודשא בריך הוא, דאיהו אתידע ואתדבק לכל חד לפום מה דמשער בלביה וכו׳
As it is written in the holy Zohar1 on the verse,2 “Her husband is known in the gates,” that “This refers to the Holy One, blessed be He, so called since He is the ”husband“ of the ”Congregation of Israel,“ Who makes Himself known and attaches Himself to every one according to the extent which one measures in one’s heart....”
Thus, two individuals may have the same general level of love of G‑d, yet their particular, individual levels of love will differ.
ולכן נקראים דחילו ורחימו: הנסתרות לה׳ אלקינו
Therefore, fear and love are called3 “the secret things [known] to the L‑rd our G‑d,” for people cannot know the varying degrees of love of G‑d harbored in the hearts of others,
ותורה ומצות הן הנגלות לנו ולבנינו לעשות כו׳
while the Torah and mitzvot are those things which are4 “revealed to us and to our children to do....”
They are found in all Jews equally,
כי תורה אחת ומשפט אחד לכולנו, בקיום כל התורה ומצות בבחינת מעשה
for we have all one Torah and one law, insofar as the fulfillment of all the Torah and mitzvot in actual performance is concerned. All Jews perform mitzvot in the very same manner; the greatest Jew and the smallest both put on the same tefillin.
מה שאין כן בדחילו ורחימו, שהם לפי הדעת את ה׳ שבמוח ולב
It is otherwise with fear and love, which vary according to the knowledge of G‑d in the mind and heart,
Here, Jews are not equal. He whose knowledge of G‑dliness is greater, will experience the love and fear of G‑d to a greater degree than his less knowledgeable colleague.
כנ״ל
as has been explained earlier, in ch. 42.
The Alter Rebbe explained in the previous chapter that ahavah rabbah cannot be attained alone, while ahavat olam can. He now goes on to explain that there is a manner of love of G‑d which incorporates the qualities of both ahavah rabbah and ahavat olam. It has the qualities of the former since it comes from above, and exists in the soul of every Jew in the form of an inheritance from the Patriarchs. However, in order for this love to be revealed, it is necessary for the individual to contemplate and comprehend G‑dliness, as is the case with ahavat olam,which is revealed through man’s service.
אך אחת היא אהבה הכלולה מכל בחינות ומדרגות אהבה רבה ואהבת עולם, והיא שוה לכל נפש מישראל, וירושה לנו מאבותינו
Yet there is one singular and unique love which incorporates something of all the distinctions and gradations of both ahavah rabbah and ahavat olam, and is found equally in every Jewish soul, as our inheritance from our Patriarchs.
והיינו מה שכתב הזהר על פסוק: נפשי אויתיך בלילה וגו׳
And that is what the Zohar says on the verse:5 “My soul, I desire You at night.”
The Zohar notes that the verse is grammatically anomalous. It should either say, “My soul desires You,” or alternatively, “I desire You.” Therefore the Zohar explains that “My soul” refers to G‑d, the Soul of all beings. In effect, the Jew says to G‑d: “You are my Soul, therefore I desire you.” And as the Zohar6 goes on to say:
דירחים לקודשא בריך הוא רחימותא דנפשא ורוחא, כמה דאתדבקו אילין בגופא, וגופא רחים לון וכו׳, וזה שכתוב: נפשי אויתיך, כלומר: מפני שאתה ה׳ נפשי וחיי האמיתים, לכך אויתיך, פירוש: שאני מתאוה ותאב לך כאדם המתאוה לחיי נפשו, וכשהוא חלש ומעונה מתאוה ותאב שתשוב נפשו אליו
“One should love G‑d with a love of the soul and the spirit, as they are attached to the body and the body loves them....” This is the interpretation of the verse: “My soul, I desire You,” which means, “Since you, G‑d, are my true soul and life, therefore do I desire You.” That is to say, “I long and yearn for You like a man who craves the life of his soul, and when he is weak and exhausted he longs and yearns for his soul to revive in him (lit., ‘to return to him’).
Truly, the pleasure of living is the greatest pleasure of all, and a man will forgo all manner of pleasure in order to stay alive. Nevertheless we do not feel the pleasure of simply being alive because “a constant pleasure is not felt to be pleasurable.” However, when a person is weak and tired, and his life-force is not as manifest as it should be, then he feels the desire to live and senses the pleasure of simply being alive.
וכן כשהוא הולך לישן מתאוה וחפץ שתשוב נפשו אליו כשיעור משנתו, כך אני מתאוה ותאב לאור אין סוף ברוך הוא, חיי החיים האמיתיים, להמשיכו בקרבי על ידי עסק התורה בהקיצי משנתי בלילה, דאורייתא וקודשא בריך הוא כולא חד
“Likewise when he goes to sleep, at which time his life-force is in a state of concealment, for7 ‘Sleep is one sixtieth of death,’ he longs and yearns for his soul to be restored to him when he awakens from his sleep. So do I long and yearn to draw within me the infinite light of the blessed Ein Sof, the Life of true life, through engaging in the [study of the] Torah when I awaken during the night from my sleep”; for the Torah and the Holy One, blessed be He, are one and the same.
Thus, the individual’s love of G‑d will encourage him in his Torah study, since He realizes that this will enable him to draw down the infinite light of the Ein Sof and become united with G‑d. Just as creation is renewed continuously (8“In His goodness He renews each day, continuously, the work of Creation”), Torah, too,9 “should be viewed every day as if it were new.” So, too, regarding the love and yearning for G‑d brought about through the study of Torah: he should experience this just as one yearns and desires for the full restoration of his vitality — a desire which is both revealed and powerful.
כמו שכתב הזהר שם: דבעי בר נש מרחימותא דקודשא בריך הוא למיקם בכל לילא לאשתדלא בפולחניה עד צפרא כו׳
So the Zohar says, (ibid.), “Out of love for the Holy One, blessed be He, a man should rise each night and exert himself in His service until the morning....”
This, then, is the love expressed in the phrase, “My soul, I desire You,” the innate love that a Jew feels when he realizes that G‑d is his true soul and Source of life. This love must be revealed — by pondering deeply and often how G‑d is the Source of all life, as will be explained later on in this chapter.
FOOTNOTES
1. Zohar I, 103b.
2. Mishlei 31:23.
3. Devarim 29:28.
4. Devarim 29:28.
5. Yeshayahu 26:9.
6. Zohar III, 68a.
7. Berachot 57b.
8. Siddur, morning prayers.
9. Cf. Rashi on Devarim 26:16.
Rambam Sefer Hamitzvot
Tuesday, Iyar 2, 5775 · April 21, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 133
A Non-Priest Eating the Priestly Tithe
"No non-priest shall eat of the holy [food]"—Leviticus 22:10.
An individual who is not a priest may not eat Terumah (the priestly tithe), nor any of the other holy foods whose consumption is restricted to priests [and certain of their family members and non-Jewish indentured workers].
This precept also includes the prohibition against deriving benefit from any object that belongs to the "holy" [i.e. sacrifices or items belonging to the Temple coffers].
Tuesday, Iyar 2, 5775 · April 21, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 133
A Non-Priest Eating the Priestly Tithe
"No non-priest shall eat of the holy [food]"—Leviticus 22:10.
An individual who is not a priest may not eat Terumah (the priestly tithe), nor any of the other holy foods whose consumption is restricted to priests [and certain of their family members and non-Jewish indentured workers].
This precept also includes the prohibition against deriving benefit from any object that belongs to the "holy" [i.e. sacrifices or items belonging to the Temple coffers].
Tithe
Negative Commandment 133
Translated by Berel Bell
The 133rd prohibition is that any non-Kohen is forbidden from eating any kind of terumah.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "No non-Kohen may eat kodesh (holy things)." This instance of kodesh refers to terumah, as well as bikkurim, which is also called terumah, as we shall later explain.2 This was my intention in writing "any kind of terumah." This categorization also applies to the case of intentional me'ilah (unauthorized use of sanctified objects).
One who intentionally ate terumah receives misah bidei shamayim,3 but does not have to pay the additional fifth of the value4 [as he would should he have eaten it unintentionally],5 as explained in the 6th and 7th chapters of tractate Terumah.
In the 9th chapter of tractate Sanhedrin,6 our Sages enumerate those who receive misa bidei shamayim, and include among them the non-Kohen who eats terumah. They prove this from the verse7 [which instructs the Kohanim to be careful with the terumah,] "because profaning it is a sin which could cause them to die." The verse, "No non-Kohen may eat kodesh (holy things)," immediately follows this verse [implying that the punishment applies in that case as well].
In the 2nd chapter of tractate Bikkurim, our Sages say, "Terumah and bikkurim are forbidden for non-Kohanim, and the punishment [for transgressing this law] is [a heavenly] death penalty] and repaying an extra fifth."
Rav — who [,although he was an Amora,] has the status of a Tanna, and therefore the right to disagree with Mishnayos — disagrees with all those Mishnayos and says that a non-Kohen who eats terumah is punished by lashes.
We explained in our commentary on the Mishneh that in any disagreement which deals only with theory but is not of practical importance, the halachah is not decided, and the Gemara doesn't say, "the halachah is like him." Therefore, the Gemara does not say that "the halachah is in accordance with Rav," or [the halachah is] in accordance with the Mishneh" — because according to everyone, he receives lashes. This is because anyone who receives misa bidei shamayim for a transgression, also receives lashes, as explained in our Introduction to this work.8
So too, without a doubt, one who intentionally uses sanctified objects without permission receives lashes. The source of this is the law9 regarding the vow of a boy shortly before bar mitzvah — "If he sanctifies it, and others eat it, both Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish agree that they receive lashes."
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 22:10.
2.N148.
3.One receives a heavenly death penalty before reaching the age of 60. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 5, p.134, note 21.
4.One-fifth of the total, i.e. one-fourth of the primary amount.
5.Hilchos Terumos, 6:6.
6.83a.
7.Lev. 22:9.
8.Beg. of 14th Principle.
9.Niddah 46b.
Negative Commandment 134
A Priest's Servants Consuming of the Priestly Tithe
"A tenant of the priest or a hired servant may not eat the holy [food]"—Leviticus 22:10.
The tenant [i.e. a Hebrew servant indentured until the Jubilee year] of a priest, as well as the priest's hired servant [i.e. a Hebrew servant serving for a six-year term] may not eat Terumah(the priestly tithe).
Servants Consuming of the Priestly Tithe
Negative Commandment 134
Translated by Berel Bell
The 134th prohibition is that even one who resides1 with a Kohen or works for him is forbidden from eating terumah.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,2 "Even if a person resides with a Kohen or is hired by him, that person may not eat kodesh."
Should he eat [terumah], he is judged like any other Jew.3
FOOTNOTES
1.See Hilchos Terumos 6:5.
2.Lev. 22:10.
3.See N133 above.
Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day - Shabbos - Chapter Twenty
Shabbos - Chapter Twenty
Halacha 1
It is forbidden to transfer a burden on an animal on the Sabbath, as [Exodus 23:12] states, "[On the seventh day, you shall cease activity,] and thus your ox and your donkey may rest."1 This includes [not only] an ox and a donkey, but all animals, beasts, and fowl.2
Halacha 2
Behold, there is [also] an explicit prohibition in the Torah [against working with an animal] as [Exodus 20:10] states: "Do not do any work on the Sabbath. [This includes] you, your son, your daughter, your servant, your maidservant and your beast."5
[This means that one should not perform forbidden labors such as] plowing and the like [together with an animal]. Since this is a prohibition which is punishable by death, [its violation does not incur] lashes.6
Halacha 3
It is forbidden for a Jew to lend or hire a large animal to a gentile so that the latter may perform work with it on the Sabbath, since [the Jew] is commanded to have his animal rest.7
Halacha 4
It is permitted to sell a gentile a horse, since a horse is used only for human transportation13 and not for transporting burdens.14 [Hence, there is no forbidden labor involved, because] "a living entity carries itself."15
Just as it is forbidden to sell [such an animal] to a gentile, so too is it forbidden to sell it to a Jew who, we suspect, might sell it to a gentile.16
One may, however, sell [a gentile] a cow for the purpose of slaughter, [provided] he slaughters it in the seller's presence. One should not, however, sell [any animal], even an ox fattened for slaughter, without an explicit condition, lest the purchaser delay and work with it [on the Sabbath in the interim].17
Halacha 5
In a place where the accepted custom is to sell a small animal18 to gentiles, one may make such a sale. In a place where the accepted custom is not to make such sales, one should not.19
In all places, however, a large non-domesticated animal should not be sold [to a gentile], just as a large domesticated animal should not be sold unless one does so via a broker.
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply when] a person is on a journey and night falls on Friday, [but] he is not accompanied by a gentile to whom he could give his purse:20 If he has an animal with him,21 he should place his purse on [the animal] while it is walking, and when [the animal] desires to stand, he should remove [the purse] from it, so that it will not stand still while carrying [the purse]. [In this manner,] neither the removal of an article from its place, nor placing it down in a new position will have been performed [by the animal].22
It is forbidden for him to direct the animal, even with his voice alone, as long as the purse is on it, so that he will not be considered to be directing his animal on the Sabbath.23 Our Sages decreed24 that one should not place a purse on an animal on the Sabbath unless one is not accompanied by a gentile.25
Halacha 7
Although the person is also accompanied by a deaf mute, a mentally incompetent individual, and a minor26, he should place his purse on the donkey rather than give to one of these individuals, for they are humans and are members of the Jewish people.27
If he is accompanied by a deaf-mute and a mentally incompetent individual, and does not have an animal with him, he should give it to the mentally incompetent individual.28 If [he is accompanied by] a mentally incompetent individual and a minor, he should give it29 to the mentally incompetent individual.30 If [he is accompanied by] a deaf-mute and a minor, he may give it to whomever he desires.31
Halacha 8
It is permitted to lead an animal in the public domain with its reins and its bridle,36 provided the bridle and reins are appropriate for it37 - for example, a horse with a neck-ring, a camel with a rope tied to its mouth, a female camel with an iron bit,38 and a dog with a muzzle.
If, however, one took out an animal with a bridle that is insufficient - e.g., one tied a rope in the mouth of a horse - or with a bridle that is excessive, for it would be controlled with a lesser one, - for example one took out a donkey with a horse's neck-ring, or a cat with a muzzle, it is considered to be a burden.39For any excessive or insufficient restraint is considered to be a burden.40
Halacha 9
A person should not tie camels together and lead them. [Moreover,] even when they were tied together on Friday, he should not lead them on the Sabbath. One may, however, gather the ropes [of many camels] in one's hand,41provided none of the ropes extends more than a handbreadth outside one's hand42 and the rope leading from [each] camel's mouth to one's hand is at least a handbreadth above the earth.43
Why is one prohibited from leading camels that are tied to each other? Because it appears as if he is leading them to the marketplace where animals are sold or used for sport.44 For this reason, a person should not go out [leading] an animal wearing a bell around its neck, even if its clapper is plugged [so that] it does not produce a sound.45
Halacha 10
An animal should not go out with a bell [attached to] its coverings,46 a seal47[attached to] its neck, a seal [attached to] its coverings,48 a strap on its foot,49or a ladder on its neck.50
Halacha 11
Chickens56 may not go out with cords,57 nor with straps on their feet.58 Rams may not go out with a small wagon under their fat tail.59 Ewes may not go out with [chips of] wood that are placed in their nostrils so that they sneeze and dislodge the worms in their brains.60
A calf may not go out with a small yoke [that is placed] on its neck to break [its nature] and accustom it [to bearing a yoke so that later it will wear a larger yoke for] plowing. An animal may not go out with a muzzle placed in its mouth so that it will neither bite nor eat. A cow may not go out with a hedgehog skin on its teats so that crawling animals61 will not suck from it when it sleeps,62 nor may it go out with a strap between its horns, regardless of whether it is placed there as an ornament or as a restraint.63
When a goat's horns are pierced, it may go out with a rope tied to its horns on the Sabbath. If the rope is tied to [the goat's] beard, it is forbidden, lest it tear off and the person carry it in his hands in the public domain. The same applies in all similar situations.
Halacha 12
Rams may go out with a wide strap tied against their genitals so that they will not copulate with females, with a hard piece of leather strapped over their hearts so that they will not be attacked by wolves,64 and with an embroidered cloth that is placed on them to make them more attractive.65
Ewes may go out with their fat tail tied to their backs, [exposing them] so that rams will copulate with them, or tied downward so that rams will not copulate with them. They may go out covered with a cloth so that their wool will remain clean.66
Halacha 13
A donkey should not go out [wearing] a saddle even when it is tied upon it on Friday.69 A horse may not go out wearing a foxtail70 or with a scarlet thread between its eyes.71
An animal should not go out with a feeding bag [attached] to its mouth, nor with metal shoes,72 nor with an amulet that has not proven its efficacy for an animal.73 An animal may, however, go out with a bandage placed on a wound,74 with plates placed on a broken bone,75 or with a placenta that is hanging from it.
We may plug up a bell hanging around its neck76 and allow [an animal] to stroll with it in a courtyard.77 Similarly, one may place78 a saddlecloth on a donkey79and allow it to stroll in a courtyard. One may not, however, attach a feeding bag to [an animal] on the Sabbath [even when it will not go beyond a courtyard].80
Halacha 14
Just as a person is commanded that his animals rest on the Sabbath, so too, he is commanded that his servants and maidservants rest. Although they have the power of thought, and act according to their own volition, [their master] is obligated to watch over them and prevent them from performing [forbidden] labor on the Sabbath, as [Exodus 23:12] states: "Thus your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your maidservant and the foreigner may find repose."81
The servants and maidservants whom we are commanded to have rest [on the Sabbath] are servants that have been circumcised and have immersed themselves [in the mikveh], so that they be granted the status of servants who have accepted the mitzvot that servants are obligated to observe.82 By contrast, servants who have not been circumcised and have not immersed themselves, but have merely accepted [the observance of] the seven [universal] laws commanded to the descendants of Noach,83 are considered equivalent to "resident aliens" and are permitted to perform [forbidden] labors for their own sake84 in public as the Jews may during the week. [The status of] a resident alien is granted only in the era when the Jubilee year is observed.85
[One might ask:] Since a resident alien may perform [forbidden] labors on his own behalf on the Sabbath, and a convert is considered equivalent to a native-born Jew in all matters, who is referred to with [the term הגר] in the phrase, "and the son of your maidservant and the foreigner [הגר] may find repose"?86
This refers to a resident alien who is an employee of a Jew, like "the son of [his] maidservant." Such a resident alien may not perform [forbidden] labors on behalf of his Jewish master on the Sabbath.87He may, however, perform [such labors] on his own behalf. Moreover, even if this foreigner is a servant [belonging to a Jewish master], [this foreigner] may perform [labors] for his own sake [on the Sabbath].88
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
We have translated the verse as it appears in the Torah. The standard printed texts of theMishneh Torah include several words that are not included in the original verse.
|
| 2. |
Bava Kama 54b explains that although the verse mentions only an ox and a donkey, the obligation to rest refers to all animals. "The Torah referred to common circumstances" - i.e., since these animals are generally those used for work, they were the ones mentioned specifically.
|
| 3. |
I.e., the positive commandment of resting on the Sabbath also implies not having one's beasts perform labor.
|
| 4. |
See Halachah 6 and notes.
|
| 5. |
This is the prohibition against working on the Sabbath mentioned in the Ten Commandments.
|
| 6. |
This principle (which has its source in Makkot 13b and which the Rambam quotes in Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2) generally means that if a person transgresses a prohibition punishable by death, but for certain reasons that punishment cannot be administered, he should not be lashed instead. The rationale is that the only punishment which the Torah prescribed for this transgression is execution. There is no source in the Torah which prescribes a lesser punishment.
Nevertheless, within the context of this principle is also the concept that if a certain dimension of a prohibition involves capital punishment, the punishment of lashes is not given to a person who violates another act that is included in this prohibition, but is not punishable by death.
To apply these concepts to the case at hand: Working with an animal is the subject of a Torah prohibition. When a person works with an animal, however, he is not punished by lashes as are others who violate Torah prohibitions. Why? Because there are certain instances when working with an animal is punishable by death - i.e., when the activity is performed by a man and the animal together - for example, plowing. Therefore, even when the labor a person has the animal perform does not cause that person to incur the death sentence - for example, leading it while it is carrying a burden - he is not punished by lashes.
This is the interpretation of the Maggid Mishneh. The Ramban (in his gloss on Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 14), however, interprets the Rambam's words to mean that the Torah's prohibition against working with an animal applies only to activities like plowing when the activity is performed by the man and the beast together. The only prohibition stemming from the Torah against having an animal carry a burden is the prohibition derived from the positive commandment mentioned in Halachah 1. Both these interpretations and their implications are discussed at length by the later commentaries.
|
| 7. |
Although the Jew is not making the animal work himself, he is not fulfilling the Torah's command that his animal rest.
|
| 8. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim 4:3), the Rambam emphasizes that there is no difference in this instance whether the gentile is an idolater or not.
Based on the rulings of the Tur, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 151:4) states that it is customary not to enforce this prohibition in the present age. The Siftei Cohen 151:12 states that the socio-economic conditions under which our people live have changed, and substantial losses would be sustained if the prohibition were observed. Furthermore, the reason for the prohibition is no longer applicable, for it is uncommon for a Jew to lend or hire his animals to a gentile.
|
| 9. |
The Kessef Mishneh and others note that Avodah Zarah 15a mentions another reason for this prohibition: A Jew who sells an animal to a gentile on Friday afternoon may be required to assist him in training it to follow its new master. This activity may be prolonged past the commencement of the Sabbath. Nevertheless, since this is an infrequent possibility, and the Jew is not performing this task entirely by himself, the Rambam does not mention this matter here. (Significantly, however, he does mention it in his Commentary to the Mishnah, Pesachim, loc. cit.)
|
| 10. |
Note the parallel in Hilchot Avadim 8:1. Significantly, in that halachah, the Rambam states that if the gentile demands a price greater than this figure, the Jew has no further obligation.
|
| 11. |
And is unfit for most labor. Since, however, there are tasks that it can perform, the prohibition is not nullified (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit.).
|
| 12. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam emphasizes that the Jewish owner must not be present while the broker is making the sale.
|
| 13. |
Note the differences between this ruling and the Rambam's statements in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim 4:3). The Rambam interprets that Mishnah to be referring to a specific type of horse that is used for transporting birds and not humans. Nevertheless, even according to the Commentary on the Mishnah, ordinary horses are primarily used for human transport.
|
| 14. |
Note the Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 151), which states that even though it is now customary to perform other tasks with horses, since our Sages did not apply the prohibition to them originally, the scope of their decree need not be extended in the present age. See the notes on the previous halachah.
|
| 15. |
See the explanation of this principle in Chapter 18, Halachah 16.
|
| 16. |
Note the parallel in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 9:8.
|
| 17. |
The Lechem Mishneh and others question if this prohibition applies when one sells an animal to a gentile butcher as well. Even if the butcher does not slaughter the animal in one's presence, it is clear that he did not purchase it for the sake of labor.
|
| 18. |
E.g., a sheep or a goat.
|
| 19. |
The Siftei Cohen (based on Rashi, Avodah Zarah 14b) explains that the reason for the prohibition is our suspicion that the gentile may sodomize the animal, and there is no relation to the Sabbath prohibitions at all.
Work is generally not performed with a small animal, nor would it be proper to forbid the sale of a small animal lest one sell a large animal. The sale of a large animal is only a Rabbinic prohibition. Accordingly, instituting another prohibition because of it would be improper, since the Rabbis did not "institute a safeguard for a safeguard."
Note, however, the Sefer HaKovetz, which differs and maintains that the prohibition against selling a small animal is a safeguard for the prohibition against selling a larger one. Were this not so, the Rambam would not have mentioned the prohibition against selling a small animal in these halachot.
|
| 20. |
Although we are forbidden to ask a gentile to perform a forbidden labor on our behalf on the Sabbath, as explained in Chapter 6, leniency is granted in this case. We suspect that if the person was required to abandon his money on the Sabbath, he would disobey the law and carry it himself instead. (See Chapter 6, Halachah 22, and the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat24:1.)
|
| 21. |
Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 266:4, which states that this ruling applies only when the animal belongs to him, for the verse mentioned at the beginning of the chapter states "and thus your ox and your donkey may rest." When the animal belongs to another individual, it is preferable to have the animal carry the purse. Although we are forbidden to perform a forbidden labor with an animal (Halachah 2), that prohibition can be avoided by making sure the animal does not perform theakirah or the hanachah. There is also a Rabbinic prohibition against working with an animal that belongs to another person. That prohibition is, however, less severe than the prohibition against asking a gentile to perform labor on one's behalf.
|
| 22. |
The Mishnah Berurah 266:7 explains that the prohibition against working with an animal also mentions the term melachah. Accordingly, it is the same activities that a man is prohibited from performing on the Sabbath that are forbidden to be done with an animal.
As mentioned previously, the forbidden labor of transferring involves akirah, removing the article from its previous position, and hanachah, placing the article down in a new position. When a person - or an animal - who is carrying an article begins walking, he is considered to have performed an akirah, and when he stops he is considered to have performed a hanachah. (See Chapter 13, Halachah 8.)
Accordingly, were a person to place a burden on an animal while it is at rest and remove it from him after the animal has come to rest again, he would be considered as having performed labor with the animal, for the animal will have performed both the akirah and the hanachah.
If, however, one follows the course of action suggested by the Rambam, the animal will have performed neither of these acts. Since the article was placed upon the animal after it began to walk, it is not considered to have performed the akirah. Similarly, if the article was removed from the animal before it halted, it is not considered to have performed the hanachah.
|
| 23. |
The Rashba and others question the Rambam's ruling in this instance, arguing that since the animal does not perform the akirah and the hanachah (as explained above), what difference does it make whether one leads the animal or not? There is no possibility of the animal's performing a forbidden labor.
The Rambam, however, maintains that leading an animal carrying a burden is also forbidden. Otherwise, the license granted a person would be too extensive (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 24. |
Shabbat 17b.
|
| 25. |
As the Rambam states in Chapter 6, Halachah 16, we are not commanded to see that a gentile rests on the Sabbath, while we do have such an obligation with regard to our animals.
(See also Shulchan Aruch HaRav 266:3 and the Mishnah Berurah 266:6, which state that the above rules also apply when a person is accompanied by a gentile whom he does not trust.)
|
| 26. |
These three types of individuals are often mentioned together in the Talmudic literature. They are all considered to be lacking the intellectual capacity to control their conduct. Hence, they are not obligated to observe the mitzvot.
|
| 27. |
Rashi (Shabbat 153a) adds that if one of these individuals were allowed to carry the purse, one might err and think that an ordinary Jew is also allowed to carry.
|
| 28. |
The deaf-mute has a minimal amount of understanding, and thus, were he to carry an article on the Sabbath, the potential for making an error and thinking that all are allowed to carry is greater (ibid.).
|
| 29. |
The Rashba, the Ramban, Rav Moshe Cohen, and others differ with the Rambam and maintain that one should should give the individual the purse while he is walking, and should remove the purse from him before he stands (as explained in the previous halachah), so that the individual carrying the purse will perform neither the akirah nor the hanachah. They maintain that although a mentally incompetent individual (and similarly, the others mentioned) are not obligated to observe the mitzvot, it is forbidden to "feed him non-kosher food with one's hands." (See Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 17:27.) Similarly, in this instance it is forbidden to give these individuals an article and tell them to carry it. See also Chapter 24, Halachah 11, and notes.
This opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 266:6) and accepted by the later authorities. There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis whether the above law applies if one gives the article to one of these individuals before the commencement of the Sabbath. On the one hand, it is obvious that one's intent is to have the individual carry the article on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, since one gives the article to him before the commencement of the Sabbath, one is not considered to be "feeding him non-kosher food with one's hands." (See the glosses of the Ramah and the Magen Avraham on that law.)
|
| 30. |
Since the child will ultimately become obligated to perform mitzvot, it is preferable that he not violate them in his childhood.
|
| 31. |
Shabbat 153b explains that on the one hand, it is preferable to give it to the child, because when the deaf-mute carries, the impression will be created that an adult may carry on the Sabbath. Conversely, however, there is a disadvantage in giving it to the child, for he will ultimately mature and become obligated to observe the mitzvot.
The Be'ur Halachah 266 emphasizes that when the minor is one's own son, it is definitely preferable to give the purse to the deaf-mute, for a person is obligated to train his children in the observance of the mitzvot.
|
| 32. |
As mentioned in Chapter 12, Halachot 15 and 19, a person is permitted to carry within a space of four cubits. Thus, each time he stops, the four cubits in which he is allowed to carry become redefined, and in this manner he can carry the article several miles on the Sabbath. (See also Chapter 13, Halachah 10, and Chapter 6, Halachah 22.)
It must be emphasized that transferring the article less than four cubits at a time is permitted only when carrying the article in the public domain, but not with regard to transferring the article into the private domain. This must be accomplished by throwing the article in an irregular manner (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 266:12; Mishnah Berurah 266:17).
Significantly, in contrast to Chapter 13, Halachah 9, the Rambam does not say that the person should run without stopping until he arrives home. It is possible to differentiate between the two instances by explaining that the present halachah refers to an instance when the person had stopped after the commencement of the Sabbath, while the halachah cited refers to an instance when the person had continued walking.
|
| 33. |
The leniencies granted to allow a person to maintain possession of his own property do not apply to a lost object that he discovered, since he will not suffer a loss by leaving it. Nevertheless, once a person has already taken possession of the lost object, it is considered to be his own property.
|
| 34. |
I.e., if there is a danger, because of thieves or the like.
|
| 35. |
According to the Rambam, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 22, there is no prohibition against carrying an article less than four cubits at a time. Most authorities, however, differ with him on this issue and maintain that this is a leniency that is permitted only in rare instances. Hence, in the case of a lost article when a person will not suffer a loss, the leniency is not granted. It is the opinion of these authorities that is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 266:7).
|
| 36. |
The bridle and reins are not considered muktzeh, because the person had the intent of using them before the Sabbath. One must, however, be careful not to lean on the animal when putting the bridle and the reins on it, for it is forbidden to make use of a live animal (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 305:1 and commentaries).
|
| 37. |
This halachah revolves around the following principle: A restraint that is necessary to control an animal is not considered to be a burden and may be borne by the animal on the Sabbath.
|
| 38. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 5:1), the Rambam writes that female camels are more powerful than males and need stronger restraints. The rope used to tie a male camel is, however, apparently different from that mentioned later in the halachah in regard to a horse.
|
| 39. |
A person who leads an animal into the public domain with such a restraint is thus considered as having violated the prohibition against having an animal work on the Sabbath.
|
| 40. |
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) mentions "a very excessive restraint" - i.e., we are not expected to measure exactly the strength of the animal and the restraint. As long as the restraint is more or less appropriate for the animal, it is not considered to be a burden.
|
| 41. |
The Tur (Orach Chayim 305) appears to differ and to allow one to lead merely one camel at a time.
|
| 42. |
If the rope extends longer, it might appear that one is carrying the rope and not using it as a restraint for the animal (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 5:3).
|
| 43. |
If the rope hangs lower, it does not appear to be a restraint for the animal, but rather an unnecessary burden (Rashi, Shabbat 54b).
|
| 44. |
Shabbat 54a states that a person leading a group of camels appears as if he is going to a חנגא. The Rambam, based on the commentary of Rabbenu Chanan'el, interprets that term as having both the meanings mentioned above. It appears to refer to a country-fair that was an occasion for both commerce and celebration for the populace at large.
|
| 45. |
A bell will make the animal look more attractive (Rashi, Shabbat 54b). Alternatively, a bell's sound will invite the attention of prospective customers. An onlooker may not realize that the bell has been plugged (Tiferet Yisrael, Shabbat 5:4).
|
| 46. |
Rashi and Tosafot (Shabbat 58a) states that the reason stated in the previous halachah - that one appears to be taking them to a fair - applies in this instance as well.
|
| 47. |
Identifying it as belonging to its master.
|
| 48. |
This prohibition applies even if the seal is woven into the animal's covering (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 305:15; Mishnah Berurah 305:45).
From the context here, it would appear that the reason for the prohibition is that the seal is considered to be an unnecessary burden. Note, however, Shulchan Aruch HaRav (loc. cit.), which states that the prohibition was instituted lest the seal fall and the owner pick it up and carry it.
|
| 49. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 5:4, based on Shabbat 54b), the Rambam interprets this as referring to a leather strap tied around the hoof of an animal that has been wounded.
|
| 50. |
This refers to wooden restraint placed on the animal's neck to prevent it from being able to turn its head backwards. Such a restraint would be placed on an animal to deter it from chewing on a wound on its back (ibid.).
|
| 51. |
Shabbat 53a states that a donkey is always cold, and hence, a saddle-cloth is necessary, even in the summer, to keep it warm. Accordingly, the saddle-cloth is considered to be a garment and not a burden.
The saddlecloth must be tied to the animal, lest it fall and its owner carry it on the Sabbath. It must be tied before the Sabbath, because there is no way that it can be tied on the Sabbath itself without leaning on the animal, which is a forbidden act. Our Sages prohibited a person who violated their decree and tied the saddle-cloth on the Sabbath from taking out his donkey on that day (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 5:2).
Other commentaries explain that if the saddle-cloth was not tied to the animal on Friday, we can assume that it does not suffer from cold so seriously. Hence, it is forbidden for it to wear the saddle-cloth on the Sabbath.
|
| 52. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.:3), the Rambam states that the patch is used as a sign of identification or for superstitious reasons. Note Rashi (Shabbat 54a), who translates מטוטלת as a "small cushion" rather than as a patch.
|
| 53. |
Our translation is based on Rav Kapach's commentary.
|
| 54. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.).
|
| 55. |
I.e., one of its back feet to one of its front legs, so that it can walk on only three legs (ibid.). In both these instances, the animal is able to walk, but cannot walk fast.
|
| 56. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 5:4), the Rambam emphasizes that this applies to both male and female chickens.
|
| 57. |
Attached to their feet for the purpose of identification (ibid., based on Shabbat 54b).
|
| 58. |
The Rambam (loc. cit.) interprets this as referring to straps that hang loosely from a chicken's feet. He does not explain their purpose. Others (based on Shabbat 54b) explain that these straps served as a restraint.
|
| 59. |
The Rambam (loc. cit.) explains that this refers to a unique species of rams. When they are fattened, all the fat collects in the fat tail, which swells in size. Because of its size, the ram is unable to lift it easily. Therefore, a small wagon is constructed and attached to them to support their tails and prevent them from dragging on the ground and becoming bruised and cut. The Rambam states that he was familiar with such a species of rams.
|
| 60. |
The Rambam (ibid.) states that this refers to chips from the yachnun tree. Based on Shabbat 54b, he explains that these chips were not necessary for rams. Since they butt each other frequently, this would dislodge the worms from their heads.
|
| 61. |
Significantly, Shabbat 54b singles out the species yalei, which Tosafot (based on Bava Batra 4a) identifies as the hedgehog itself. The Biblical name for this species anaka (Leviticus 11:30) resembles the word yenikah, "sucking," and refers to this species' tendency to suck milk.
|
| 62. |
The sharp prickles of the hedgehog skin will annoy the crawling animals and prevent them from sucking the cow's milk (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit., based on Shabbat 54b).
|
| 63. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah [loc. cit. (based on Shabbat, loc. cit.), the Rambam relates that Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah had a neighbor who let his cow go out with a strap between its horns. Rabbi Elazar did not rebuke him for this act, and hence the responsibility for this transgression was considered his. The Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 5:4) relates that as penance, Rabbi Elazar fasted until his teeth became black.
|
| 64. |
Shabbat 53b offers both these interpretations for the word לבובין in the Mishnah, Shabbat 5:2. The Rambam interprets them as not being mutually exclusive and hence cites both of them as halachah. See also the following note.
|
| 65. |
Shabbat (loc. cit.) also offers this as an interpretation of the term לבובין. The Ra'avad, however, objects to this particular interpretation, explaining that, as obvious from the ruling in the previous halachah regarding a strap tied between a cow's horns, any article placed on an animal for the purpose of ornamentation is considered to be a burden and forbidden.
The Maggid Mishneh (in his notes on the following halachah) offers an explanation that can resolve this difficulty. An ornament that an animal wears during the week is also permitted on the Sabbath. The ornaments that are forbidden are those that are placed on the animal for the Sabbath day alone.
Note also an original interpretation offered by the Or Sameach, which explains that ornamentation that makes an animal attractive in the eyes of humans is forbidden. The cloth mentioned in this halachah is, by contrast, intended to make the animal attractive in the eyes of the other animals. Some support for this thesis can be derived from comparison to the other articles mentioned in this halachah.
|
| 66. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 5:2), the Rambam states that these coverings are placed over ewes and not over rams, because ewes' wool is softer than that of rams.
|
| 67. |
This may be done to change the goats' hormonal balance so that they will conceive faster.
|
| 68. |
Rabbenu Yonah explains that the goats' teats were tied for this purpose on the Sabbath and not during the week. During the week, they would be milked in the morning and in the evening, and there was little chance of sufficient pressure building up to cause the milk to ooze out. On the Sabbath, by contrast, they could not be milked from sunset until after nightfall on the next day, and the possibility existed that extra milk would ooze out.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 305:6) follows the interpretation of Rashi, who explains that these ties are not bound tightly and the possibility exists that they will fall and that the owner will carry them in the public domain.
|
| 69. |
Although a donkey may go out wearing a saddlecloth, as stated in Halachah 10, a saddle itself is considered a burden.
|
| 70. |
Rashi (Shabbat 53a) explains that this was used as a talisman to ward off the evil eye.
|
| 71. |
Because it is an unnecessary ornament and therefore considered a burden. See the notes on the previous halachah.
|
| 72. |
Note the Mishnah Berurah 305:41, which states that this restriction does not apply to iron horseshoes that are permanently affixed to the animal's feet.
|
| 73. |
Even if an amulet has proven its efficacy for a human, as long as it has not proven its efficacy for an animal, we are in doubt of its usefulness. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 305:21 states that a human being has angels and spiritual forces that will assist his recovery, and an animal lacks these. Therefore, the amulet used by a human need not be as powerful.
|
| 74. |
Chapter 19, Halachah 13 grants a person license to go out with a bandage on a wound. The same concept applies regarding an animal.
|
| 75. |
So that it will set in place and heal (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 76. |
The bell must be plugged, since it is forbidden to ring bells on the Sabbath as stated in Chapter 23, Halachah 4.
|
| 77. |
In this and the following instance, the leniency is granted in a courtyard, but not in the public domain.
|
| 78. |
The saddle cloth may not be tied, since by doing so one would be making use of an animal. (See the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 305:8 and the notes on Halachah 10.)
|
| 79. |
This leniency applies only to a donkey that chronically suffers from cold, as explained in the notes on Halachah 10, and not to a horse or other similar species (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).
|
| 80. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:10) mentions that, in a courtyard, a feeding bag may be attached to calves and ponies which do not have long necks and find it uncomfortable to eat by themselves.
|
| 81. |
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision, explaining that since the servants are themselves obligated to observe the prohibition against working on the Sabbath, of what purpose is the prohibition imposed on their master? The Maggid Mishneh and Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1525) explain that the servants may be lax in their observance. Therefore, an additional command is given to their master.
|
| 82. |
In Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 14;9, the Rambam explains that a Cana'anite servant goes through a process similar to that of conversion when purchased by a Jewish master. This process includes circumcision, immersion in the mikveh, and the acceptance of mitzvot. Once this process is completed, the servant is bound to observe all the mitzvot that are incumbent upon Jewish women.
|
| 83. |
These seven universal laws include the prohibitions against the worship of false gods, cursing God, killing, stealing, incest and adultery, eating a limb torn from a living animal and the obligation to set up courts of law to judge civil matters. The Rambam explains these laws in Hilchot Melachim, Chapter 9 and 10.
A servant may temporarily refuse to accept the mitzvot incumbent upon Jewish servants. In this instance, he does not undergo the process of circumcision and immersion and is given twelve months to decide whether to accept Jewish observance or not. If he refuses, he must be sold (Hilchot Avadim 8:12).
In the interim, this servant must accept the observance of these seven universal laws. If not, he should be killed immediately (see Hilchot Avadim 1:6 and commentaries).
|
| 84. |
But not for the sake of a Jew. In Chapter 6, it was explained that there is a Rabbinic prohibition preventing a Jew from instructing a gentile to perform a forbidden labor on his behalf. This halachah emphasizes that when a gentile is the Jew's servant, the Jew is violating a positive commandment of the Torah itself by having the gentile work for him on the Sabbath. See notes 87 and 88 below.
|
| 85. |
As explained in Hilchot Shemitah V'Yovel 10:9, there are many mitzvot whose observance is dependent on the observance of the yovel, the Jubilee year. The observance of the Jubilee year itself is dependent on the proportion of the Jewish people living in Eretz Yisrael. Only when the majority of our people live in the holy land is this mitzvah observed.
|
| 86. |
The intent of this question is not directly obvious in a translated text. The Hebrew word גר has two meanings in Halachic terminology: a convert - גר צדק - and a resident alien - גר תושב. Since, as the Rambam indicates, the verse does not appear to refer to either of these individuals, what is the intent of the word גר in that verse?
|
| 87. |
The Maggid Mishneh states that this positive mitzvah prohibits not only one's servant or one's hired hand, but any gentile who has accepted the observance of these seven universal laws, from working on one's behalf on the Sabbath. For as soon as the gentile agrees to perform the forbidden labor on behalf of a Jew, he is considered as the Jew's hired hand.
The question may arise: Concerning whom is the Rambam speaking in Chapter 6 when he states that asking a gentile to work on our behalf is prohibited merely by virtue of Rabbinic decree? A gentile who has not accepted the observance of any mitzvot at all.
|
| 88. |
Thus, according to the Rambam, the verse quoted above contains two prohibitions: one requiring one to watch that any servants who have accepted the mitzvot observe the Sabbath laws, and another, prohibiting us from benefiting from any work done on our behalf by a gentile who has not accepted these mitzvot.
|
Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day - Terumot - Chapter 7, Terumot - Chapter 8, Terumot - Chapter 9
Terumot - Chapter 7
Halacha 1
A priest who is ritually impure is forbidden to partake of terumah whether it is ritually pure or ritually impure,1 as [Leviticus 22:4] states: "Any person from the seed of Aaron who is afflicted with tzaraat2or is a zav3 may not partake of consecrated food." Which consecrated food may be eaten by all the descendants of Aaron, both male and female? We must say: terumah.4
[Thus] any impure person who eats terumah that is ritually pure is liable for death at the hand of heaven. Therefore he is given lashes,5 as [ibid.:9] states: "And you shall protect My charge and not bear sin because of it [and die because of it]."
Halacha 2
Impure [priests who have immersed to purify themselves] may not partake ofterumah until the sun sets and three stars appear afterwards8 [on the day the impure person immerses himself], as [implied by ibid.:7]: "And the sun will set and he will become pure"9 - until the sky will become pure of the light - "afterwards he may partake of the consecrated foods."
Halacha 3
A priest who is ritually pure who ate terumah that is ritually impure is not liable for lashes, because [the prohibition is the result of] a positive commandment. For the verse states: "Afterwards he may partake of the consecrated foods."10[Implied is that,] after he becomes purified, he may partake of food that is in a state of holiness. Food which is impure, by contrast, he should not eat, even though he becomes purified. A prohibition that stems from a positive commandment11 has the status of a positive commandment.12
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
We may immerse a deaf-mute or intellectually or emotionally unstable [priest] and feed him terumah after nightfall on that day.15 We guard them to make sure that they do not sleep after immersing themselves, because if they sleep, they are [considered] impure for perhaps they had a seminal emission16 unless a copper container is made for them.17
Halacha 6
Halacha 7
When a woman engages in intimacy, she may immerse herself and partake ofterumah in the evening,20 provided she did not turn over during intimacy.21If she turned over during intimacy she is forbidden to partake of terumah for a duration of three days. For it is impossible that she will not discharge [semen] and become impure,22 as will be explained in the appropriate place.23
Halacha 8
Since the primary obligation of terumah [separated] in the Diaspora is Rabbinic in origin,24 it is forbidden only to a priest who becomes ritually impure because of a discharge from his body: i.e., men who had a seminal emission, zavim,25zavot,26 niddot,27 and women who give birth.28 All of these individuals may partake [of terumah] after they immersed even if they did not [wait] until nightfall.29 Those who, by contrast, became impure because of contact with a source of ritual impurity - whether contact with a human corpse, a form of impurity which is impossible to purge in the present age30 or contact with [the corpse of] a crawling animal - need not immerse themselves [to partake of]terumah separated in the Diaspora.
Halacha 9
For this reason, a male priest who is a minor who has not yet had a seminal emission or a female of the priestly family who has never experienced menstrual bleeding may partake of [terumah from the Diaspora] at all times without undergoing an inspection, for the presumption that they did not have a discharge that would render them ritually impure applies to them.31
Halacha 10
A priest who is uncircumcised is forbidden to partake of terumah according to Scriptural Law.35 [This concept is derived as follows: Leviticus 22:10] speaks of a resident worker and a hired worker with regard to [partaking of] terumah and [Exodus 12:45] speaks of a resident worker and a hired worker with regard to [partaking of] the Paschal sacrifice. Just as with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, the resident worker and the hired worker spoken about refer to those who are uncircumcised and who are forbidden [to partake of] it,36 so too, with regard toterumah, we learn that a resident worker and a hired worker who are uncircumcised are forbidden [to partake of] it. 37 If such a person partakes [ofterumah], he is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law.
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
Although an uncircumcised priest and all those who are impure are forbidden to partake of terumah, their wives and their servants may partake [of it].46
Halacha 13
[The following laws apply to a priest] who has maimed testicles or a severed member. They and their servants may partake of terumah.47 Their wives may not partake of terumah.48 If [such a priest] was not intimate with his wife after suffering these wounds, [his wife] may partake of terumah.49 Similarly, if he married the descendent of converts, she may partake of terumah.50
Halacha 14
When a priest with maimed testicles consecrates the daughter of a priest, she may not partake of terumah.51 [When a priest is] a eunuch who was brought to this state through natural means,52 he, his wife, and his servants may partake of terumah. [When a priest is] a tumtum or an androgynus, their servants may partake of terumah,53 but not their wives.54
Halacha 15
Halacha 16
When an androgynus [of the priestly family] engages in intimacy - whether through anal intercourse57 or vaginal intercourse - with a person who is disqualified from partaking of terumah, he is disqualified from partaking ofterumah as a woman would be.58 His servants also may not partake ofterumah.59
Similarly, if he engages in intimacy with another adrogynus with whom relations would disqualify a woman from partaking of terumah, he is disqualified. Neither he nor his servants may partake of terumah. [The latter law] applies when he engages in intimacy through vaginal intercourse.60 If, however, he is intimate through anal intercourse,61 [the above does not apply], because a male does not disqualify another male from priestly [privileges].62
Halacha 17
When a servant belongs to partners and one of them is a priest, that does not entitle him to partake of terumah.63 [Instead,] this servant is forbidden to partake [of terumah]. Whenever [the ownership of a servant] entitles him to partake of terumah, it also entitles him to partake of the breast and the thigh [of the peace sacrifices].64
Halacha 18
When a daughter of an Israelite marries a priest and brings servants [to his domain] - regardless of whether they are classified as nichsei milog or nichsei tzon barzel65 - they may partake [of terumah]. Similarly, when the servants of priests purchase servants or the servants of a priest's wife purchase servants, they may partake of terumah, as [intimated by Leviticus 22:11]: "[When a priest] will purchase a soul, the acquisition of his money, [he shall partake of it]." Implied is even an acquisition of an acquisition.66 An acquisition of [a priest] who is permitted to partake of terumah may entitle others to partake [ofterumah]. An acquisition who does not partake of terumah may not entitle others to partake [of terumah].67
Halacha 19
When the daughter of a priest marries an Israelite and brings servants [to his domain] - regardless of whether they are classified as nichsei milog or nichsei tzon barzel - they may not partake [of terumah].68
Halacha 20
[The following laws apply when] a widow marries a High Priest or a divorcee or a woman who underwent chalitzah - whether the daughter of a priest or an Israelite - marries an ordinary priest69 or [a priest] marries another one of the women with whom marriage is prohibited [by Scriptural Law].70 If she brings servants [to his domain] which are classified as nichsei milog or nichsei tzon barzel [to his domain], those classified as nichsei milog may not partake [ofterumah],71 even though he is required to provide for their sustenance. Those classified as nichsei tzon barzel may partake of terumah, for they are the husband's property. If [a priest] married a shniyah,72 she may partake [ofterumah],73 but her servants who are nichsei milog may not partake [ofterumah].74
Halacha 21
When the daughter of a priest who is a widow is consecrated by a High Priest or one who is divorced is consecrated by an ordinary priest, they may not partake of terumah,75 because they are designated for intimate relations that are forbidden according to Scriptural Law. Similarly, if they enter the chupah76without being consecrated, they may not partake [of terumah]. For [entering into] the chupah disqualifies them.77
If such a woman is widowed or divorced after consecration [but before marriage], she returns to suitability and may partake of terumah. If, however, she had married, she may not partake of terumah, because she already became a chalalah.78
Halacha 22
When the husband of the daughter of a priest who is himself a priest dies and she falls before yevamim, one of which is a challal,79 she may not partake ofterumah because of her connection to the challal.80 [This applies] even if one of the acceptable [brothers] issued a mamar81 to her, for a maamar does not constitute a complete acquisition of a yevamah.82
Halacha 23
[Although a yavam who is] a priest gives a bill of divorce83to his yevamah, [despite the fact that] she becomes forbidden to him, she still remains connected to him.84 Hence, she is entitled to partake of terumah. [She is not disqualified,] because she is designated for relations that are forbidden [only] by Rabbinic decree, since a bill of divorce disqualifies a yevamah only according to Rabbinic decree.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 136) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 279) include this as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 2. |
Tzara'at is a physical affliction resembling, but not identical with leprosy, that comes as a result of gossip and imparts ritual impurity.
|
| 3. |
This refers to a physical affliction resembling, but not identical with gonorrhea that imparts ritual impurity.
|
| 4. |
It does not refer to the breast and thigh of the peace offerings, for a woman of the priestly family who marries and is widowed or divorced may not partake of them (Yevamot 74b).
|
| 5. |
If his transgression is observed by witnesses and they issued a warning. Whenever lashes are given on the earthly plane, the transgressor receives atonement and is no longer held liable for death by God.
|
| 6. |
From the fact that Sanhedrin 83a,b emphasizes that an impure priest is not liable for death for partaking of impure terumah, the Rambam concludes that a transgression is involved.
|
| 7. |
Its impurity nullifies its holiness. See Chapter 6, Halachah 6 and notes, however.
|
| 8. |
The Kessef Mishneh states that this is approximately 20 minutes after sunset. This applies inEretz Yisrael. In different latitudes, the duration of this time period varies.
This represents a stringency over other laws where ritual purity is required. In many such instances, as soon as one immerses himself, his purification is completed and no further wait is necessary. See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 7:11.
|
| 9. |
The simple meaning of the verse is that the person's purification process is not completed until the sun sets. The rules of Biblical exegesis, however, leave room for the meaning mentioned by the Rambam.
|
| 10. |
The Rabaz emphasizes that with regard to partaking of the sacrifices, in certain instances, an impure priest must also bring a sacrifice to mark his immersion from impurity.
|
| 11. |
I,e., as in the case at hand, there is no verse that says "Do not eat impure terumah," but from the positive commandment regarding pure terumah, we can conclude that partaking of the impureterumah is prohibited.
|
| 12. |
Hence, its violation is not punishable by lashes.
|
| 13. |
Which would render him ritually impure.
|
| 14. |
For he does not become ritually impure until the semen actually emerges and in this way, he could swallow the terumah first (Niddah 40a).
|
| 15. |
These individuals are not responsible for their conduct. Nevertheless, their priesthood is intact. Hence, we immerse them to purify them and then enable them to partake of terumah.
|
| 16. |
I.e., because of the doubt, we considered them impure.
|
| 17. |
Which would allow a seminal emission to be detected. Were the container to be made of cloth, the semen could be absorbed (Radbaz).
|
| 18. |
The literal meaning of the Hebrew is "warmth."
|
| 19. |
See the gloss of the Radbaz who states that the Rambam's wording implies that this ruling applies only when one rides bareback [see Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 23:7)]. He also explains why it applies only to camel-riders and not those who ride on other animals.
|
| 20. |
I.e., intimate relations cause both the man and the woman to become impure. To emerge from that impurity, they must each immerse in the mikvah and wait until nightfall (see Leviticus 15:18).
|
| 21. |
Intimate relations can cause a woman to become impure for two reasons:
a) as stated above, the very act of intimacy brings about ritual impurity;
b) she comes in contact with semen and touching semen makes one ritually impure (Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 5:9).
As long as the semen is in the woman's vagina, it is not considered to have touched her, because it is touching her body internally, not externally. If, however, it flows outside her vagina and touches her externally, she does become impure. According to the Rambam, if the woman does not turn over in intimate relations, the semen will remain in her vagina and not flow outside. Hence, after immersing herself and waiting until nightfall, she may partake of terumah. If, however, she turned over in the midst of intimacy, the semen will flow out. Moreover, it is possible that it will not flow out immediately, but will do so over the course of the coming days. Now, semen is considered to remain viable until the third day after intimacy. Hence for three days, the woman must consider the possibility that the semen flowed out from her body and made her impure. Hence, she cannot immerse herself in the mikvah to regain ritual purity until three days have passed.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that even if the woman did not turn over during intimacy, as soon as she arises from bed, it is possible that semen will flow out from her vagina and touch her body. He quotes Niddah 41b in support of his explanation. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh suggest that the Rambam had a different text of that Talmudic passage and they validate his ruling.
|
| 22. |
Because of it touching her body.
|
| 23. |
Ibid.:11. There the Rambam states that the intent is not that semen remains viable for three full days, but that it can remain viable until the third day after relations.
|
| 24. |
As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 1, according to Scriptural Law, the requirement to separateterumah applies only in Eretz Yisrael. The early Sages ordained that it should be observed in certain neighboring countries.
|
| 25. |
This refers to a physical affliction resembling, but not identical with gonorrhea that imparts ritual impurity.
|
| 26. |
Women who become impure because they experienced menstrual bleeding at times other than her ordinary cycle.
|
| 27. |
Women who become impure because they experienced ordinary menstrual bleeding.
|
| 28. |
Who becomes impure as explained in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, ch. 10. Since the obligation to separateterumah in these lands is only Rabbinic in origin, the Sages were lenient regarding the restrictions incumbent on those who partake of terumah.
|
| 29. |
In contrast to terumah prescribed by Scriptural Law when such a wait is necessary, as stated in Halachah 2. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this point and refers to Bechorot27a in support of his position. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer different explanations of that passage that support the Rambam's interpretation.
|
| 30. |
For to purge the impurity resulting from contact with a human corpse, it is necessary to have the ashes from a Red Heifer sprinkled upon one's body and those ashes are not available in the present age.
|
| 31. |
Once a male or a female attains majority, by contrast, we assume that they have become impure and they must immerse themselves before partaking of terumah (Radbaz).
|
| 32. |
Tzara'at is a physical affliction resembling, but not identical with leprosy, that comes as a result of gossip and imparts ritual impurity.
|
| 33. |
For his impurity is also a result of a physical condition (ibid.).
|
| 34. |
For a person afflicted by tzara'at does not become ritually impure until a priest declares him so (Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 9:2). With regard to the establishment of a priest's lineage, see the notes to Chapter 6, Halachah 2.
The Radbaz adds that the reason the impurity of tzara'at is not observed in the present age is that we have no priests whose lineage is established to declare people ritually impure. The physical conditions for the impurity may exist in the present age.
|
| 35. |
The Radbaz writes that this prohibition applies even if he is uncircumcised with the Torah's permission, e.g., his brothers died because of circumcision, in which instance, caution is shown before circumcising him.
|
| 36. |
See Hilchot Korban Pesach 9:7.
|
| 37. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 135) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 282) include this as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah. There is, however, a slight difficulty with this classification. The Rambam maintains that any commandment that is derived through one of the Thirteen Principles of Biblical Exegesis does not have the status of a Scriptural command, nor is such a prohibition punishable by lashes (Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 2) and as the Rambam states here, there is no direct commandment prohibiting an uncircumcised person from partaking of terumah. Instead, it is derived by our Sages (Yevamot 70a) through an association of verses (gezeirah shaveh). Hence, seemingly, it should not be placed in that category. The Rambam notes this difficulty when discussing this mitzvah in Sefer HaMitzvot and states that since our Sages mentioned that this mitzvah was of Scriptural origin, he considered it as having that status.
|
| 38. |
I.e., one was originally circumcised, but underwent an operation so that it would appear that he was not circumcised. In the Hellenist and Roman periods, there were Jews who underwent such operations so that they would resemble non-Jews.
|
| 39. |
For according to Scriptural Law, his original circumcision was effective and he can never revert to being uncircumcised.
|
| 40. |
The Radbaz writes that the intent is not that he is forbidden to partake of terumah until he is circumcised again. Instead, the intent is that he is advised to undergo the operation and not to partake of terumah until he does so. The Sefer HaMitzvot and the Sefer HaChinuch (loc. cit.), however, say that such an individual is prohibited by the Rabbis from partaking of terumah.
|
| 41. |
Although it is necessary to draw a drop of blood from such a person's organ (Hilchot Milah 1:11), it cannot be said that such a person is uncircumcised. Hence, he is permitted to partake of terumah(Radbaz).
|
| 42. |
A child whose genital area is covered by a mass of flesh and thus his gender cannot be determined.
|
| 43. |
Since his gender is undetermined, we do not know whether or not he must be circumcised.
|
| 44. |
A person with both male and female sexual organs.
|
| 45. |
Although there are many unresolved questions about such a person's status vis-à-vis gender, there is no difficulty in him partaking of terumah for both males and females of the priestly family are permitted to partake of it.
|
| 46. |
They are prohibited from partaking of terumah due to outside factors. Their membership in the priestly family is, however, intact. Hence, their wives and servants may partake of terumah(Radbaz).
|
| 47. |
Although their wounds prevent such priests from serving at the Altar, they are still members of the priestly family. Hence, they and their servants may partake of terumah.
|
| 48. |
As stated in Deuteronomy 23:2 and Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, ch. 16, a person with such wounds is forbidden to marry a natural born Jewess. Hence, if a priest is intimate with his wife after suffering such wounds, she becomes a zonah and a chalalah and hence, is forbidden to partake ofterumah.
|
| 49. |
Since they were not intimate, she has not become a chalalah and may partake of terumah. TheKessef Mishneh states that this refers to an instance where the couple were married and then he suffered this wound. If, however, a priest suffers such a wound and then consecrates a woman, she may not partake of terumah. See the notes to the following halachah.
|
| 50. |
Ordinarily, a priest cannot marry a convert or the descendant of a convert. In this instance, however, because of his injury, the full measure of the holiness of the priesthood does not rest upon him and he may marry such a woman (Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 16:1). Once he marries such a woman, she is entitled to partake of terumah, because she is the wife of a priest.
|
| 51. |
Since this woman is prepared to engage in intimate relations that are forbidden to her, our Sages prohibited her from partaking of terumah even though she had not actually engaged in such relations. Moreover, she is no longer permitted to partake of terumah by virtue of her being a member of the priestly family, because she was consecrated, as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 1.
|
| 52. |
See Hilchot Ishut 2:14 for a more precise definition of the term used by the Rambam. As stated inHilchot Issurei Bi'ah 16:9, such a person is permitted to marry a native-born Jewess. Hence, there is no difficulty with the wife of a priest with such a condition partaking of terumah.
|
| 53. |
For in this context, there is no difference between them and the servants of an ordinary priest.
|
| 54. |
For there is an unresolved doubt if their marriages are acceptable. Needless to say, if a tumtumundergoes an operation and it is determined that he is a male, his wife may partake of terumaheven if he consecrated her before the operation.
|
| 55. |
These individuals are considered as not being responsible for their actions and their acquisitions are not valid. Hence, the servants they purchase by themselves are not their property according to Scriptural Law and may not partake of terumah.
|
| 56. |
Because the acquisitions are binding and they have become the property of a priest.
|
| 57. |
The literal translation of the Rambam's words would be "as a male would be the object of intimacy."
|
| 58. |
For such relations would cause a woman to be considered as a chalalah. Since there is an unresolved question regarding the gender of an androgynus, we are stringent and consider the possibility that he is a female. And a female is disqualified from terumah if she engages in intimacy that would render her a chalalah regardless of whether it is vaginal or anal intercourse (Radbaz).
|
| 59. |
For their right to partake of terumah is dependent on that of their owner.
|
| 60. |
For such relations would render a woman a chalahah and, because of the unresolved question regarding the status of the androgynus, we apply that stringency to him as well.
|
| 61. |
The literal translation of the Rambam's words would be "as a male would be the object of intimacy."
|
| 62. |
A male priest does not become a chalal because he entered into a forbidden sexual relationship.
The Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh question the Rambam's ruling, noting that, seemingly, the person should be disqualified from partaking of terumah based on the same rationale as the first clause of the halachah: i.e., that the androgynus also has a feminine dimension and that feminine dimension will be disqualified through anal intercourse. Hence, they ask: Why does the Rambam only view this relationship as intimacy between males and hence, not able to disqualify theandrogynus? Why not see it as a relation between a male and a female? Among the explanations given is that since both of the androgynies are engaging in relations as males, it is not appropriate to deem one a male and one a female.
|
| 63. |
The Jerusalem Talmud (the conclusion of tractate Terumot) states that for a servant to partake ofterumah, he must belong to priests entirely. If an Israelite has even a one-hundredth share in the ownership of the servant, he may not partake of terumah.
|
| 64. |
Which may be eaten by all the members of the priest's household.
|
| 65. |
When a woman marries, her husband receives the right to benefit from her property. As explained in Hilchot Ishut, ch. 16, there are two arrangements under which a husband is allowed to benefit from his wife's property:
nichsei milog - in this instance, in the event of divorce or the husband's death, the property reverts to the ownership of the woman according to its value at that time, regardless of the profit or loss she suffers;
nichsei tzon barzel - in this instance, the property is evaluated at the time of marriage; in the event of divorce or the husband's death, the woman receives that amount, regardless of the worth of the property at that time.
Servants can be classified in either of these categories. In both instances, they have the right to partake of terumah. With regard to servants who are nichsei tzon barzel, they are the husband's (the priest's) acquisitions, for it is as if he acquired them when he accepted financial responsibility for their worth. With regard to those who are nichsei milog, they are "the acquisition of his acquisition," i.e., property belonging to his wife whom he has acquired. See Halachah 20.
|
| 66. |
I.e., servants acquired by servants who were acquired by the priest. The inference is derived based on the fact that the verse contains to derivatives of the word koneh - "acquire."
|
| 67. |
When the wife of a priest is not entitled to partake of terumah (see Halachot 20-22), her servants may also not partake of terumah.
|
| 68. |
The servants who are nichsei tzon barzel certainly may not partake of terumah for they are now the property of an Israelite. Even the servants who are nichsei milog may not partake of terumah, for at this time, their owner - the Israelite's wife - is disqualified from partaking of terumah.
|
| 69. |
These three types of relationships are forbidden, the first two by Scriptural Law, the latter by Rabbinic Law. Thus the woman will become a chalalah and hence, forbidden to partake ofterumah. Since she is forbidden to partake of terumah, her servants are likewise forbidden.
|
| 70. |
I.e., a woman who is forbidden to him because of one of the prohibitions that apply to all Jews, even non-priests. Nevertheless, if he engages in relations with that woman, she becomes a zonahand thus prohibited against partaking of terumah. In this instance as well, since she is forbidden to partake of terumah, her servants are likewise forbidden.
|
| 71. |
For they are the woman's poperty, it is just that they are "on loan" to her husband, as it were.
|
| 72. |
A relatively distant female relative with whom our Sages prohibited marriage as a safeguard against the Scriptural prohibitions of incest. See Hilchot Ishut 1:6.
|
| 73. |
For according to Scriptural Law, she is the priest's wife and relations with him do not disqualify her, neither as a zonah or a chalalah.
|
| 74. |
Seemingly, since such a woman has the right to partake of terumah, her servants should also be so entitled. The Radbaz explains that since her marriage is not sanctioned by Rabbinic Law, her husband is under no obligation to sustain her. Hence, her servants do not receive the right to partake of terumah. Those servants that are nichsei tzon barzel are permitted to partake ofterumah according to all authorities, for they are her husband's acquisitions as explained above.
|
| 75. |
I.e., were it not for the reason stated by the Rambam, they would be permitted to partake ofterumah by virtue of their membership in the Priestly family.
|
| 76. |
Entering the chupah means entering a private place with her husband. This is the act that constitutes the beginning of the second phase of the marriage relationship, nissuin.
|
| 77. |
Even though a woman enters the chupah without consecration, that act causes her to be considered as designated for intimate relations that are forbidden.
|
| 78. |
Through intimate relations with her husband.
|
| 79. |
I.e., her husband, the priest, had several brothers, one of whom was born from a relationship forbidden to the priesthood, and thus had the status of a challal.
|
| 80. |
Since she could be married by the challal, she is disqualified even though she is a member of the priestly family.
|
| 81. |
A maamar is a Rabbinic institution in which a yevam declares his intention to marry his brother's childless widow by consecrating her through giving her money (Hilchot Yibbum 2:1).
|
| 82. |
If another brother would perform yibbum with the widow, he would become her husband despite the maamar given by his brother. Thus the connection to the yevam who is a challal is still intact.
|
| 83. |
I.e., instead of performing chalitzah which would absolve the connection between him and hisyevamah, he gave her a bill of divorce. According to Scriptural Law, the bill of divorce is not effective at all. Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, it disqualifies the woman from carrying out yibbum with any of the brothers (Hilchot Yibbum VeChalitzah 5:1).
|
| 84. |
For according to Scriptural Law, their connection is still intact.
|
| 85. |
And thus became forbidden to a priest by Rabbinic decree.
|
| 86. |
A relatively distant female relative with whom our Sages prohibited marriage as a safeguard against the Scriptural prohibitions of incest. See Hilchot Ishut 1:6.
|
| 87. |
Because she is a member of the priestly family. In contrast to the women mentioned in Halachah 21, these women are designated for relations that are forbidden only by Rabbinic decree. Hence, they are not disqualified.
Were the yevamah to be the daughter of an Israelite, she would not be permitted to partake ofterumah despite the fact that she is bound to a priest through the obligation of yibbum (Radbaz).
|
| 88. |
A women whose female sexual characteristics are underdeveloped.
|
| 89. |
Although the priest may divorce her because she cannot have children, until he does so, he may be intimate with her. Hence, she is entitled to partake of terumah.
|
Terumot - Chapter 8
Halacha 1
A fetus, a yavam, consecration, a deaf-mute, and a child of nine years old disqualify [a woman] from partaking of terumah, but do not entitle her to partake [of it].1
Halacha 2
What is meant [by the above statement] with regard to a fetus? A daughter of an Israelite who was impregnated by a priest2 is not entitled to partake ofterumah by virtue of the fetus.3 When the daughter of a priest, by contrast, was impregnated by an Israelite,4 she is prohibited against partaking of terumahbecause of the fetus. [This is derived from Leviticus 22:13:] "And she shall return to her father's home as in her maidenhood." This excludes a pregnant woman.5
Halacha 3
When an Israelite has relations with a daughter of a priest,6 we do not suspect that she became pregnant. Instead, she may immerse herself [in the mikveh]7and partake [of terumah] in the evening. If she was married to an Israelite and her husband died, she may immerse herself and partake of terumah in the evening [and continue doing so] for 40 days.8 If her fetus is recognized [afterwards], retroactively, her [actions] are objectionable9 from the fortieth day onward. For, throughout the forty days, the embryo is not considered as a fetus, merely as water.
Halacha 4
When a daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest and he died, leaving her pregnant,10 her servants11 should not partake of terumah because of the fetus. For only a child that was born entitles others to partake [of terumah]. One which is not born does not entitle others to partake [of terumah]. Therefore if the fetus was a challal [and the woman had other acceptable children, the fetus] does not disqualify the servants from partaking of terumah.12 Instead, they may partake of it by virtue of his brothers who are acceptable priests until this challalis born, at which point, the servants become forbidden to partake [ofterumah].13
Halacha 5
What is meant [by the initial statement] with regard to a yavam? When a daughter of an Israelite is under the obligation to perform yibbum with a priest,14she may not partake of terumah, for [ibid.:11] states: "When a priest will purchase a soul" and this [yavam] has not acquired [the woman] yet.15
When the daughter of a priest is under the obligation to perform yibbum with an Israelite, she is forbidden [to partake of terumah]16 because of her yavam, as [implied by the verse:] "And she shall return to her father's home as in her maidenhood." This excludes a woman under obligation to perform yibbum.17
Halacha 6
When a yavam who is a priest engages in relations with his yevamah by force or without intent or he merely uncovers her and does not complete the act of intercourse,18 he acquires [his yevamah], as stated in Hilchot Yibbum.19Nevertheless, he does not entitle her to partake of terumah until he completes the act of intercourse with her consent.
Halacha 7
What is meant [by the initial statement] with regard to a consecration? When a daughter of a priest is consecrated by an Israelite, she is forbidden to partake [of terumah], for he has already acquired her. When the daughter of an Israelite has been consecrated by a priest, she may not partake [of terumah] until she enters the chupah, lest she give terumah to the members of her father's household, as we explained.22
Halacha 8
When an Israelite tells the daughter of a priest: "Behold, you are consecrated to me after 30 days," she may partake [of terumah] for these 30 days,23 for the consecration has not taken effect yet.24 If, however, he told her: "You are consecrated to me from the present and after 30 days,"25 she is forbidden to partake [of terumah] immediately.26 Similar laws apply with regard to other conditional agreements of this type.27
Halacha 9
What is meant [by the initial statement] with regard to a deaf-mute? When a daughter of a priest is married to an Israelite who is a deaf-mute, she may not partake [of terumah], since he acquires her by virtue of the ordinance of our Sages who instituted marriage for him.28 When a daughter of an Israelite marries a priest who is a deaf-mute, she may not partake [of terumah], because he does not acquire [her] according to Scriptural Law,29 because he is not of [adequate] intellectual capacity.
Halacha 10
[When a woman] was consecrated by a priest of ordinary mental capacity, but he did not marry her until he became a deaf-mute, she may not partake [ofterumah].30 [In the above situation, if after consecrating a woman, a priest] died and she fell before a yavam who is a deaf-mute, she may not partake [ofterumah].31 If, however, he married her when he was of ordinary mental capacity and then became a deaf-mute, she may [continue] to partake [ofterumah].32 If he died and she fell before a yavam who is a deaf-mute and he performs yibbum with her, she may [also continue to] partake [of terumah]. [The rationale for the leniency is] that she was partaking of terumah beforehand.33
When the wife of [a priest who is] a deaf-mute bears him a child, she may partake [of terumah] by virtue of her child.
Halacha 11
What is meant [by the initial statement] with regard to a child of nine years old?34 [When a daughter of a priest] engaged in relations with a child of nine years old who is forbidden to her, since sexual relations in which he engages are significant,35 she is disqualified from the priesthood and forbidden to partake ofterumah, because she becomes a zonah or a chalalah, as we explained.36[This applies] even if [the child] is sexually impotent.37
When a daughter of an Israelite marries a priest who is nine years old, even though the relations in which he engages are significant, she is not entitled to partake of terumah because of [this] child, because he cannot acquire her [as his wife] until he reaches majority.38
Halacha 12
All of the relationships [mentioned above] that do not entitle a woman to partake of terumah prescribed by Scriptural Law also do not entitle her to partake ofterumah prescribed by Rabbinic Law. [This is] a decree lest they have them partake of terumah prescribed by Scriptural Law.
Halacha 13
The [following] individuals neither disqualify [the daughter of a priest from partaking of terumah]43 or enable [the daughter of an Israelite] to partake of it:44a rapist, a seducer,45 or a mentally or emotionally unstable person.46 [This applies] provided she is not forbidden to them, in which instance, they disqualify her through relations, because she becomes a zonah or a chalalah, as we explained.47
Halacha 14
When a woman married a priest who was intellectually or emotionally unstable or a priest raped her or seduced her and she bore him a child, she may partake of terumah because of her son.48 There is a doubt concerning the matter, for since she was not consecrated to him, it is possible that she was impregnated by another person. Nevertheless, we operate under the presumption that the child was conceived by [the priest] who engaged in relations with her. [This applies] provided rumors did not circulate concerning her with another person. Instead, everyone gossips about her and this priest.
Similar concepts apply when an Israelite who is intellectually or emotionally unstable engages in relations with the daughter of a priest or [an Israelite] raped or seduced her and she became pregnant. She may not partake ofterumah because of the fetus. If the fetus is is aborted, she may partake [ofterumah].49
Halacha 15
When witnesses concerning a [sotah] warning and witnesses concerning [asotah] meeting testify against a woman50 married [to a priest], she is forbidden to partake of terumah until she drinks the bitter water, because there is a question whether she is a zonah. If her husband dies before she drinks the water or she is one of the women who are absolved from drinking51 and do not receive the money due them by virtue of their ketubah, she is forbidden to partake of terumah forever.52 Whenever the wife of a priest says: "I have been unfaithful," she is forbidden to partake of terumah.53
Halacha 16
When a daughter of an Israelite who has not attained majority marries a priest without her father's consent, whether in his presence or in his absence, she may not partake of terumah even though her father consecrated her.54 [The rationale is that] her father might object and then she would retroactively be unfit [to partake of terumah]. [The reason] he remains silent even though he sees is because he is angry because she married without his consent.55
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
This statement is explained in the halachot that follow.
|
| 2. |
Without being married to the priest or after being widowed from him.
|
| 3. |
I.e., as soon as the baby is born, the mother is entitled to eat by virtue of her child. Until it is born, however, the restrictions apply.
|
| 4. |
Without being married to the priest or after being widowed from him.
|
| 5. |
Rashi (Yevamot 67b) explains that a pregnant woman is excluded, because she does not resemble a maiden.
|
| 6. |
Without being married to the priest or after being widowed from him.
|
| 7. |
To purify herself from the impurity she contracted because of the relations in which she engaged (see Leviticus 15:18). Note, however, Chapter 7, Halachah 7, and notes, from which it is apparent that there are times when a woman will have to wait longer.
|
| 8. |
For even if she became pregnant, the pregnancy is not significant as the Rambam continues to explain. Hence, after 40 days passed, she should refrain from partaking of terumah until it is clear that she is not pregnant.
|
| 9. |
She is required to make restoration of the terumah and add a fifth of its value as atonement.
|
| 10. |
Without any other children.
|
| 11. |
She herself may also not partake of terumah, as stated in Halachah 2. This halachah is speaking about her servants that are nichsei tzon barzel and thus belong to the heirs of her husband's estate. Until the fetus is born, it is not a significant entity and the servants that belong to it do not have the right to partake of terumah because of it.
|
| 12. |
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this point and maintains that the right of the fetus to the servants is significant even before the fetus is born. Hence, he disqualifies them from partaking of terumah. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer interpretations of the relevant Talmudic portions that substantiate the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 13. |
Until the estate is divided and each brother receives his share.
|
| 14. |
Regardless of the age of the prospective yavam.
|
| 15. |
Although she was married to the brother of the yavam, the yavam does not acquire her until he performs yibbum. The Radbaz emphasizes that this ruling applies even if the yavam gave her ama'amar, designating her as his wife.
|
| 16. |
Which, were she not obligated to her yavam, she could partake of by virtue of her membership in the priestly family.
|
| 17. |
Rashi (loc. cit. 67b) explains that such a woman is excluded, because she may not return to her father's home.
|
| 18. |
As stated in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 1:10, the term "uncover" is of Biblical origin (Leviticus 20:18) and refers to the insertion of the corona alone in the woman's vaginal channel. "Completing relations" refers to the insertion of the entire male organ.
|
| 19. |
Hilchot Yibbum VeChalitzah 2:3.
|
| 20. |
And thus was not yet entitled to partake of terumah by virtue of her initial marriage.
|
| 21. |
I.e., during her first marriage.
|
| 22. |
Chapter 6, Halachah 3, explains that the Sages forbade such a woman from partaking of terumahfor this reason. According to Scriptural Law, she is entitled to partake of it.
|
| 23. |
By virtue of her ancestral right.
|
| 24. |
When a woman's husband words his statement in that manner, the consecration does not take effect until the 30 days pass (Hilchot Ishut 7:10).
|
| 25. |
In which instance, the wording he uses is confusing and there is a doubt whether the consecration takes effect immediately or only after 30 days (ibid.:12).
|
| 26. |
Because of the doubt regarding her status.
|
| 27. |
I.e., if the man consecrated the woman conditionally, but stated that when the condition is fulfilled, the consecration would take effect from the present time (see ibid.: 6:16).
|
| 28. |
According to Scriptural Law, a deaf-mute does not have the capacity to consecrate a woman as his wife. Our Sages, however, desired that these individuals be given a chance to enjoy the basics of family life (see Hilchot Ishut 4:9, 11:4).
|
| 29. |
And the acquisition ordained by our Sages does not have the power to supercede Scriptural Law.
|
| 30. |
For her consecration did not entitle her to partake of terumah and her marriage to a deaf-mute (through yibbum) does not give her this right either.
|
| 31. |
In this instance, the yibbum performed by the deaf-mute creates a marriage-bond that is effective according to Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, the relations with which he engages with her resemble the inadvertent relations mentioned in Halachah 6 and hence do not entitle the woman to partake of terumah.
|
| 32. |
For she is married according to Scriptural Law.
|
| 33. |
And the relations with the yavam restore her to her previous status.
|
| 34. |
The Rambam speaks about a boy "nine years and one day old." Nevertheless, the intent is that he has completed nine years of life and entered his tenth year. Even a portion of a day is considered as an entire day. Thus as soon as a child reaches his ninth birthday, he is nine years and one day old. Hence, for the purpose of brevity, we have translated as above.
|
| 35. |
Although such a child is a minor and not entirely sexually potent, at this age, he is somewhat physically mature. Hence, relations in which he engage are significant to a certain extent. SeeHilchot Ishut 11:3; Hilchot Yibbum 1:16; Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 1:13.
|
| 36. |
See Chapter 6, Halachah 7.
|
| 37. |
I.e., and he inserted his organ in hers without an erection. The Radbaz explains that this is the fundamental new concept taught by this halachah. Otherwise, it would be obvious that since relations with this child are significant and they are forbidden to this woman, they disqualify her from partaking of terumah.
|
| 38. |
For a male cannot acquire a wife until he reaches majority. Such a marriage is not significant even according to Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Ishut 11:6-7).
|
| 39. |
In which instance, she would be forbidden to partake of terumah.
|
| 40. |
In which instance, she would be permitted.
|
| 41. |
Because of the doubt.
|
| 42. |
For a child does not reach maturity - and hence, a marriage that he enters is not significant - until he manifests bodily signs, two pubic hairs for a male, that he has reached maturity. Attaining the age of maturity is itself not sufficient (Hilchot Ishut 2:10-11).
Seemingly, this clause is also speaking about an instance where the daughter of a priest is marrying a youth who disqualifies her and the question is whether he is of sufficient physical maturity for the marriage to be significant. In that instance, however, it would be proper to speak of consecration, not marriage. For this reason, Rav Yosef Korcus defines this clause as referring to a daughter of an Israelite who is marrying a priest and the question is whether the marriage entitles her to partake of terumah or not.
|
| 43. |
If the individual involved is an Israelite fit to marry this woman.
|
| 44. |
If the individual involved is a priest.
|
| 45. |
I.e., one who seduced a girl under majority. In that instance, even though the relations were with consent, since the girl is a minor, they are considered to have been carried out against her will.
|
| 46. |
In the first two instances, since the relations were carried out outside the context of marriage, they are not significant with regard to terumah. In the latter instance, since the marriage of an intellectual or emotionally unstable person is of no significance whatsoever (Hilchot Ishut 11:6), the relations are considered as taking place outside the context of marriage.
|
| 47. |
See Chapter 6, Halachah 7. In such an instance, the woman is disqualified even if the relations were carried out under duress.
|
| 48. |
Since he is a priest, he entitles his mother to partake of terumah. See Chapter 6, Halachah 12.
|
| 49. |
I.e., she resumes her previous status.
|
| 50. |
A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery who is subjected to a test of her fidelity by drinking special water, the "bitter water" mentioned by the Rambam, prepared in the Temple. For a woman to be required to take this test, two witnesses must testify that she was warned by her husband not to enter into privacy with a particular man and two witnesses must testify that she in fact entered into privacy with the said person (Hilchot Sotah 1:1).
|
| 51. |
See Hilchot Sotah 2:2 which mentions fifteen women that are placed in this category.
|
| 52. |
For the sotah test is necessary to very whether or not she was faithful to her husband and that test is not administered unless the husband is alive (ibid. 2:7).
|
| 53. |
This is not speaking about a sotah, but rather an ordinary woman married to a priest.
Hilchot Ishut 24:23 states that, in this situation, we do not accept the woman's word and we require her to remain married to her husband, for we suspect that she was not unfaithful and made this statement only so that she would be divorced and free to marry someone else. Nevertheless, her word is accepted with regard to terumah and her husband must provide her with other food.
|
| 54. |
Until a girl attains majority, she cannot marry without her father's consent. Thus it is as if the marriage is conditional until he consents and if he does not consent, it is nullified (Hilchot Ishut3:13, 22:5). Hence, we do no allow her to partake of terumah, for if the marriage is nullified, she would have no right to partake of terumah.
|
| 55. |
And does not desire to speak his mind until he calms down.
|
Terumot - Chapter 9
Halacha 1
A woman may partake of terumah until her bill of divorce reaches her hand or the hand of her agent whom she appointed to receive it.1
Whenever there is a doubt whether or not a woman was divorced, she may not partake of terumah.2 When a woman appoints an agent to receive her bill of divorce, she is forbidden to partake of terumah immediately.3 If she said: "Receive the bill of divorce for me in this-and-this place," she is not forbidden [to partake of terumah] until the agent reaches that place.4
Halacha 2
[The inhabitants of] a city under siege, [the voyagers on] a ship in danger of sinking at sea, and a suspect to be judged [for a crime worthy of capital punishment] are presumed to be alive.8 Needless to say, this applies to one who goes on a caravan journey.9
[In the following instances,] however: a city was captured by besieging forces, a ship was lost at sea, or a person was going out to be executed by a gentile court,10 a person dragged by a wild beast, one upon whom a landslide fell, or one carried away by a river, we regard the individuals with the stringencies appropriate to both the living and the dead.11 Therefore if among the women were the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite12 or the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest,13 they may not partake [of terumah].
Halacha 3
If a woman left her husband while he was in his death throes in another country, she may not partake of terumah, whether she is the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite or the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest. [The rationale is that] most people in their death throes die.16
If one witness testifies that [a woman's husband] has died and one testifies that he has not died, she may not partake [of terumah].17
Halacha 4
[When a man is married to two wives and] one of the wives tells the other that their husband died, since [the other wife] cannot marry by virtue of this testimony,18 she may continue to partake of terumah19 on the presumption that her husband is alive until a person upon whose testimony is sufficient to enable her to marry testifies concerning her. [The same ruling applies] if such testimony is given by any of the five women whose testimony is not accepted if they say that her husband died.20
Halacha 5
When [a priest] frees his servant, from the time he transfers21 his bill of emancipation22 to him, he disqualifies him from partaking of terumah. Whenever a servant is given his freedom, but his bill of emancipation is withheld as will be explained in Hilchot Avadim,23 he is, nonetheless, forbidden to partake of terumah.
Halacha 6
There is a doubt [whether the transfer of the ownership of a servant is effective in the following situation]. A person composed a legal document transferring his property - which included servants - to another person. He [did not give the document to that person directly, but instead] gave it to another person on his behalf.24 The recipient [of the present] remained silent and afterwards, protested. There is a doubt whether his protests reflected his initial disposition25and thus [the servants] have never left the initial domain or whether his protest after his initial silence is [interpreted as] a renunciation of his initial position.26Therefore, [the servants] may not partake of terumah. [This applies] whether the second master27 was an Israelite and the first master, a priest or the first master was an Israelite and the second, a priest.28
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
When an Israelite receives a cow from a priest for the sake of fattening it and has it evaluated so that its increase in value will be split,31 he may not feed itterumah even though the priest has a share in its increase in value. If, by contrast, a priest receives a cow from an Israelite for the sake of fattening it and has it evaluated, he may feed it terumah. [The rationale is that] although the Israelite has a share in its increase in value, its body belongs to the priest, because he has [accepted responsibility] for its value.
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
It appears to me35 that if a priest sold his cow to an Israelite and took payment, he can no longer feed it terumah even though the purchaser has not drawn it into his domain as of yet. [The rationale is that] according to Scriptural Law, the transfer of money completes a transaction, as will be explained in Hilchot Mekach UMemcar.36 [Conversely,] if an Israelite sold a cow to a priest, he should not feed it terumah until he draws it into his domain37 even though he already made payment.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
This latter point requires qualification as the Rambam proceeds to state.
|
| 2. |
For a Scriptural prohibition is involved and we follow the general principle: Whenever there is a question regarding a point of Scriptural Law, we rule stringently. Hence, even though her husband is liable to provide her with her sustenance in such a situation (Hilchot Ishut 5:13), he may not give her terumah.
|
| 3. |
This is a corollary to the point mentioned beforehand. Since a woman is forbidden to partake ofterumah whenever there is a doubt that she was divorced, she is forbidden as soon as she appoints her agent, for at any time, he may receive her bill of divorce. Even though the matter is not entirely in the agent's hands, for the bill of divorce must be given on the husband's initiative, we follow the presumption that the agent will fulfill the mission with which he is charged (Radbaz).
|
| 4. |
For the bill of divorce is not effective if given elsewhere (Hilchot Gerushin 9:34).
|
| 5. |
For in this instance, the agent is acting in place of the husband and the divorce is not completed until he gives the woman the bill of divorce (ibid. 6:5).
|
| 6. |
Such an arrangement was often made when a couple were childless so that if the husband died the woman would be free of the obligation of yibbum.
|
| 7. |
For we fear that he might die at any moment. Hence, from the previous hour onward, she would have partaken of terumah without having the right to do so.
|
| 8. |
And if they are priests, their wives may continue partaking of terumah.
|
| 9. |
We are speaking about a caravan journey through the desert. Although there is a certain amount of danger to the travelers, we operate under the presumption that they are alive until we receive information otherwise.
|
| 10. |
The officers of a gentile court are likely to accept bribes. Hence, the fact that one was sentenced to death is not necessarily proof that he died.
|
| 11. |
In these situations, there is a high likelihood - but no definite proof that the person died. Hence, his wife must assume that he is dead and accept all the stringencies that state would apply. At the same time, she cannot act on the assumption that he is dead and remarry. The Rambam continues explaining the implications of this status vis-à-vis terumah.
|
| 12. |
She must presume her husband is alive and may not partake of terumah for that reason.
|
| 13. |
She must presume her husband is dead and may not partake of terumah for that reason.
|
| 14. |
A person sentenced to be executed may be given a reprieve from execution if a redeeming factor is found for him (Hilchot Sanhedrin 13:1). Nevertheless, once he has already been brought to the place of execution, it is very unlikely that this will happen (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 15. |
I.e., if she is the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest. If she is the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, she may partake of terumah.
|
| 16. |
Hence, the daughter of the Israelite may not partake of terumah. On the other hand, not all die. Hence, since a daughter of the priest married to an Israelite was not partaking of terumahbeforehand, this is not considered sufficient reason to allow her to do so (Radbaz).
|
| 17. |
Although a woman is not given permission to remarry in such an instance (Hilchot Gerushin12:18), she is still not permitted to partake of terumah.
|
| 18. |
Hilchot Gerushin 12:16 states that, if no one contradicts the testimony, whenever a witness testifies that a woman's husband died, his or her word is accepted with the exception of five women: another wife of that man, a woman who is her husband's yevamah, the woman's mother-in-law, her mother-in-law's daughter, and her husband's daughter from another wife. In all these instances, we fear that there is enmity between these women and the man's wife and they will testify falsely so that she will marry another man and hence, be forced to accept a divorce from her husband.
|
| 19. |
The Ra'avad does not accept the Rambam's ruling and maintains that even though the woman is not allowed to remarry, she should not be allowed to partake of terumah. For perhaps these women are telling the truth. The Radbaz supports the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 20. |
Hilchot Gerushin 12:16 states that, if no one contradicts the testimony, whenever a witness testifies that a woman's husband died, his or her word is accepted with the exception of five women: another wife of that man, a woman who is her husband's yevamah, the woman's mother-in-law, her mother-in-law's daughter, and her husband's daughter from another wife. In all these instances, we fear that there is enmity between these women and the man's wife and they will testify falsely so that she will marry another man and hence, be forced to accept a divorce from her husband.
|
| 21. |
The Rambam's wording allows for the interpretation that this ruling applies whether he gives the bill of emancipation to the servant or to another person on behalf of the servant (see Hilchot Avadim6:1).
|
| 22. |
The formal legal contract freeing him from slavery.
|
| 23. |
As stated in Hilchot Avadim 5:4, et al, there are certain situations where a servant is deserving of his freedom. Nevertheless, he does not receive the status of a freed servant until he receives his bill of emancipation. Even so, he is forbidden to partake of terumah from the time he becomes worthy of freedom.
|
| 24. |
In such a situation, we say that since generally, it is considered desirable to receive a gift, the intended recipient acquires the property unless he lodges an objection at the time he hears about the gift. See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 4:2.
|
| 25. |
I.e., that he never desired to receive the present and thus it never left the domain of its initial owner (ibid.:3).
|
| 26. |
And thus, he is considered to have acquired the property - and the servants - and then to have renounced ownership of it and them.
|
| 27. |
The recipient of the present.
|
| 28. |
For in either situation, there is a possibility that their present owner is an Israelite.
|
| 29. |
Because the rental does not interrupt the priests's ownership. The Israelite must, however, transfer ownership of the terumah to the priest before feeding it to the animal.
|
| 30. |
There are, however, contexts where rental is considered equivalent to purchase. See Hilchot Sechirut 7:1.
|
| 31. |
This was a popular arrangement in the Talmudic era. The owner of livestock would give it to a shepherd to fatten. The shepherd would have it evaluated and accept responsibility for its value although he did not actually pay the priest anything. Afterwards, when it has been fattened, the value which the shepherd accepted responsibility for is returned to the owner and the two share the profits equally. See Hilchot Shluchin VeShutafim 8:1-4 and Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 8:12 for more details concerning this arrangement.
|
| 32. |
And thus the law mentioned in the first clause of Halachah 7 applies.
|
| 33. |
A type of legume used as animal fodder.
|
| 34. |
Even a priest may not feed his doves terumah, for terumah may only be given to domesticated animals. Nevertheless, everyone, even Israelites, need not take precautions against an animal eating vetch that is terumah on its own initiative. The Radbaz explains that the rationale is that the obligation to separate terumah from vetch is merely Rabbinic in origin. Implied is that if the obligation was Scriptural in origin, one could not take such leniency. It must be noted, however, that not all authorities consider the obligation to separate terumah from vetch as Rabbinic.
|
| 35. |
This introduction precedes a law which the Rambam derived through his own process of deduction without an explicit source in the previous Rabbinic literature.
|
| 36. |
Hilchot Mechirah 3:1. There it is explained that the Rabbis required the purchaser to draw the article into his possession for the transaction to be completed.
|
| 37. |
And thus completes the transaction.
|
Today's Hayom Yom
Tuesday, Iyar 2, 5775 · 21 April 2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: K'doshim, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 10-17.
Tanya: Nonetheless a person (p. 237)...and as is known. (p. 237).
My grandfather (the Rebbe Maharash) was born on this day in 5593 (1833).
When he was seven years old he was once tested in his studies by his father, the Tzemach Tzedek. My grandfather did so well in the test that his teacher was enormously impressed. Unable to restrain himself he said to the Tzemach Tzedek, "Well, what do you say? Hasn't he done marvelously?" The Tzemach Tzedek responded: "What is there to be surprised about when tiferet-within-tiferet does well?"1
FOOTNOTES
1. There are seven midot or Divine attributes, the first (and major) three being chessed(kindness), gevura (severity) and tiferet (beauty). Each attribute contains elements of the others, chessed-within-chessed, gevura-within-chessed, etc. 49 combinations in all, corresponding to the 49 days of the omer. The Rebbe Maharash was born on Iyar 2, the day of tiferet-within-tiferet, an extraordinarily high spiritual level.Daily Thought:
Seeing Within
Man sees a tree and the tree says, “I am here, I was here, and I am nothing more but a thing that is here.”
Man ponders and answers, “No! I give you a name! You are ‘tree’! You have beauty and you have a soul. You point upwards and you say, ‘There is something higher, there is the One who gives me life and gives me my very being.’”
And so Man goes on, until he has brought the whole of creation down on its knees.
Man alone can accomplish what the angels cannot. Man alone can discover the spiritual within the material.
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment