Today's Laws & Customs:
• Count "Twenty Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the twentieth day of the Omer Count. Since, on the Jewish calendar, the day begins at nightfall of the previous evening, we count the omer fortomorrow's date tonight, after nightfall: "Today is twenty days, which are two weeks and six 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: Yesod sheb'Tifferet -- "Connection 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:
• Maimonides Saved (1165)
The 4th of Iyar was observed by Maimonides (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, 1135-1204) as a personal day of fasting and prayer. Maimonides recounts that when he and his family were fleeing Islamic persecution from Fez, Morocco to the Holy Land, their ship was caught in a fierce storm at sea. He cried out to G-d in prayer and vowed to fast each year on this date.
Daily Quote:
"And to the Jews was light, happiness, joy and prestige" (Esther 8:16). "Light" is Torah, "happiness" are the festivals, "joy" is circumcision and "prestige" is tefillin[Talmud, Megillah 16b]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Tazria-Metzora, 5th Portion Leviticus 14:21-14:32 with Rashi
• Chapter 14
21But if he is poor and cannot afford [these sacrifices], he shall take one [male] lamb as a guilt offering for a waving to effect atonement for him, and one tenth [of an ephah] of fine flour mixed with oil as a meal offering, and a log of oil. כאוְאִם דַּל הוּא וְאֵין יָדוֹ מַשֶּׂגֶת וְלָקַח כֶּבֶשׂ אֶחָד אָשָׁם לִתְנוּפָה לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו וְעִשָּׂרוֹן סֹלֶת אֶחָד בָּלוּל בַּשֶּׁמֶן לְמִנְחָה וְלֹג שָׁמֶן:
and one tenth [of an ephah] of fine flour: for [the libation meal offering to accompany] this lamb, which is one, he shall bring one “tenth” [of an ephah of flour] for his libation offering [to accompany his one lamb]. ועשרון סלת אחד: לכבש זה שהוא אחד יביא עשרון אחד לנסכיו:
and a log of oil: to place some of it [upon the cartilage of the ear and] on the thumb and big toe. However, as far as the [amount of] oil required for the libation meal offerings, Scripture did not need to specify [for we know it from another passage (see Num. 15)]. ולוג שמן: לתת ממנו על הבהונות ושמן של נסכי המנחה לא הוזקק הכתוב לפרש:
22And two turtle doves or two young doves, according to what he can afford; one shall be a sin offering, and one a burnt offering. כבוּשְׁתֵּי תֹרִים אוֹ שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה אֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ וְהָיָה אֶחָד חַטָּאת וְהָאֶחָד עֹלָה:
23And he shall bring them on the eighth day of his cleansing, to the kohen, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, before the Lord. כגוְהֵבִיא אֹתָם בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי לְטָהֳרָתוֹ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה:
on the eighth day of his cleansing: [I.e.,] on the eighth day after [he had brought] the birds and been sprinkled with the cedar stick, the hyssop, and the strip of crimson wool [for that procedure is also called a “cleansing,” albeit interim]. ביום השמיני לטהרתו: שמיני לצפרים ולהזאת עץ ארז ואזוב ושני תולעת:
24And the kohen shall take the guilt offering lamb and the log of oil, and the kohen shall wave them as a waving, before the Lord. כדוְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן אֶת כֶּבֶשׂ הָאָשָׁם וְאֶת לֹג הַשָּׁמֶן וְהֵנִיף אֹתָם הַכֹּהֵן תְּנוּפָה לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה:
25And he shall slaughter the guilt offering lamb, and the kohen shall take some of the blood of the guilt offering's and place it on the cartilage of the right ear of the person being cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot. כהוְשָׁחַט אֶת כֶּבֶשׂ הָאָשָׁם וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מִדַּם הָאָשָׁם וְנָתַן עַל תְּנוּךְ אֹזֶן הַמִּטַּהֵר הַיְמָנִית וְעַל בֹּהֶן יָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית וְעַל בֹּהֶן רַגְלוֹ הַיְמָנִית:
26And the kohen shall then pour some of the oil into the left palm of the kohen. כווּמִן הַשֶּׁמֶן יִצֹק הַכֹּהֵן עַל כַּף הַכֹּהֵן הַשְּׂמָאלִית:
27And the kohen shall sprinkle with his right index finger some of the oil that is in his left palm, seven times before the Lord. כזוְהִזָּה הַכֹּהֵן בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ הַיְמָנִית מִן הַשֶּׁמֶן אֲשֶׁר עַל כַּפּוֹ הַשְּׂמָאלִית שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה:
28And the kohen shall place some of the oil that is in his palm, on the cartilage of the right ear of the person being cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand and on the big toe of his right foot, on the place of the blood of the guilt offering. כחוְנָתַן הַכֹּהֵן מִן הַשֶּׁמֶן | אֲשֶׁר עַל כַּפּוֹ עַל תְּנוּךְ אֹזֶן הַמִּטַּהֵר הַיְמָנִית וְעַל בֹּהֶן יָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית וְעַל בֹּהֶן רַגְלוֹ הַיְמָנִית עַל מְקוֹם דַּם הָאָשָׁם:
on the place of the blood of the guilt-offering: Even if the blood had been wiped off. This teaches us that the blood is not the determining factor, but the place is the determining factor. — [Torath Kohanim 14:54; Men. 10a] על מקום דם האשם: אפילו נתקנח הדם, למד שאין הדם גורם אלא המקום גורם:
29And what is left over from the oil that is in the kohen's palm, he shall place upon the head of the person being cleansed, to effect atonement for him, before the Lord. כטוְהַנּוֹתָר מִן הַשֶּׁמֶן אֲשֶׁר עַל כַּף הַכֹּהֵן יִתֵּן עַל רֹאשׁ הַמִּטַּהֵר לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה:
30He shall then perform [the service of] one of the turtle doves or of the young doves, from whatever he can afford, לוְעָשָׂה אֶת הָאֶחָד מִן הַתֹּרִים אוֹ מִן בְּנֵי הַיּוֹנָה מֵאֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ:
31[from] what he can afford, one as a sin offering, and one as a burnt offering, besides the meal offering, and the kohen shall effect atonement for the person being cleansed, before the Lord. לאאֵת אֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ אֶת הָאֶחָד חַטָּאת וְאֶת הָאֶחָד עֹלָה עַל הַמִּנְחָה וְכִפֶּר הַכֹּהֵן עַל הַמִּטַּהֵר לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה:
32This is the law of one in whom there is a lesion of tzara'ath, who cannot afford [the full array of sacrifices], when he is to be cleansed. לבזֹאת תּוֹרַת אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ נֶגַע צָרָעַת אֲשֶׁר לֹא תַשִּׂיג יָדוֹ בְּטָהֳרָתוֹ:Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 23 - 28
• Chapter 23
When King David was in the forest of Cheret and nearly died of starvation, God provided nourishment for him with a taste of the World to Come. David then composed this psalm, describing the magnitude of his trust in God.
1. A psalm by David. The Lord is my shepherd, I shall lack nothing.
2. He lays me down in green pastures; He leads me beside still waters.
3. He revives my soul; He directs me in paths of righteousness for the sake of His Name.
4. Though I walk in the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff-they will comfort me.
5. You will prepare a table for me before my enemies; You have anointed my head with oil; my cup is full.
6. Only goodness and kindness shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the House of the Lord for many long years.
Chapter 24
If the fulfillment of one's prayer would result in the sanctification of God's Name, he should pray that God act for the sake of the holiness of His Name. One should also invoke the merit of his ancestors, for we know that "the righteous are greater in death than in life"
1. By David, a psalm. The earth and all therein is the Lord's; the world and its inhabitants.
2. For He has founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the rivers.
3. Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord, and who may stand in His holy place?
4. He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who has not used My Name in vain or sworn falsely.
5. He shall receive a blessing from the Lord, and kindness from God, his deliverer.
6. Such is the generation of those who search for Him, [the children of] Jacob who seek Your countenance forever.
7. Lift up your heads, O gates, and be lifted up, eternal doors, so the glorious King may enter.
8. Who is the glorious King? The Lord, strong and mighty; the Lord, mighty in battle.
9. Lift up your heads, O gates; lift them up, eternal doors, so the glorious King may enter.
10. Who is the glorious King? The Lord of Hosts, He is the glorious King for all eternity.
Chapter 25
The verses in this psalm are arranged according to the alphabet, excluding the letters Bet, Vav, and Kuf, which together equal the numerical value of Gehenom (purgatory). One who recites this psalm daily will not see the face of purgatory.
1. By David. To You, Lord, I lift my soul.
2. My God, I have put my trust in You. May I not be put to shame; may my enemies not gloat over me.
3. Indeed, may all who hope in You not be put to shame; let those who act treacherously without reason be shamed.
4. O Lord, make Your ways known to me; teach me Your paths.
5. Train me in Your truth and teach me, for You are the God of my salvation; I yearn for You all day.
6. O Lord, remember Your mercies and Your kindnesses, for they have existed for all time.
7. Do not recall the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions; remember me in accordance with Your kindness, because of Your goodness, O Lord.
8. Good and upright is the Lord, therefore He directs sinners along the way.
9. He guides the humble with justice, and teaches the humble His way.
10. All the paths of the Lord are kindness and truth for those who observe His covenant and testimonies.
11. For the sake of Your Name, O Lord, pardon my iniquity, for it is great.
12. Whoever is a God-fearing man, him will He teach the path that he should choose.
13. His soul will abide in well-being, and his descendants will inherit the earth.
14. The secret of the Lord is to those who fear Him; He makes His covenant known to them.
15. My eyes are always turned to the Lord, for He releases my feet from the snare.
16. Turn to me and be compassionate to me, for I am alone and afflicted.
17. The sufferings of my heart have increased; deliver me from my hardships.
18. Behold my affliction and suffering, and forgive all my sins.
19. See how numerous my enemies have become; they hate me with a violent hatred.
20. Guard my soul and deliver me; may I not be put to shame, for I place my trust in You.
21. Let integrity and uprightness guard me, for my hope is in You.
22. Redeem Israel, O God, from all its afflictions.
Chapter 26
In this psalm King David inundates God with prayers and acts of piety, because he envies those who are his spiritual superiors, saying, "If only I were on their level of piety and virtue!"
1. By David. Judge me, O Lord, for in my innocence I have walked, and in the Lord I have trusted-I shall not falter.
2. Try me, O Lord, and test me; refine my mind and heart.
3. For Your kindness is before my eyes, and I have walked constantly in Your truth.
4. I did not sit with men of falsehood, and with hypocrites I will not mingle.
5. I detested the company of evildoers, and with the wicked I will not sit.
6. I wash my hands in purity, and circle Your altar, O Lord,
7. to give voice to thanks, and to recount all Your wonders.
8. I love the shelter of Your House, O Lord, and the place where Your glory resides.
9. Gather not in my soul with sinners, nor my life with men of bloodshed,
10. In whose hands are schemes, and whose right hand is filled with bribes.
11. But I walk in my innocence; redeem me and show me favor.
12. My foot stands on level ground; in assemblies I will bless the Lord.
Chapter 27
King David acknowledges and praises God, placing his trust in Him because of his victories in war. "Nevertheless, it is not wars that I desire, for I cannot gain perfection with them. Only one thing do I ask: to abide day and night in the study hall studying Torah, to gain perfection so that my soul may merit the life of the World to Come."
1. By David. The Lord is my light and my salvation-whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life-whom shall I dread?
2. When evildoers approached me to devour my flesh, my oppressors and my foes, they stumbled and fell.
3. If an army were to beleaguer me, my heart would not fear; if war were to arise against me, in this I trust
1
4. One thing I have asked of the Lord, this I seek: that I may dwell in the House of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the pleasantness of the Lord, and to visit His Sanctuary.
5. For He will hide me in His tabernacle on a day of adversity; He will conceal me in the hidden places of His tent; He will lift me upon a rock.
6. And then my head will be raised above my enemies around me, and I will offer in His tabernacle sacrifices of jubilation; I will sing and chant to the Lord.
7. Lord, hear my voice as I call; be gracious to me and answer me.
8. In Your behalf my heart says, "Seek My countenance"; Your countenance, Lord, I seek.
9. Do not conceal Your countenance from me; do not cast aside Your servant in wrath. You have been my help; do not abandon me nor forsake me, God of my deliverance.
10. Though my father and mother have forsaken me, the Lord has taken me in.
11. Lord, teach me Your way and lead me in the path of righteousness, because of my watchful enemies.
12. Do not give me over to the will of my oppressors, for there have risen against me false witnesses, and they speak evil.
13. [They would have crushed me] had I not believed that I would see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living.
14. Hope in the Lord, be strong and let your heart be valiant, and hope in the Lord.
Chapter 28
A prayer for every individual, entreating God to assist him in walking the good path, to prevent him from walking with the wicked doers of evil, and that He repay the wicked for their wickedness and the righteous for their righteousness.
1. By David. I call to You, O Lord; my Strength, do not be deaf to me; for should You be silent to me, I will be like those who descend to the pit.
2. Hear the sound of my pleas when I cry out to You, when I raise my hands toward Your holy Sanctuary.
3. Do not draw me along with the wicked, with evildoers who speak of peace with their companions, though evil is in their heart.
4. Give them according to their deeds, and the evil of their endeavors; give them according to their handiwork, render to them their just desserts.
5. For they pay no heed to the acts of the Lord, nor to the work of His hands; may He destroy them and not rebuild them.
6. Blessed is the Lord, for He has heard the voice of my pleas.
7. The Lord is my strength and my shield; in Him my heart trusted and I was helped; my heart exulted, and with my song I praised Him.
8. The Lord is a strength to them; He is a stronghold of deliverance to His anointed.
9. Grant salvation to Your people and bless Your heritage; tend them and exalt them forever.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 44• Lessons in Tanya
• Thursday, Iyar 4, 5775 · April 23, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 44
ואף אם נדמה לו לכאורה שהוא כח דמיוני
Even if it appears to him at first sight that this is an illusion, and that in truth he does not possess this love for G‑d, and thinking that he does is nothing less than deluding himself as to his true spiritual status,
לא יחוש, מאחר שהוא אמת לאמיתו מצד עצמו בבחינת אהבה מסותרת
he need not be concerned, because it is intrinsically the absolute truth even without his own spiritual service, by virtue of the “hidden love” which his soul possesses for G‑d.
רק שתועלת יציאתה אל הגילוי: כדי להביאה לידי מעשה
But the benefit derived from the spiritual service through which he effects its emergence into the open is that he should translate it into action, and when his love is in a state of concealment it cannot affect his actions.
שהוא עסק התורה והמצות שלומד ומקיים על ידי זה, כדי לעשות נחת רוח לפניו יתברך, כבן העובד את אביו
This means being occupied with the Torah and the mitzvot, which he studies and performs as a result of it, i.e., as a result of revealing this love, with the intention of causing gratification to G‑d, like a son serving his father, who does so in order to cause him gratification.
Since the revelation of this love leads in fact to increased performance, he should not be troubled by the fact that he may be deluding himself in thinking that he possesses this love when in actuality he does not — particularly since his soul does truly love G‑d.
ועל זה אמרו: מחשבה טובה, הקב״ה מצרפה למעשה, להיות גדפין לפרחא כנ״ל
Concerning this it was said that1 “a good thought is joined by the Holy One, blessed be He, to a deed,” providing it with the “wings” to soar upwards, as explained earlier, in ch. 16.
“A good thought is joined... to a deed” cannot simply mean that when one thinks about doing a good deed and then, through no fault of his own, he is unable to do it, G‑d considers it as if he had actually done it. For if this were so the expression should be, “A good thought is considered by G‑d as an actual deed.” Rather, the term “joined to” indicates that the deed was actually done, but that the thought and deed were unconnected. G‑d, in His goodness, therefore connects the thought and the deed.
When a love of G‑d is revealed within one’s heart, there is an actual connection between the thought and the deed, for the revealed love adds vitality to the performance of the deed.
However, when love of G‑d is not revealed in one’s heart and is limited to one’s mind, it is considered to be a “good thought” that is not connected to a deed. Thus when one understands that something ought to be done, but he has no love for it, then the deed will be performed without fervor.
It is therefore necessary for G‑d to connect the “good thought” with the deed, thereby ensuring that the “good thought” — the love and fear of G‑d in his mind — will elevate the Torah and mitzvot which result from it, to the world and level of the “good thought.”
והנחת רוח הוא כמשל שמחת המלך מבנו שבא אליו בצאתו מבית האסורים כנ״ל
The gratification he provides G‑d is akin, by way of the illustration used earlier,2to the joy of a king whose son returns to him after liberation from captivity;
When the soul, G‑d’s child, is clothed in the body and animal soul, it is in a state of captivity. Through Torah and mitzvot it is liberated from this captivity and is joined with G‑d. This causes Him a joy similar to that experienced by the mortal king in the analogy.
או להיות לו דירה בתחתונים כנ״ל
or G‑d’s gratification may be from the fact that it has been made possible for Him to have a habitation among mortals, as already mentioned.
Thus, the love which is “like a son who strives for the sake of his father” can be revealed by habituating oneself (with his tongue and voice) to arouse the intention of heart and mind. The Alter Rebbe soon goes on to explain, that the love of “My soul, I desire You” may also be revealed and awakened through habitually speaking about it, when one does so in a manner where the heart will feel that G‑d is his true life, the “Life of life.”
והנה גם לבחינת נפשי אויתיך הנ״ל, קרוב הדבר מאד להוציאה מההעלם אל הגילוי על ידי ההרגל תמיד, בפיו ולבו שוין
Even in regard to the above-mentioned love, of the category of “My soul, I desire You,” it is readily possible to bring it out of its concealment into the open through constant practice, with mouth and heart in full accord, so that one’s heart should feel what his mouth utters, about G‑d’s being his true life.3
אך אם אינו יכול להוציאה אל הגילוי בלבו, אף על פי כן יכול לעסוק בתורה ומצות לשמן על ידי ציור ענין אהבה זו במחשבה שבמוחו, ומחשבה טובה, הקב״ה מצרפה כו׳
However, even if he cannot bring it (the love) into a revealed state in his heart, nevertheless he can occupy himself because of this love in the Torah and mitzvot“for their own sake” through portraying the idea of this love in his mind — and “a good thought is united by G‑d....”
It is therefore possible for his Torah and mitzvot to be elevated to the Supernal Sefirot just as if he had fulfilled them with a love revealed in his heart.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Kiddushin 40a. |
| 2. | Chs. 31, 41. |
| 3. | Earlier on, when the Alter Rebbe speaks of the two types of love — “My soul...” and “Like a son...” — he first explains the former love and then the latter. Here, however, when he speaks of the revelation of these kinds of love through “the voice rousing the devout concentration of the heart and mind,” he discusses them in opposite order. He begins by discussing at length that “it should be habitual with his tongue and voice...for He is literally our true Father.” Only later does he briefly state that “even in regard to the...love of...’My soul...,‘ it is readily possible to bring it out of its concealment... through constant practice, with mouth and heart in full accord.” Moreover, the Alter Rebbe immediately follows this with, “However, even if he cannot bring it into a revealed state in his heart....” All the above seems to indicate that the “voice rousing the devout concentration of the heart and mind” is more applicable to the love of “Like a son...” than “My soul....” The Rebbe explains why this is so. To quote: “[The love of ’Like a son...‘] necessitates that it become one’s nature to perceive that He is our Father — an intellectual and emotional concept, unconnected with physicality. It is therefore more readily understood that arousing the kavanah (through one’s voice) will be beneficial. [The love of ’My soul...,‘ by contrast,] necessitates that it become one’s nature to perceive that G‑dliness is his very life. It would seem that if his body fails to feel this (as he does feel the life of his soul — when exhausted, and so on), what benefit will be derived from the spiritual intention of the heart?” |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Thursday, Iyar 4, 5775 · April 23, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 137
A "Profaned" Woman Eating Holy Foods
And if a priest's daughter is married to a non-priest, she shall not eat of that which is set apart of the holy [foods]"—Leviticus 22:12.
A chalalah [a woman who had sexual relations with a priest whom she is forbidden to marry because of his priestly status (e.g., she was a divorcee), or the daughter born from such a relationship] may not eat Terumah (the priestly tithe) or the chest and foreleg [of the Peace Offering that is gifted to the priest].
Included in this precept is the prohibition against the daughter of a priest who married a non-priest from partaking of the chest or foreleg—even if she has divorced or is widowed.
A "Profaned" Woman Eating Holy Foods
Negative Commandment 137
Translated by Berel Bell
The 137th prohibition is that a chalalah1 is forbidden from eating those sacred portions she would otherwise be allowed to eat [by virtue of being in the family of a Kohen] — i.e. terumah, the brisket, and the leg [of peace offerings].
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,2 "When a Kohen's daughter marries a non-Kohen, she nay no longer eat the holy terumah."
Our Sages say tractate Yevamos,3 "The verse 'When a Kohen's daughter marries a non-Kohen' indicates that once she has had relations with someone forbidden to her, she becomes forbidden [to eat terumah]."
They interpret the phrase, "she may no longer eat the holy terumah" (terumas hakodashim) as referring to "that which is separated from the sacrifices" — i.e. the brisket, and the leg [of peace offerings].
The passage there states, "The verse could have said 'She may no longer eat kodashim.' Why does it say terumas hakodashim? To teach us two things." The meaning of this statement: the verse teaches [first of all] that once she has had relations with someone forbidden to her, she becomes forbidden to eat terumah; and [secondly] that if she married a non-Kohen and then he died, she can resume eating terumah but no the brisket and the leg.
Therefore this prohibition includes two parts: one that a chalalah may not eat holy offerings; and two, that a Kohen's daughter who married a non-Kohen may not eat the brisket and the leg even if her husband dies or divorces her.
However, the prohibition of eating terumah while she is still married to him is not derived from this verse; but the guardians of the Oral Tradition have learned it from the verse,4 "No non-Kohen may eat kodesh (holy things)." As long as she is married to a non-Kohen she is considered the same as he is, and is therefore the word zar (non-Kohen) refers to her as well. You should keep this in mind, and also that she also receives lashes for violating this prohibition.
FOOTNOTES
1.Literally, "a profaned woman." See N159.
This term refers to a woman whose status has been affected by one of the priestly marriage prohibitions. If a kohen marries a divorced woman, for example (which violates N360), both the woman and her daughter get the status of a chalalah.
2.Lev. 22:12.
3.68a.
4.Lev. 22:10.
Shabbos - Chapter Twenty Two
Halacha 1
Although removing a loaf [of bread from the side of an oven] does not involve a [forbidden] labor, our Sages forbade doing so, lest one be prompted to bake.1
If one stuck a loaf to [the side of] an oven before the commencement of the Sabbath, and afterwards the Sabbath began, one may remove enough for three meals. Similarly, one may tell others, "Come and take for yourselves."2Although removing a loaf does not involve a [forbidden] labor, in this situation, when one removes a loaf, one should not do so with a baker's peel, but rather with a knife, in order to deviate from one's ordinary procedure.
Halacha 2
Why did the Sages forbid entering a bathhouse on the Sabbath?3 Because the attendants would heat up water on the Sabbath, and say that it has been heated before the commencement of the Sabbath. For this reason, our Sages decreed that one should not enter a bathhouse4 on the Sabbath, even to use [merely] as a steam bath.5
Similarly, they decreed that a person should not rinse his entire body with hot water6 - even if the water was heated on Friday. One may, however, wash one's face, hands, and feet7 [with hot water that was heated before the commencement of the Sabbath]. When do the above [restrictions] apply? To water that is heated by fire. One may, however, rinse one's entire body in the hot springs of Tiberias and the like.8
It is forbidden to bathe in hot springs located in caves, for the cave is filled with hot air, and one will sweat [as in a steam bath].9 Thus, it resembles a bathhouse.
Halacha 3
A person may warm himself before a fire and then go out and rinse his entire body in cold water. He may not, however, rinse his entire body in cold water10and then warm himself by a fire. By doing so, the water on his body will become lukewarm, and it would be as if he washed his entire body in warm water.11
Halacha 4
A person may bring a cask of water and place it in front of a fire, not in order that it will be warmed, but to dispel its chill. Similarly, one may place a flask of oil in front of a fire so that it will become lukewarm, but not so that it will be heated.14
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
After hot water was removed from a cooking urn, it is permitted to pour in cold water so that it will become lukewarm.21 It is permitted to pour hot water22 into cold water or cold water into hot water,23 provided [the hot water] is not in a vessel that was cooked on a fire,24 since this will raise the temperature [of the cold water] greatly.
Similarly, when a pot is boiling, one should not place spices in it, even after one has removed it from the fire.25 One may, however, salt it, since salt cooks only on a very large flame.26 If one poured the food from a pot to a bowl, one may place spices on it, even if it is boiling, since a vessel into which food has been poured does not [possess sufficient heat to] cook.27
Halacha 7
[On the Sabbath,] we may not place chiltit28 in hot water nor in cold water to soak.29 One may, however, soak it in vinegar. If one drank chiltit on Thursday and on Friday, one may soak it in cold water on the Sabbath, place it in the sun to warm, and drink it, lest ceasing to drink it cause one to become sick.30
Halacha 8
When food has been cooked before the Sabbath or soaked in hot water before the Sabbath, one is permitted to soak it in hot water on the Sabbath even though it is presently cold.31
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
A person may mix water, salt and oil, and dip his bread in the mixture or pour it onto cooked food. This is permitted provided one makes only a small amount.40Making a large amount is forbidden,41 for it appears that one is performing one of the labors associated with cooking. Similarly, one may not make strong salt water42 - i.e., two thirds salt and one third water - for it would appear as if one is making fish-brine.43
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
When mustard has been mixed on Friday, one may blend49 it [on the Sabbath] by hand or with a utensil50 and add honey to it. One may not stir it forcefully,51however; [all that is permitted is to] mix it.
Oil, vinegar, and spices may be added [on the Sabbath] to cress52that was stirred on Friday. One may not stir the mixture] forcefully, however; [all that is permitted is to] mix in [these ingredients]. Garlic that was crushed on Friday may be placed into groats on the Sabbath. One may not grind [the mixture]; [all that is permitted is to] mix in [the garlic].
Halacha 13
A person who removes hair from a person's body is liable for [performing a derivative of the forbidden labor of] shearing.53 Therefore, it is forbidden to wash one's hands with a substance that will without doubt remove hair - e.g.,ohaloh54 and the like.55
One may cleanse one's hands with frankincense powder, pepper powder, jasmine powder, and the like, without concern that one might remove the hair on one's hands, for this is not one's intent.56
[The following rules apply when] one mixes a substance that will undoubtedly remove hair together with a substance that will not necessarily remove hair: If the majority [of the mixture] is composed of a substance that will undoubtedly remove hair, it is forbidden to clean one's hands with it.57 If not, it is permitted.
Halacha 14
One may not look at oneself in a mirror of [polished] metal on the Sabbath. [This is] a decree [enacted] lest one use it to remove loose hanging strands of hair.58 This applies even if the mirror is affixed to the wall.59 One may, by contrast, look at oneself in a mirror that is not made of metal, even if it is not affixed [to a wall].60
Halacha 15
A person who launders is liable for [performing a derivative of the forbidden labor of] whitening, and one who wrings out a garment is liable because he is [performing one of the activities involved in] laundering.61 Therefore, it is forbidden to press a piece of cloth, unprocessed fabric, or the like into the opening of a flask to plug it, lest one squeeze62 liquids from it.63
Halacha 16
When a cask [of liquids] breaks67 on the Sabbath, one may save what one needs for oneself and one's guests on the Sabbath,68 provided one does not sponge up wine with a sponge69 or scoop up oil with his hands.70 [These restrictions were instituted, because] were one allowed to follow one's ordinary weekday practice, there is the possibility that one would squeeze [the liquids from it].
How must he save [the liquid]? He should bring a container and place it under [the liquid].71 He may not bring one container to catch [the liquid] in the air, and another into which to collect [the liquid]. This [restriction] is a decree, lest one carry a container through the public domain.
[An exception is made] if guests unexpectedly arrive. [In this instance,] he may bring one container to catch [the liquid] in the air, another into which to collect [the liquid], and then combine it with the first. He should not collect [the liquid] and then invite guests. Instead, he should invite guests and then collect [the liquid]. If one acts with guile in this matter,72 it is permitted.73
Halacha 17
Halacha 18
Halacha 19
A person whose hands have become soiled with mud may clean them with a horse's tail, a cow's tail, or a firm cloth used to hold thorns.85 [One may] not, [however, use a] cloth that is used to clean one's hands. [These restrictions were instituted] so that one will not follow one's weekday practice and come to launder the cloth.86
Halacha 20
A person who washes himself in water may dry himself with a towel and carry it by hand; we do not suspect that he might wring [water from it].87
Similarly, a person whose clothes become soaked with water88 may continue walking in them; we do not suspect that he might wring [water from them].89[When he removes them,] he may not, however, hang them out to dry even within his home, lest an observer suppose that he laundered his garment on the Sabbath and hung it out to dry.90 Whenever the Sages instituted a prohibition because of the impression it might create,91 the act is forbidden even in one's private chambers.92
Halacha 21
When two mikvaot are located one on top of the other, one may remove the plug between them and connect them. Afterwards, one may return the plug to its place. There is no concern that one might squeeze out water [in the process of doing so], since one's intent is that the water should flow out.93
One may plug a drain with clothes or with any article that can be carried so that water will not inundate food and utensils.94 We may not, however, plug a drain so that water will descend into a cistern.95 The plug is resting in water and the possibility exists that one may squeeze [water from the plug] when one presses it into place.96
Halacha 22
It is forbidden to fix the sleeves of garments, adjusting them to form layers of cuffs97 as is one's ordinary practice during the week after washing clothes.98
Similarly, we may not fold clothes on the Sabbath in the same way as we fold clothes during the week after laundering them. If one does not possess a change of clothes, one may fold a garment,99 stretch it out, and wear it so that one will [be dressed] attractively on the Sabbath.100 The above [restrictions] apply only to a new white garment that may become wrinkled and soiled immediately.101
Only one person may fold [a garment]; folding it by two people [together] is forbidden.102
Halacha 23
Halacha 24
Tearing is one of the categories of [forbidden] labor.108Accordingly, a person whose garments catch onto thorns should separate them carefully109 and patiently, so that they do not tear. If they tear, he is not liable, for this is not his intent.110
It is permitted to wear new clothes; if they tear, it is of no consequence. We may crack open a nut in a piece of cloth without concern that [the cloth] might tear.
Halacha 25
A person who attaches [building materials to each other] is liable for performing a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of building.111 Therefore, all doors that are attached to the ground should not be removed, nor should they be returned to their place, lest one attach them.112
The doors of a cabinet, chest, or closet, or the doors of other utensils may be removed, but they may not be returned to their place.113 If their bottom hinge slips [partially out of place], it may be pushed back into place.114 In the Temple, it may be returned to its place.115 If, however, the upper hinge slips [out of place], it is forbidden to return it. [This is] a decree [applying] in all places,116[enacted] lest one attach it.117
Halacha 26
One may not braid one's hair, or set one's hair around one's forehead,118 for this would appear to resemble building.
A candelabrum made up of separate pieces may not be reassembled on the Sabbath, nor may a chair or a table made up of pieces be reconstructed,119 for this resembles building.120 If, however, one does reassemble these objects, one is not liable,121 since [the forbidden labors] of building and demolishing do not apply regarding utensils.122 If [the parts of such a utensil] remain loosely put together, one may [complete] its assembly.123
We may not adjust the vertebra in a child's backbone [so that they are aligned] one above the other,124 since this resembles building.
Halacha 27
A person who erects a permanent tent is liable for performing a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of building.125 Accordingly, at the outset, it is forbidden to erect or demolish a temporary126 tent, lest one erect or demolish a permanent tent. If, however, one erects or demolishes a temporary tent, he is not liable.
One may add to a temporary tent on the Sabbath. What is implied? If a cloth was spread over pillars or over walls and was rolled up before the Sabbath, [the following rule applies]: If there was a portion the size of a handbreadth extended before the Sabbath,127 one may extend it until its full width on the Sabbath, causing it to become a large tent. The same applies in other similar situations.
Halacha 28
Halacha 29
Halacha 30
[The following rules apply to a bed over which is hung] a bridal canopy whose roof is not a handbreadth wide, nor is the span three handbreadths below its roof a handbreadth wide:138 Since it was prepared to serve this purpose [before the commencement of the Sabbath], it may be spread out and rolled up [on the Sabbath].139 [This leniency is granted,] provided it does not hang more than a handbreadth above the bed.140
Halacha 31
It is permitted to wear a hat with a brim that provides shade for the person wearing143 it.144 If, however, one extends the clothes one is wearing above one's head or in front of one's face like a tent and: a) [the clothes] are tightly fitted around one's head, and b) the brim that one extends is very firm like a roof,145 this is forbidden, because one is making a temporary tent.
Halacha 32
A person who hangs a curtain or the like should take care not to create a tent while he is doing so.146 Therefore, a large curtain should be hung by two individuals and is forbidden to be hung by a single person.
[Moreover,] a canopy with a roof147 may not be extended even if ten people help in doing so. For it is impossible that it will not be lifted up slightly above the ground [in the process] and thus form a temporary tent.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
See Chapter 3, Halachah 18, and Chapter 5, Halachah 19, where this subject is discussed at length. As the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 254:5) states, if one places the loaf of bread into the oven in time for it to form a crust, there is no prohibition against removing it on the Sabbath. When, however, there was not enough time for a crust to form, one must follow the instructions mentioned by the Rambam.
|
| 2. |
Note the parallel in Chapter 23, Halachah 24.
|
| 3. |
I.e., according to the Torah, there is no prohibition against bathing.
|
| 4. |
Even one without attendants (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 326:1).
|
| 5. |
As Shabbat 40a relates, a series of Rabbinic decrees were passed regarding bathhouses. When the Sages saw that the bath attendants would heat up water on the Sabbath, they forbade bathing, but allowed the people to enter a bathhouse to use as a steam bath. Afterwards, they saw that because of this leniency their original prohibition was not being observed, and they forbade entering a bathhouse altogether.
The Rambam permits bathing in cold water, and this ruling is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 326:1). Nevertheless, most of the later Ashkenazic halachic authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 326:6; Mishnah Berurah 326:21) state that it is customary not to bathe on the Sabbath at all, even in cold water. As is mentioned in Chapter 23, Halachah 8, an exception to the above rules is made regarding immersion in the mikveh.
|
| 6. |
I.e., even when one does not enter a bath.
|
| 7. |
Or other select portions of the body. A woman may wash her vaginal area in preparation for ahefsek taharah.
|
| 8. |
Similarly, leniency is granted regarding open bodies of water that have been heated by the sun, as stated in Halachah 9.
|
| 9. |
Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 326:2 and the Mishnah Berurah 326:11, which favor opinions that do not accept this restriction.
|
| 10. |
See the following halachah and notes, which deal with the question whether this restriction applies after rinsing, not only one's entire body, but even a single limb.
|
| 11. |
The Maggid Mishneh emphasizes that in this instance, it is not heating the water in itself that is forbidden, since one is heating it to a minimal temperature. (See the following halachah.) Rather, the problem stems from the resemblance to bathing in warm water.
|
| 12. |
I.e., a duct or pipe containing cold water passes through a body of hot water and thus becomes warm. Even if one does not take the water from the duct itself, but has the duct flow into a pool, the water is forbidden (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:3). Shabbat 3:3 relates that the inhabitants of Tiberias actually had such a heating system constructed, but the Sages forbade its use.
|
| 13. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) mentions that even if the pipe was brought into the hot water on Friday, the water may not be used on the Sabbath.
|
| 14. |
The Rambam's intent is that the water or the oil may be heated to the point that it becomes hot enough to burn a infant's belly.
This decision is questioned by the Rabbis. Rashi and the Rambam interpret the Talmudic passage (Shabbat 40b) that serves as the source for this halachah as meaning that one may not allow the temperature of the liquid to reach the point where it could burn an infant's belly. The Rashba, Tosafot and others, however, follow a more stringent ruling and forbid placing a liquid in a place where the potential exists for it to become hot enough to burn a infant's belly, even if one removes it before that time. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 318:14) accepts the latter view.
|
| 15. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 326:5) mentions opinions that differ and maintain that the restriction mentioned in the previous halachah applies not only after rinsing one's entire body, but after washing a single limb. For example, a person who washes his hands should not warm them by a fire. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 326:4 counsels following this stringency.
|
| 16. |
This is the halachic definition of the term יד סולדת בו. In contemporary measure, this is defined as 42 to 45 degrees centigrade by contemporary authorities.
|
| 17. |
With this statement, the Rambam emphasizes that the tub is very hot and contains a large amount of water. Therefore, even though it is a כלי שני - i.e., not a vessel that was itself heated on a fire, but a vessel into which hot water was poured - there are still restrictions, as the Rambam explains. Implied is that even though we generally follow the rule that the heat of a כלי שני is not sufficient to cook something placed within, a tub in a bathhouse is an exception.
The above represents the interpretation of the Maggid Mishneh. In the Kessef Mishneh, by contrast, Rav Yosef Karo explains that the tub we are speaking about is a כלי ראשון, a vessel in which water was heated. Were it to be a כלי שני, there would be no restrictions. His ruling in theShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 318:11), appears to reflect this same view. The Ramah differs and clarifies in his gloss that the tub here is a כלי שני, adopting the explanation of the Maggid Mishneh.
|
| 18. |
The Ramah 318:12 states that if the amount of cold water the person adds at one time is so great that the it will not become hot, there is no prohibition against adding it, even to a כלי ראשון.
|
| 19. |
Shabbat 40b mentions that oil that is placed in a כלי שני does not cook. The Kessef Mishneh thus uses this as a support for his thesis that the Rambam is speaking about a tub that is a כלי ראשון. Others explain that, as stated above, even though in most instances we follow the rule that the heat of a כלי שני is not sufficient to cook something placed within, a tub in a bathhouse is an exception.
See also Hilchot Ma'aser 3:15, where it appears that the Rambam maintains that if a כלי שני is hot enough to burn a person's hand, oil that is placed inside will be cooked. The Radbaz, however, explains that the laws applying to cooking on the Sabbath are different from those applying to cooking regarding ma'aser.
|
| 20. |
Even according to the opinions that the Rambam is referring to a כלי ראשון, this is permitted. Although there are restrictions against pouring water from a כלי ראשון onto spices and the like, these restrictions do not apply when water is poured into other water. The rationale is that the waters mix and there is no time when the heat of the water from the כלי ראשון will be concentrated in a single space (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 318:20; Mishnah Berurah 318:78).
|
| 21. |
According to Rav Yosef Karo (in the Kessef Mishneh and in the Shulchan Aruch 318:12), this refers to a heating urn that was emptied entirely of hot water. One might think that pouring cold water in it would be forbidden, since the possibility exists that by doing so one will refine the metal of the urn. (See Chapter 12, Halachah 2, and notes.) Nevertheless, since this is not one's intent (אינו מתכוין), nor is it absolutely certain that this will take place (i.e., it is not a פסיק רישא), this is permitted (Chapter 1, Halachah 6).
The Maggid Mishneh and the Ramah accept this law, but they explain that it is also possible to interpret the Rambam's words as referring to an urn that was partially emptied of the water that was cooked in it, and then cold water was added. Even though the urn is a כלי ראשון, as long as so much cold water is poured in that it cannot become hot enough to burn an infant's belly, there is no prohibition involved.
|
| 22. |
I.e., even hot water that is in a כלי ראשון.
|
| 23. |
Which is in a כלי שני.
|
| 24. |
The Mishnah Berurah 318:82 emphasizes that if there is a small quantity of cold water, the restriction against using water from a כלי ראשון applies in both instances. One may not pour a small amount of cold water into a large amount of hot water, nor may one pour a large amount of hot water into a small amount of cold water. This ruling is not, however, accepted by all authorities. As mentioned above, according to the Ramah, one may pour hot water into a large amount of cold water, and a large amount of cold water into hot water, even if the hot water is in a כלי ראשון.
|
| 25. |
This law applies to most other substances, for most substances will cook in a כלי ראשון even after it is removed from a fire.
|
| 26. |
There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter among the Rabbis. The Tur (Orach Chayim 318) and Tosafot (Shabbat 40b) differ and maintain that salt requires only a minimal amount of cooking and should not even be placed in a כלי שני. The later authorities emphasize that this depends on the type of salt used. In many communities, it is common to follow the more stringent ruling.
|
| 27. |
It must be emphasized that our Sages mention that there are certain substances that do not require much cooking and can be cooked even in a כלי שני. For that reason, some authorities maintain that we should be stringent and not place any uncooked articles in a כלי שני, for we are unsure of which substances are included in the category of foods that do not require much cooking. See Ramah, Orach Chayim 318:5.
|
| 28. |
See Chapter 21, Halachah 22.
|
| 29. |
From the Rambam's placement of this halachah in this chapter, it would appear that he sees this as falling into the category of prohibitions instituted as a safeguard against cooking on the Sabbath, and not as one of the prohibitions instituted because it is forbidden to prepare remedies on the Sabbath.
|
| 30. |
Since soaking chiltit in cold water is forbidden only because of a Rabbinic prohibition, this prohibition is overridden because of the possibility of the person's becoming ill.
|
| 31. |
This law touches on the principle, אין בישול אחר בישול, "One is not liable for cooking something that is already cooked." Although this principle is accepted by all authorities, the scope of its application varies. To focus on the approach of the Rambam and to compare it to the perspective of other authorities, it is worthy to focus on each point in particular:
When food has been cooked before the Sabbath - According to the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 318:4), this refers only to food that has been thoroughly cooked.
or soaked in hot water before the Sabbath - In contrast to the Rambam's decision, theMishnah Berurah 318:31 rules that food that was soaked in hot water before the Sabbath may be placed in hot water in a כלי שני, but should not be placed in hot water in a כלי ראשון.
one is permitted to soak it in hot water - This refers to water in a כלי ראשון that was removed from its cooking surface. It is forbidden to place any food in a pot on a cooking surface after the Sabbath has commenced (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 318:9; Mishnah Berurah 318:33).
on the Sabbath even though it is presently cold. - The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states that this leniency applies only to cooked food that is dry. If the food is liquid, placing it in a כלי ראשון that is hot is considered to be cooking. From the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 22:2), it would appear that he also accepts this limitation. The Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 318), however, maintains that the Rambam does not hold one liable, even when one reheats foods that are not dry.
|
| 32. |
From the Rambam's wording, it is unclear if this refers to water that was in a כלי ראשון or in a כלי שני. From his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 3:4), it would appear that he maintains that it is permitted to pour water from a כלי ראשון directly on foods.
According to the Ashkenazic authorities, we are permitted to pour hot water on uncooked foods only from a כלי שני (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 318:11; Mishnah Berurah 318:35). Hot water from a כלי ראשון will cook the surface of the food onto which it is poured.
|
| 33. |
This clause comes to eliminate foods like aged salted fish or sole, whose preparation is completed by washing them with hot water. As the Rambam writes in Chapter 9, Halachah 2, one is liable for violating the forbidden labor of cooking merely by rinsing these foods with hot water.
|
| 34. |
The prohibition applies only to soaking the food in hot water. One may soak it in cold water (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 318:11; Mishnah Berurah 318:37).
|
| 35. |
See Chapter 9, Halachah 3. This prohibition was instituted lest one err and think that just as it is permitted to cook using articles heated by the sun, it is permitted to cook using articles heated by fire.
|
| 36. |
I.e., the leniency of placing water in the sun will not cause one to think that it is permitted to place food on a fire.
|
| 37. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 22:4), the Rambam emphasizes that this law is mentioned because one might think that placing the water in the sun is forbidden, lest one place food in hot ashes.
On this basis, many authorities allow the use of water that has been heated by solar energy units on the Sabbath. Even the more stringent opinions, which object to such use, have no difficulty with the concept of using water heated by the sun. They base their objections on other rationales, among them:
That water heated by the solar energy units is heated by an object heated by the sun and not by the sun itself.
The water in the urn of the solar energy unit is very hot. When cold water enters that unit, it will be heated by the water and produce a situation resembling that of the tub mentioned in Halachah 5.
|
| 38. |
The bracketed additions are taken from Rashi's commentary (Shabbat 146b).
|
| 39. |
Rashi (loc. cit.) explains that were the food left in the sun, it might spoil. By placing it in the cistern, one preserves it.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit., based on Shabbat 146b), the Rambam emphasizes that this law is mentioned because one might think that placing the food in the cistern is forbidden lest one smooth out the cistern's floor.
|
| 40. |
Enough for one meal (Ba'er Heteiv 321:4).
|
| 41. |
Significantly, Rashi (Shabbat 108b) explains that the rationale for all the laws in this halachah is that salting or pickling foods is comparable to processing leather. This rationale is mentioned by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 321:2). The Rambam, however, maintains that the forbidden labor of processing does not apply with regard to food (Chapter 11, Halachah 5).
|
| 42. |
In the Kessef Mishneh and in the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), Rav Yosef Karo states that it is forbidden to make even a small amount of such a mixture.
|
| 43. |
In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo explains that usually fish-brine is preserved. Hence, it would appear that one is pickling food.
|
| 44. |
Included in the latter category are any vegetables that salt softens or makes less bitter. This includes onions, cucumbers, and most vegetables used for salads (Magen Avraham 321:7).
|
| 45. |
The Rambam's intent is not that pickling is forbidden as a derivative of cooking, but that there is a Rabbinic prohibition against doing so (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 321:3; Mishnah Berurah 321:16). Note, however, Karti Ufalti 105:2, which maintains that the Rambam considers that there is a Torah prohibition involved.
|
| 46. |
Similarly, a mixture of salt, vinegar, and oil (or other substances used for salad dressings) may be placed on these vegetables, because it no longer appears that one is salting the vegetables to pickle them (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 321:4; Mishnah Berurah 321:14).
|
| 47. |
Note the Mishnah Berurah 321:69, which permits making this mixture only when one does not undertake much effort in doing so.
|
| 48. |
Hence, this mixture, like any other remedy, may not be drunk on the Sabbath even if it was prepared before the Sabbath.
|
| 49. |
The Rambam appears to be saying that one may stir the mixture. The Mishnah Berurah 321:58, however, quotes this law as meaning that one may add water or wine to the mixture. Although the Rambam would probably accept that ruling as well, based on his conception of the Rabbinic prohibitions against kneading (see Chapter 21, Halachot 33-34 and notes), this is not likely his intent here.
|
| 50. |
The Hebrew word כלי can be rendered as either "utensil" or "container." On this basis, theKessef Mishneh mentions the interpretation of Terumat HaDeshen (Responsum 53), which explains that one may shake a container to blend the mixture, but one may not stir it by hand. He does not, however, accept this as reflecting the Rambam's intent.
|
| 51. |
I.e., whip it forcefully by hand to produce a smooth, evenly flowing mixture.
|
| 52. |
A leafy vegetable that is used as a spice or dip when mixed with the abovementioned substances.
|
| 53. |
As explained in Chapter 9, Halachot 8-9.
|
| 54. |
A fragrant spice, noted for its cleansing powers.
|
| 55. |
This follows the principle of פסיק רישא stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 6 - i.e., since one's act will surely result in the performance of a prohibited act, it is considered as if this is one's intent. Although a Rabbinic prohibition is involved here, the same principle still holds.
|
| 56. |
This decision is based on the principle of אינו מתכוין, that an act that results in the performance of a forbidden labor is permitted if it is not a certainty that the forbidden labor will indeed come about. Indeed, the Rambam uses this law to exemplify this principle in Chapter 1, Halachah 5.
|
| 57. |
This is the version in the standard published texts of the Mishneh Torah. The Maggid Mishnehnotes that there is another version of the text which reverses the order in this clause, stating, "If the majority was a substance that will not necessarily remove hair, it is permitted." There is a difference in the rulings resulting from these two versions of the text when the amount of both substances is equal. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 326:9) follows the version of the standard text.
Sefer HaKovetz questions why such a leniency is allowed, and explains that all prohibitions based on the principle of פסיק רישא are merely Rabbinic in origin. Accordingly, since the substances that undoubtedly remove hair are not in the majority, leniency is granted. (It must be noted that it is difficult to reconcile the statements of Sefer HaKovetz with the Rambam's own statements, Chapter 1, Halachah 6, that one is liable for performing such an act.)
|
| 58. |
I.e., as Shabbat 149b emphasizes, the difficulty is because a metal mirror can serve as a cutting article itself.
|
| 59. |
The Sages desired that their decrees be applied uniformly.
|
| 60. |
This includes a glass mirror, as is used today (Maggid Mishneh; Mishnah Berurah 302:63).
|
| 61. |
See Chapter 9, Halachah 11.
|
| 62. |
Rav Moshe Cohen of Lunil questions the Rambam's ruling, since one's intent is not to wring out the liquid, but to plug the flask. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 320:22 states that when one plugs the opening firmly, one will certainly squeeze water from it. Hence, this is considered a פסיק רישא. Furthermore, our Sages forbade plugging the opening loosely, lest one plug it firmly.
|
| 63. |
The Kessef Mishneh (in the gloss on Chapter 9, Halachah 11) uses this law to refute the Maggid Mishneh's thesis that, according to the Rambam, the prohibition against wringing out liquids applies only to water, since it is generally beverages other than water that are contained in a flask.
|
| 64. |
As evident from his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 21:3), the Rambam explains that if the sponge does not have a handle, it is a פסיק רישא that one will squeeze water from it when cleaning with it. If it has a handle, that is not a certainty. This interpretation is also reflected in Rashi's commentary, Shabbat 143a.
Although the Ra'avad accepts the law, he objects to this explanation, maintaining that whether or not the sponge has a handle, one will squeeze water out when cleaning with it. Why then is one allowed to use it? Once the handle is attached, it is no longer considered to be a piece of fabric, but rather a container that is made to hold water. By using it, one is not squeezing the water directly, but merely causing it to be squeezed.
|
| 65. |
Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 320:21, which states that this decree applies only to a jug of water, but not to one containing other beverages. See, however, the Kessef Mishneh's statements cited in note 63.
|
| 66. |
I.e., unless the cloth was designated for this purpose, it is possible that if it gets wet, one will wring out the water so that one can use it for another purpose. If, however, one has set aside the cloth for this use, one will not be concerned with its getting wet.
|
| 67. |
Based on the ruling of Tosafot (Shabbat 143b), the Ramah (Orach Chayim 335:1) emphasizes that this law applies only when the cask breaks. If it has a slow leak, there are no restrictions. Since there is no possibility of the person's losing the entire contents of the cask at once, our Sages did not fear that he would panic and violate the Sabbath laws to save his property.
The Ramah also mentions the ruling of Terumat HaDeshen (Responsum 196) that these restrictions apply only when one desires to bring containers from one courtyard to another. There are, however, no restrictions on using different containers within one's own property. This leniency is accepted by the later Ashkenazic authorities.
|
| 68. |
According to the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 335:1), one may save enough for one's Sabbath needs and the needs of one's guests, even if it is necessary to use several containers. As Rabbi Akiva Eiger notes in his gloss, the Rambam's wording does not appear to fit this interpretation.
|
| 69. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states that this restriction applies even when a sponge has a handle. (See the previous halachah.) Since the person is distressed about the loss of his property, our Sages fear that he might violate the Sabbath laws in this instance.
|
| 70. |
I.e., there are two restrictions: that one may save only a limited amount of wine or oil, and that the manner in which one saves these liquids must differ from one's ordinary practice.
|
| 71. |
According to the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), there is no restriction on the size of this container. Any container may be used, regardless of the amount it can hold. As mentioned, the Rambam's wording does not appear to fit this interpretation.
|
| 72. |
I.e., invite guests who he knows will not want to partake of the liquids. In this way, he will be able to save the liquids because of them, even though they will not partake of them. (See Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 3:17, where the Rambam mentions a similar instance where the Sages permitted one to act with guile.)
|
| 73. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:3) states that it is forbidden to invite guests with this intent. If, however, one does so, it is permitted to use the wine. It is possible that this is the Rambam's intent. (The Shulchan Aruch's leniency is actually even more encompassing, and allows one to use the wine if one invites the guests after collecting it.) Based on the Maggid Mishneh, theMagen Avraham 335:2, however, states that according to the Rambam, one is permitted to act with guile in this manner.
(Kinat Eliyahu objects to this interpretation, noting the difference in the Rambam's wording in this halachah, "If one acted with guile in this matter, it is permitted," and his wording in Chapter 23, Halachah 3, "It is permitted to act with guile in this matter.")
|
| 74. |
Since the person rubs it from the inside, it is not obvious that his intent is to launder the garment (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 302:7).
|
| 75. |
Even from the outside.
|
| 76. |
Or with a knife (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 302:17; Mishnah Berurah 302:34).
|
| 77. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) quotes the opinion of the Tur, which states that both rubbing the inside of a garment and scraping off mud are permitted only when the mud is moist. When the mud has dried, these acts are forbidden, because it is as if one is grinding the mud.
|
| 78. |
The Ramban and the Ra'avad follow a different version of the text of Shabbat 140a, and therefore rule that it is also permitted to rub a scarf. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit:5) follows the Rambam's decision, explaining that when rubbing a scarf, one's intent is to make it glistening clean.
The Be'ur Halachah cites support for the Rambam's ruling from Mo'ed Katan 10b, which states that it is permitted to rub clean one's garments on Chol HaMo'ed (see Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov8:14). This indicates that such an act is forbidden on the Sabbath.
|
| 79. |
I.e., a cloak becomes stiff after being laundered, and before putting it on one generally rubs it (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).
|
| 80. |
Note Chapter 9, Halachah 11, where the Rambam states that one is not liable for wringing out leather. Similarly, the fact that he mentions the prohibition against laundering leather in this chapter appears to indicate that he considers it to be merely a Rabbinic prohibition. This perspective is also quoted by Shulchan Aruch HaRav 302:19. The Be'ur Halachah 302, however, explains that one is liable for laundering leather.
|
| 81. |
The Rambam appears to allow one to scrape old shoes. The Ra'avad and the Maggid Mishnehobject to this ruling, based on Shabbat 141a-b, which states that it is forbidden to scrape both new and old shoes.
The commentaries offer several resolutions of this difficulty. Some point to manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah that omit the word "new" entirely (Radbaz, Vol. V, Responsum 1628). Others explain that the Rambam mentions "new" shoes for specific reasons, but not to imply that scraping old shoes is permitted (Rabbenu Meir of Padua). Others find sources to substantiate the Rambam's ruling (Sefer HaKovetz).
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 302:8) forbids scraping both old and new shoes. Significantly, however, the prohibition is associated with the forbidden labor of removing hair. Note also the Magen Avraham 302:17 who emphasizes that the prohibition applies only when using a knife. Using dull metal is permitted.
|
| 82. |
See Chapter 23, Halachah 10, which appears to contradict this ruling. Similarly, the Ra'avad and others question the text here. Significantly, Rav Kapach mentions that the Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah follow an alternate version of the text, which does not present a difficulty.
|
| 83. |
Care must be taken not to press the rag firmly, lest one squeeze out water from it (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:9).
|
| 84. |
One may not, however, rub them under water to remove the stain (Maggid Mishneh). Washing a cloth in water would be considered as laundering, even according to Torah law (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 302:20).
|
| 85. |
The Mishnah Berurah 302:57 states that one may also use a rag that is of no importance.
|
| 86. |
I.e., the prohibition was not instituted because of the act of washing one's hands with the cloth, but because one might wash the cloth later.
|
| 87. |
The Magen Avraham 301:58 focuses on this law as an example of the relation of the principles of Rabbinic authority to the changes in the cultural conditions under which Jews lived. Originally, this leniency was granted, because in the Talmudic era washing every day was considered a necessity, and a person who washes himself must dry himself. In his own time, washing was not considered as great a necessity. Hence, some thought of ruling that using a towel would be prohibited. Nevertheless, since the Sages of the Talmud did not institute a prohibition in this regard, the later Rabbis left the status quo unchanged. The Magen Avraham, however, concludes that it is preferable to dry oneself with a towel that one would not normally wring out during the week.
|
| 88. |
I.e., from rain, or because he fell into a body of water.
|
| 89. |
He must, however, be careful not to shake the water from them.
|
| 90. |
We are not, however, obligated to remove clothes that were hanging on a clothesline before the Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 301:45).
|
| 91. |
The Mishnah Berurah 301:165 cites authorities who maintain that this applies only with respect to a safeguard instituted because of the possibility that an observer might think a prohibition from the Torah was violated. When the question revolves around a Rabbinic prohibition, there is room for leniency.
|
| 92. |
For the Sages wanted to established a uniform standard, applicable at all times.
|
| 93. |
The Kessef Mishneh explains that since the person desires to connect the two mikvaot, he will not insert the plug firmly to the extent that he will squeeze water from it.
|
| 94. |
In this instance, the person's concern is to prevent the food and utensils from being inundated by the flow of water. Accordingly, his intent will be to plug the drain in a manner that will prevent a great flow. He, however, is not concerned that there will be a slight leak and will not necessarily plug the drain tightly (Kessef Mishneh).
Merkevet HaMishneh offers a different interpretation. The Rambam is referring to a plug for a hole in a cistern. The person sees that the drain pipes leading to the cistern are full and soon the water level will reach the hole. He therefore plugs the hole so that the water will not flow out and flood the courtyard. Although he plugs the hole tightly, since the water level has not yet reached this height, there is no possibility that he will squeeze out water in the process.
|
| 95. |
I.e., there is a drain-pipe that leads in two directions. By plugging one end, the water can be directed into a cistern.
|
| 96. |
Since in this instance, the person wants to direct the flow of the water and preserve all of it, he will plug the other end of the pipe tightly. When doing so, the possibility exists that he will squeeze water from the plug.
|
| 97. |
Our translation is based on Rashi's commentary, Beitzah 23a.
|
| 98. |
See Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 8:14, which states that this is forbidden on Chol HaMo'ed because it requires professional expertise.
|
| 99. |
This appears to refer to folding a garment with the intent of smoothing out wrinkles that already exist. Similarly, one may fold a garment after removing it, in order that it remain uncreased so it can be worn again on the Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 302:8).
|
| 100. |
One may fold and refold a garment several times on the Sabbath (Shabbat 15:3). If, however, there is no need to wear a garment again on the Sabbath, one may not fold it so that it will remain uncreased for the following day. For this reason, it is forbidden to fold one's tallit on the Sabbath after the morning prayers (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 302:8; Mishnah Berurah 302:13).
|
| 101. |
Note Rashi (Shabbat 113a), who offers a different explanation of the Talmudic passage that serves as the source for the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 102. |
When two people fold a garment, the possibility exists that one will smooth out the creases by hand. This is forbidden (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 302:9).
|
| 103. |
See Chapter 9, Halachah 13.
|
| 104. |
Similarly, the application of other forms of makeup is forbidden (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim303:25 and commentaries).
|
| 105. |
See Chapter 10, Halachah 9.
|
| 106. |
Note Rashi (Shabbat 48a), who offers a different rationale for this restriction: that this resembles making a utensil.
|
| 107. |
The Mishnah Berurah 340:32 emphasizes that one may return them to the same pillow or blanket, but may not transfer them to another one on the Sabbath.
|
| 108. |
See Chapter 10, Halachah 10.
|
| 109. |
Our translation has parallels in the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, D'mai 6:6 andKilayim 9:5. The Merkevet HaMishneh, however, renders this word as "modestly" - i.e., so others will not see him and think that he is tearing.
|
| 110. |
As mentioned several times, a person is not liable for performing a forbidden labor without intention. In this instance, there is an even greater reason for leniency, since the concept of intent is particularly important regarding this category of forbidden labor. As the Rambam mentions in Chapter 10, the forbidden labor of tearing consists of tearing for the sake of resewing.
|
| 111. |
See Chapter 10, Halachot 12-14.
|
| 112. |
The Maggid Mishneh questions the Rambam's statements here, noting that from the halachot cited above, it would appear that by returning the doors to their place one would be liable for performing the forbidden labor of building.
|
| 113. |
According to the Ramah (Orach Chayim 314:1), this law applies only to small cabinents and chests, those smaller than 40 seah, approximately .375 square meters in modern measure.
In a related matter, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 308:34-35 emphasizes that in contrast to the doors of a building, the doors of cabinets, chests, and the like are not considered muktzeh on the Sabbath. Since they were part of a utensil before they were removed, they are still considered to be utensils afterwards. In contrast, the doors of a building were not considered utensils before the commencement of the Sabbath. Hence, if they are removed on the Sabbath, it is forbidden to carry them.
|
| 114. |
If, however, it slips off entirely, it may not be returned outside the Temple (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 313:5).
|
| 115. |
Since the prohibitions in the category of sh'vut need not be observed in the Temple.
|
| 116. |
I.e., even in the Temple. This is an exception to the principle mentioned in the previous note, because, in this instance it is very likely that one will perform a forbidden labor (Tosafot, Eruvin102b).
|
| 117. |
There is a greater concern that one will attach the upper hinge firmly, because if it becomes detached the door will fall. If, by contrast, the upper hinge remains attached but the lower hinge slips off, the door will still remain hanging.
|
| 118. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 10:7). Rashi interprets this term to refer to "parting the hair." Note also the Mishnah Berurah 303:83, which discusses whether this restriction applies regarding only a woman's natural hair, or also regarding a wig.
|
| 119. |
See also Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 315:5), which - albeit in a different context - allows the use of folding chairs on the Sabbath. One may add a leaf to a table, but one may not construct a table by placing the table board on its legs.
|
| 120. |
Many other authorities differ and explain that the prohibition was instituted lest one firmly attach the parts to each other. Were one to do so, one would be liable for performing the forbidden labor of מכה בפטיש, completing a utensil (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 313:6).
|
| 121. |
It appears that, accordingly to the Rambam, even if a person were to attach the parts firmly to each other, he would not be liable. As mentioned, others differ.
|
| 122. |
The Rambam's perspective on this issue requires clarification: Beitzah 22a states, "There is no [concept of] building regarding utensils."
The Rambam explains that this refers only to putting together a utensil that is made up of several component parts. Fashioning a new utensil, by contrast, is surely considered building, as explained in Chapter 10, Halachah 13 and notes. As mentioned, others differ and maintain that a person who fashions a new utensil is liable for performing the forbidden labor of מכה בפטיש, completing a utensil.
|
| 123. |
According to the Rambam, the rationale for the leniency appears to be that since the parts hang loosely, one would not confuse assembling such a structure with erecting a building. According to the other authorities, the rationale is that since the parts of the utensil hang loosely, there is little likelihood that one will attach the parts firmly to each other.
|
| 124. |
This refers to adjusting the child's limbs by hand. As mentioned in Chapter 21, Halachah 31, one may tie clothes around the child to adjust his limbs. Furthermore, on the day of a child's birth, it is permitted to adjust his limbs (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 330:10; Mishnah Berurah 330:34). Even afterwards, many authorities allow the adjustment of other limbs, with the exception of the backbone.
|
| 125. |
See Chapter 10, Halachah 13.
|
| 126. |
In this context, the word "temporary" is defined as "not constructed to remain for a prolonged period" (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 315:1). It would appear that, according to the Rambam, even if a tent has a roof that is a handbreadth wide, its classification as permanent or temporary depends on the intent of the person who erects it. (See the Noda BiY'hudah, Vol. II, Orach Chayim, Responsum 30.)
Based on this restriction, the Noda BiY'hudah (loc. cit.) forbids opening an umbrella on the Sabbath. Similarly, because of the appearance that might be created, he forbids carrying an umbrella on the Sabbath even when: a) it was opened before the Sabbath, and b) the community possesses an eruv that makes it permitted to carry.
|
| 127. |
If, however, the overhang was not at all extended before the commencement of the Sabbath, it may not be extended on the Sabbath. Although it was suspended above the wall before the Sabbath, since it was completely rolled up, it may not be used.
|
| 128. |
Similarly, it is permitted to place a table-top on its legs (Maggid Mishneh). Note, however, theShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 315:3), which forbids placing a table-top on legs that appear as walls.
|
| 129. |
I.e., a space is covered by a surface supported by four legs.
|
| 130. |
Since one does not use the space below them (Maggid Mishneh).
Note the apparent contradiction between the Rambam's ruling here and his ruling in Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 4:15, and the resolution offered by the Lechem Mishneh there.
|
| 131. |
I.e., the walls of the tent slant downward, and it does not have a straight roof that is a handbreadth wide.
|
| 132. |
Based on the principle of l'vud, the space within three handbreadths is considered to be a single entity. Thus, were it to be a handbreadth wide, the tent would be considered as having a roof of significant size (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 315:15).
|
| 133. |
This follows the opinion of Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi and Rabbenu Chanan'el. Rashi and Rabbenu Asher, by contrast, maintain that since the tent does not have a roof that is a handbreadth wide, it can never be considered even a temporary tent, and there is no prohibition in constructing it. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 315:8) follows the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 134. |
I.e., there is a beam in the middle of a room on which a cloth is rolled that will be spread out to serve as a cover for a bed. Cords are attached to the cloth, and when they are pulled it is extended to form the canopy. Needless to say, such a canopy must meet the criteria mentioned in the first clause of this halachah regarding the width of its roof (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 315:16;Mishnah Berurah 315:37).
|
| 135. |
As implied by the first clause, had the cloth not been hanging before the commencement of the Sabbath, hanging it on the Sabbath itself would have been forbidden. Nevertheless, since it was hanging before the Sabbath and the cords that extend it are already in place, it is considered already to have been extended the length of a handbreadth. Therefore, extending it further is permitted, as mentioned in Halachah 27 (ibid.).
|
| 136. |
Since spreading out the cloth is not considered to be building a tent, closing it is not considered to be demolishing one (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 315:16; Mishnah Berurah 315:38). This and all the other leniencies associated with a temporary tent apply when the roof of the temporary tent is less than a handbreadth wide (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 315:17; Mishnah Berurah 315:38). This ruling is also reflected in the following halachah.
|
| 137. |
Note the Ramah (Orach Chayim 315:1), who states that one may hang a curtain on the Sabbath, even if one intends to leave it hanging permanently, provided there is no halachic significance to its being hung - e.g., to hang a curtain in front of a toilet so that one could pray in that same room.
Note also the Mishnah Berurah 315:38, which states that the wording of this halachah indicates that the cords from which a curtain hangs must be prepared before the commencement of the Sabbath, as the cords of the cloth mentioned immediately before. There are, however, other authorities who do not accept this view. (See also Halachah 32, which describes the manner in which a curtain may be hung.)
|
| 138. |
Thus, it meets the criteria of a temporary tent mentioned in the previous halachah.
|
| 139. |
This represents a greater leniency than the previous halachah. In that halachah, leniency was granted only because the ends of the canopy were hanging from the curtain rods and attached by strings. In this instance, the canopy was not hanging before the Sabbath. Nevertheless, since it was prepared to serve this purpose, it is permitted.
|
| 140. |
The Maggid Mishneh cites the interpretation of the Rashba, who explains that this refers to a canopy that hangs down a handbreadth below the bed. The part that hangs down is thus considered to be a wall - and the slanted portion of the canopy, a roof.
Based on this interpretation, he finds it necessary to differentiate between such a canopy and a sheet or blanket extended over a bed that is used at present. In the latter instance, even though the sheet or blanket extends more than a handbreadth on either side of the bed, it is not considered a tent, since it was not spread out with the purpose of enclosing space. The canopy, by contrast, was spread out for that purpose and hence is considered a tent in certain instances.
Although this interpretation is accepted by the later authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 315:18;Mishnah Berurah 315:42), Rav Kapach notes that it does not fit the wording used by the Rambam, "provided it does not hang more than a handbreadth above the bed." He thus explains that if the canopy hangs more than a handbreadth above the bed, that open space is considered a wall, and the canopy, its roof.
|
| 141. |
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 17:7). Others render this as "a shutter." It would, however, appear that the Rambam would not object to the use of a shutter for this purpose. Indeed, as indicated by Shabbat 24:5, it is permitted to use any utensil for this purpose. Compare also to Chapter 26, Halachah 10.
|
| 142. |
The rationale for this leniency is that this is considered equivalent to closing a window or a door which is permitted on the Sabbath (Shabbat 125b).
The same rules apply regarding an aperture in the roof (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 313:1; Mishnah Berurah 313:1).
|
| 143. |
In this instance, we have adopted the version of this halachah found in the Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The version of the standard published texts would be rendered "on one's garments."
|
| 144. |
The Maggid Mishneh and similarly, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 301:40), interpret this as referring to a hat with a brim less than a handbreadth. According to their interpretation, putting on such a hat is forbidden even in one's home. The Noda BiY'hudah (Vol. II, Orach Chayim, Responsum 30), however, explains that there is no prohibition against putting on a hat, regardless of how wide its brim is.
|
| 145. |
Note the Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1450), who explains that both of these stipulations are derived from the Hebrew word מהודק used in Shabbat 138b, the source for this halachah. מהודק means "firm," and in this context, the use of the word implies both "firmly attached" and that the brim is firm. When both these stipulations are fulfilled, the garment resembles a tent.
Note Rashi, however, who explains that the head-covering must be firmly attached to one's head. Otherwise, one may not wear it in the public domain, lest the wind blow it from one's head. Rashi's interpretation is followed by most later commentaries and accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:41).
|
| 146. |
I.e., there is no prohibition against hanging the curtain if one holds it upright. This, however, is difficult when hanging a large curtain. Inevitably, one will hold one portion of the curtain with one's left hand and fold at least a handbreadth or more over with one's right hand while hanging it. Thus, a temporary tent will have been created.
This represents the Rambam's conception of the passage in Shabbat 138b, the source for this halachah. Although the Ra'avad and others interpret that passage differently, the Rambam's view is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 315:12). (See also the final clause of Halachah 29 and notes.)
|
| 147. |
I.e., in contrast to the canopy described in Halachah 29.
|
| 148. |
Similarly, removing the cover is forbidden, since it is considered to be demolishing a tent (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 315:19).
|
| 149. |
The Maggid Mishneh mentions that this restriction applies only when there is a handbreadth or more of empty space in the jug. This qualification is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 315:13).
The Maggid Mishneh also mentions that the Rashba and the Ra'avad interpret Shabbat 139b, the source for this halachah, differently, and therefore reach a more lenient decision. Although their view is mentioned by the later authorities, the general consensus is to follow the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 150. |
See Chapter 21, Halachah 17, and notes.
|
| 151. |
Rashi (Shabbat, loc. cit.) interprets the passage that serves as the source for this halachah as the Rambam does. Others, however, explain that this restriction was instituted to make one deviate from one's ordinary practice as a safeguard associated with the forbidden labor of sifting.
|
Terumot - Chapter 13
Halacha 1
Terumah becomes nullified in a mixture 101 times the size of the original quantity.1
What is implied? When a se'ah of terumah falls into 100 se'ah of ordinary produce and all the produce becomes mixed together,2 he should separate onese'ah and give it to the priest. The remainder is permitted [to be eaten by] non-priests.3
[Accordingly,] whenever the terumah is a substance which the priests do not care about, e.g., terumah from wild figs, carobs, Edomite barley and the like, it is not necessary to separate [a hundredth for the priest]. Instead, since it fell into a 100 times its amount, it is nullified because of its minimal size and the entire mixture is permitted to non-priests.
Halacha 2
If a se'ah of terumah fell into less than 100 [se'ah of ordinary produce], the entire mixture becomes miduma.4 It should be sold to a priest at the price ofterumah5 with the exception of that se'ah.6
When does the above apply? When produce becomes mixed with its own kind. If, however, produce becomes mixed with produce of another type, [the ruling is dependent on whether] the flavor [of the terumah] is recognizable or not. If the entire mixture has the flavor of terumah, it is all considered as miduma and should be sold to the priests with the exception of the value of the terumah. If the flavor of the entire mixture is that of the ordinary produce, the entire mixture is permitted to non-priests.7
Halacha 3
When a se'ah of terumah falls into 100 se'ah and one se'ah was removed from the mixture8, if that se'ah fell into other produce, the question whether the mixture is considered as miduma is determined according to the proportion [ofterumah in the first mixture].9Similarly, if a se'ah of terumah fell into less than one hundred se'ah [of ordinary produce] and the entire mixture becamemiduma and then some of this mixture fell into other [produce], the question whether the mixture is considered as miduma is determined according to the proportion [of terumah in the first mixture].
What is implied? Ten se'ah of terumah fell into 90 se'ah of ordinary produce and the entire mixture became miduma. If ten se'ah from this mixture fell into less than 100 se'ah of ordinary produce, the mixture is considered miduma, because in the ten se'ah of the [original] mixture, there was at least one se'ahof terumah.10 If less than ten se'ah [of terumah] fell into [the original mixture], the [second] mixture is not considered as miduma [when one se'ah of the first mixture fell into 100 se'ah].
Halacha 4
When does the above apply? With regard to substances that do not become blended together, e.g., wheat kernels with wheat kernels or flour with flour.11When, however, substances blend together, e.g., oil that is terumah mixes with ordinary oil or wine that is terumah mixes with ordinary wine, we follow the majority. If the majority is terumah, should the mixture fall into other produce, the ruling is the same as if [the first mixture] was [entirely] terumah.12 If the majority of the [first] mixture is ordinary produce, should that mixture fall into other produce, [the entire first mixture] is considered as ordinary produce and there is never a difficulty concerning a mixture of terumah.13 Nevertheless, in all instances, the entire [first] mixture is forbidden to non-priests.
Halacha 5
When a se'ah of terumah falls into 100 se'ah, [a se'ah of the mixture] was removed, another [se'ah of terumah] fell in, [another se'ah] was removed, and another fell in, the ordinary produce is permitted14 until there is a majority ofterumah [in the mixture]. Thus if more than 100 se'ah of terumah fell into 100se'ah of ordinary produce, se'ah after se'ah [in above manner], the entire mixture is considered as miduma.15
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply when] a se'ah of terumah fell into 100 [se'ah of ordinary produce] and before one se'ah was removed, another se'ah ofterumah fell [into the mixture]. If [the owner] was aware of the first se'ah before the second se'ah fell, [the mixture] does not become miduma. Instead, he should remove two se'ah and the remainder is permitted. [The rationale is that] since it should have been taken out,16 we consider it as if it was taken out. If, however, he did not become aware of the first se'ah until after the second fell in, the mixture is considered miduma. It is as if both se'ah fell in at the same time.17
Halacha 7
The waste products of terumah are not combined with it [a mixture of it and ordinary produce] to cause the ordinary produce to be forbidden. The waste products of ordinary produce, by contrast, are combined with it to causeterumah to be nullified in a mixture.
What is implied? A se'ah of high quality wheat that is terumah fell into 100 se'ahof wheat of low quality that is ordinary produce. The owner ground the entire quality. Even though there is much bran in the ordinary produce and a small amount in the terumah and thus the flour from the terumah is more than one hundredth of the flour from the ordinary produce,18 it is nullified. For we measure the flour with the bran and [together,] it is 101 times [the original amount of terumah]. If, however, a se'ah of low quality wheat that is terumahfalls into [slightly] less 100 se'ah of high quality wheat that is ordinary produce and [the owner] ground the entire quantity, [the weight of] the flour that isterumah will be one hundredth of [the weight of] the flour that is ordinary produce. Hence it is nullified because the mixture is 101 times the original amount [of terumah], for the weight of the ordinary produce increased and that of the terumah decreased.19
Halacha 8
When a log20 of clear wine that is terumah fell into 100 lugin of cloudy wine21that is ordinary produce, we do not remove the dregs from the wine [and only then calculate whether the ordinary wine is 100 times the terumah]. Instead, we nullify the log of terumah.22 Similarly, if a log of cloudy wine [that is terumah] fell into a 100 log of clear wine, we do not remove the dregs in [the wine that isterumah].23
Halacha 9
When a log of water fell into 99 lugim of wine and then a log of wine that isterumah fell into the mixture, the entire mixture is considered as miduma, because water does not nullify [the existence of] wine.24
Halacha 10
[The following rules apply when] a se'ah of terumah fell into less than 100 se'ahof ordinary produce and then other ordinary produce fell into the mixture so that there was more than 100 times [the weight of the terumah]. If [the second batch of produce was added] unknowingly, [the terumah] is nullified because there is 101 [times the original weight]. If he mixed it intentionally, the entire mixture is considered as miduma, because we do not nullify the existence of substances prohibited by Scriptural Law as an initial preference.25
Halacha 11
It is, however, permitted to nullify terumah from the Diaspora [by mixing it] with a majority of permitted substances26 and eat it during the time when one is ritually impure.27 Not only that, if a person possesses wine that is terumah from the Diaspora, he should take one log of this wine and mix it with two lugim of ordinary [wine]. Thus there are three lugim.28 Afterwards, he can add anotherlog of the terumah wine into the three lugim and then take one log from the four and drink it.29 He may then add another log [of terumah wine] and take out alog and drink it. Similarly, he may continue adding a log of terumah and removing a log until all the wine that is terumah is completed. Thus he can nullify several lugim [of terumah] in two lugim of ordinary produce.
Halacha 12
When one sows terumah next to ordinary produce and cannot identify which produce is terumah and which is ordinary produce, the entire batch is permitted even if there were 100 rows of terumah and [only] one row of ordinary produce.30
When does the above apply? With regard to produce whose seed decomposes in the earth, e.g., wheat, barley, and the like.31 If, however, the seeds do not decompose, e.g., garlic and onions,32 even if 100 rows are ordinary produce and one row is terumah, the entire mixture is miduma. 33 If the entire crop is harvested,34 terumah can be nullified in a mixture of 100 times its weight, but, as an initial and preferred option, one should not harvest the crop.35
Halacha 13
When there are two containers of produce, one containing terumah and one containing ordinary produce and it is not known [which contains the ordinary produce and which contains the terumah], if [the contents of] one of these containers falls into ordinary produce, [the mixture] is not considered asmiduma.36 [This same law applies if produce that is] terumah fell into one of two containers [of ordinary produce], but one does not know which one and afterwards, one of those containers fell into ordinary produce.
Similarly, if one sowed [the grain from] one of the two containers, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce with regard to all matters.37 [The produce in] the remaining container is considered as terumah.38 If [the contents of] the second container fell into other produce, [the mixture] is not considered as miduma.39 Similarly, if another person sowed [the contents of] the second container, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce.40
If [the contents of] both containers fall into one mixture of other produce, the mixture is considered miduma according to the amount of produce in the smaller container.41 If one person sowed both of them,42 if the produce is a species where the seed decomposes, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce.43If the seed does not decompose, the produce that grows ismiduma.44
When does the above apply? When one sowed [the contents of] the second container before the first batch of produce was harvested.45 If, however, he harvested the first batch of produce before sowing the second, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce even when the seed does not decompose. [The rationale is that] produce that has been reaped and produce that is growing are not considered as indicators of each other's status.
Halacha 14
When there are two containers [of produce], one containing ordinary produce and the other, containing terumah and two se'ah, one of ordinary produce and one of terumah, and both se'ah fall into these containers, [one into each], the produce is permitted. We assume that the ordinary produce fell into [the container of] ordinary produce and that the terumah fell into [the container of]terumah. [This applies] even though the weight of the ordinary produce is not greater than that of the terumah.46
Halacha 15
Halacha 16
If there were two grainheaps before a person and he said: 'The terumah for both grainheaps is in one of them," they are both considered miduma.53
If there were two se'ah of grain and one grainheap before a person and he said: "One of these se'ah is considered terumah for this grainheap," one of them is terumah and he does not know which.54 If there were two grainheaps and one se'ah before him and he said: "This is terumah for one of the grainheaps," [the se'ah] is terumah and [terumah has been separated from] one of the grainheaps, but he does not know which one is no longer tevel.55
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:16, the Rambam explains:
Nevertheless, from Halachah 13-14, it appears that according to Scriptural Law, terumah is nullified when mixed with a majority of ordinary produce and the verse is cited merely as a support.
|
| 2. |
Obviously, if the produce which is terumah is distinct, it is sufficient for him to remove it.
|
| 3. |
In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:15, the Rambam explains: "Why is it necessary to separate [a measure of] terumah and not a measure of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard? Becauseterumah is the property of the priests." I.e., from a ritual perspective, it is not necessary to remove the se'ah, for the existence of the terumah has been nullified. Nevertheless, from a financial perspective, it is necessary to give the priest his due. This is the explanation of the concluding clause.
|
| 4. |
And it is forbidden for a non-priest to partake of it.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 1:3), the Rambam explains that Exodus 22:23 uses the term dima as a synonym for terumah. Hence our Sages referred to a mixture of terumah and ordinary produce in this manner.
|
| 5. |
Which is far less than the price of ordinary produce. Since the terumah is not nullified, we have to consider the possibility that every kernel is terumah.
|
| 6. |
Which is given to him without cost.
|
| 7. |
Since the flavor of the terumahis not recognizable, it is considered as nullified. This principle applies with regard to all the Torah's prohibitions [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 2:7)].
|
| 8. |
As required by Halachah 1.
|
| 9. |
Even though the se'ah was taken out to be given to the priest, it is not considered as terumah. Instead, we calculate the proportion of terumah in the first mixture, on that basis, determine how much of the se'ah that fell is considered to be terumah and then see if that amount is one hundredth of the new mixture or not. For example, if one se'ah fell in one hundred se'ah, we consider the se'ah that was removed as slightly less than 1/100th terumah. Thus if it fell into ase'ah or more of ordinary produce, the second mixture is permitted [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 5:5)].
|
| 10. |
And thus a se'ah of terumah is being mixed with less than 100 se'ah of ordinary produce.
|
| 11. |
In this instance, every entity remains discrete. It's only that an observer cannot distinguish between the terumah and the ordinary produce (see Radbaz).
|
| 12. |
I.e., instead of calculating the percentage of terumah alone in the new mixture, we consider the first mixture as if it were terumah. Only if the second mixture is 100 times as large as the first is it permitted.
|
| 13. |
We do not calculate the percentage of terumah in the second mixture. Even if the terumah is more than one hundredth of the second mixture, that mixture is permitted.
|
| 14. |
Since the mixture was permitted, it is considered as if the se'ah of terumah that fell into it does not exist. We do not consider it as existing within the mixture, so that were it to be combined with otherterumah, the entire mixture would be considered miduma.
|
| 15. |
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this figure, maintaining that the mixture is considered as miduma if 51 se'ah of terumah fall into the ordinary produce in the above manner. His rationale is that since a se'ah is removed from the mixture, it is possible that he is removing ase'ah of ordinary produce. Hence, after 51 se'ah fell and 50 se'ah were removed, it is possible that there is a majority of terumah in the mixture. The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that it is logical to assume that each se'ah that is removed has an proportionate amount ofterumah and ordinary produce.
|
| 16. |
And thus the entire mixture would be considered as permitted.
|
| 17. |
The Ra'avad comments on the Rambam's ruling, noting that he is following what appears to be the minority opinion in Terumot 5:8. The Kessef Mishneh questions the intent of the Ra'avad's comments and asserts that according to the Tosefta, the majority opinion also accepts the distinction the Rambam makes here. This interpretation is borne out by the Rambam's Commentary to that mishnah.
|
| 18. |
For high quality grain produces more flour and less bran than lower quality grain. Thus more of the lower quality grain is bran and more of the higher quality grain is flour.
|
| 19. |
The Ra'avad notes that the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 5:9) goes even further and says that the bran in the terumah, since it is considered waste and not food, can be considered as part of the ordinary produce and if there is 100 times the weight of the flour from the terumah when this bran is added to the ordinary produce, the terumah is nullified. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishnehsuggest that the Rambam does not mention this point, because he feels that the Babylonian Talmud - according to which halachah is decided - does not accept it. Nevertheless, it appears that the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 99:1) follows the Ra'avad's view, although the Rama states that as a stringency, the Rambam's perspective should be followed.
|
| 20. |
A measure of liquid weight of the Talmudic period.
|
| 21. |
I.e., the dregs had been removed from the wine that is terumah, but had not been removed from the wine which was ordinary produce.
|
| 22. |
Counting the dregs of the ordinary produce as part of the mixture.
|
| 23. |
The Rambam is apparently saying that in this instance, the dregs of the terumah wine are counted and unless the ordinary wine is 100 times the amount of that wine including its dregs, it is considered as miduma. See Chapter 11, Halachah 13, which states that the dregs are considered as terumah.
The Ra'avad differs and maintains that in this instance, like the one described in the previous halachah, the dregs of the terumah are not counted, because they are wastes. The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that wine dregs are different than the wastes mentioned in the previous halachah, because they have the flavor of wine and can produce wine.
|
| 24. |
The Ra'avad explains the rationale for this ruling as follows: The water is not considered as the same type as wine. Hence, it cannot nullify it unless the flavor of the wine is no longer noticeable. The wine, by contrast, is considered its type and it requires 100 times the weight of the terumah. The Kessef Mishneh explains that this can be understood as the Rambam's intent.
|
| 25. |
The Radbaz notes that in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:25, the Rambam writes:
In the present instance, however, it appears that the produce is considered as miduma, not only for the person who mixed together, but for everyone. The Radbaz differentiates between the two situations, explaining that in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, the Rambam is speaking about a forbidden substance. Hence, if it was considered forbidden, it would have no value entirely. In our halachah, even if the mixture is considered miduma, it can be sold to priests and thus, it will not be wasted entirely.
|
| 26. |
I.e., since the prohibition is of Rabbinic origin, one may nullify it as an initial preference, as stated inHilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:26.
|
| 27. |
The Radbaz explains that the mixture may be eaten by a priest even when he is ritually impure or by a non-priest.
|
| 28. |
And the wine that is terumah is nullified, because it is mixed with a majority of ordinary produce.
|
| 29. |
The Ra'avad differs, maintaining that once there is no longer a majority of ordinary produce, the mixture is forbidden. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that once theterumah is nullified, it does not become a factor again if other terumah is added.
|
| 30. |
The rationale is that the produce that grows from terumah is not terumah and is forbidden to non-priests only as a stringency (Chapter 11, Halachot 21-22). Hence, if there is any confusion about which produce is terumah, it is all permitted.
|
| 31. |
For then there is no trace of the original plant.
|
| 32. |
In which instance, the new plant grows from a bulb of the original one and that original plant never decomposes entirely.
|
| 33. |
For the terumah is distinct and has not become mixed with the ordinary produce [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 9:5)].
|
| 34. |
Without paying attention to the prohibition.
|
| 35. |
For as stated above, as an initial preference, a prohibited substance should not be nullified. It must, however, be emphasized, the Rambam's intent is not to let the produce remain in the ground forever. Instead, it should be harvested as produce which is miduma and sold to priests at the price of terumah.
|
| 36. |
Since we are unsure of the identity of the produce that fell into the mixture, we do not rule it forbidden because of the doubt. Instead, we say that the ordinary produce fell into it.
This halachah involves produce that is forbidden as terumah according to Rabbinic decree, e.g.,terumah from the Diaspora or a mixture of terumahand a majority of ordinary produce. These principles are also applied in other contexts, see Chapter 10, Halachah 14, and Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 111:1).
|
| 37. |
Even if the original was terumah
|
| 38. |
Because of the doubt applying to its status.
|
| 39. |
The same principle applies here. Since we are unsure if the identity of the produce which fell into the mixture, we do not rule that it is forbidden because of the doubt.
|
| 40. |
Since each person asks concerning the status of the produce that he sowed individually, both are permitted, because in each instance, there is a doubt.
|
| 41. |
I.e., if the larger container contained one se'ah and the smaller container contained half a se'ah, we require the mixture to contain 50 ½ se'ah to be permitted, not 101 se'ah.
|
| 42. |
And thus the same person is asking about both plantings of produce. Hence, there is more room for stringency.
|
| 43. |
Since no trace of the original produce remains, we rule leniently.
|
| 44. |
Since the produce concerning which a doubt arose originally continues to exist, stringency is called for.
|
| 45. |
For then it is considered as if he sowed them both together.
|
| 46. |
But rather they are of the same weight. Were there to be a majority of ordinary produce, according to Scriptural Law, the existence of the terumah would already be nullified and thus there would be greater room for leniency. Nevertheless, as the Rambam continues to explain, even when there is not a majority, since the entire question is one of Rabbinic Law, we allow leniency. If, however, there is a majority of terumah, even when it is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law, the mixture is forbidden.
|
| 47. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 26.
|
| 48. |
In such an instance, the existence of the terumah would already be nullified and thus there would be greater room for leniency, since then the question is one of Rabbinic Law. The above leniency applies only with regard to such questions and not to questions involving Scriptural Law.
|
| 49. |
From which terumah and the tithes have not been separated.
|
| 50. |
Though in and of itself, the amount of terumah which fell in the grainheap would not disqualify it, when it is combined with the terumah that was designated it does.
The Ra'avad appears to have had a different version of the Jerusalem Talmud, Terumot 3:3, the Rambam's source. Hence he differs with the Rambam's ruling..
|
| 51. |
This law applies even if no terumah has fallen into the grainheap.
|
| 52. |
Because there is less than one hundred times the weight of the terumah in that corner.
|
| 53. |
The one which contains the terumah is certainly miduma. Since we do not know which one that is, they are both considered as miduma.
|
| 54. |
Hence he must observe the restrictions of terumah with regard to both of them.
|
| 55. |
Hence terumah must be separated in a conditional manner. One must bring other produce and say: "If terumah has not been separated for this grainheap, than this is terumah for it. But if it is the other grainheap from which terumah has not been separated, it is terumah for that."
|
Terumot - Chapter 14
Halacha 1
[The following laws apply when] there were fifty dark figs and fifty1 light figs and one fig that is terumah fell among them. If it was light, the dark figs are permitted2 and the light figs are considered miduma.3 If it was dark, the dark figs are miduma and the light figs are permitted. If it is not known whether it was light or dark, it can be nullified when the mixture is 101 times [the weight of] the original fig.4 If he knew what type of fig it was but forgot, they are all consideredmiduma.5
Halacha 2
Similar laws apply when there are cakes of pressed figs or blocks of pressed figs and a cake or block of [figs that are] terumah falls among them. If it is not known whether the one which fell in was a block or a cake, the cakes and the blocks are combined and the terumah can be nullified if their [combined weight] is 101 times that of the terumah. [Similarly,] when there are large cakes of figs and small ones and a cake of figs [that is terumah] falls among them, but it is not known whether the cake which fell in was large or small, [the existing cakes] can nullify the one which fell in whether by weight or by number.
What is implied? A cake [of figs] fell into a mixture of 100 other cakes, both large and small. We assume that a small cake6 fell in and one may remove one of the small cakes.7 If a cake fell into 40 cakes, 20 of them weighing four litraeach and 20 of them, weighing one litra each, since the combined weight is 101litra, we assume a small one fell in and remove one of the small ones.8
Halacha 3
Flour and finely sifted flour cannot be combined together to nullify terumah.9
Halacha 4
When a se'ah of wheat which is terumah falls on the mouth of the storage vat of wheat, we do not measure it against the 101 times [its weight or ordinary grain found] in the storage vat. For we do not make such an assessment unless theterumah has been mixed with the ordinary produce10 or we do not know where the terumah fell.11
What should be done? We consider the terumah as if it is wheat placed above barley and separate the terumah itself which fell unto the storage vat with some of the ordinary produce upon which they fell as one would be collecting wheat from barley.
Halacha 5
[The following laws apply when] there are two containers or two storage vats and terumah fell into one of them. It became mixed with [the contents of the container or storage vat] and it is not known which one it fell into. If the two storage vats were in the same building, they are considered as if they were combined and the terumah is nullified if the entire quantity is 101 times its weight. It is as if they were both contained in a single storage vat. Moreover, the containers are considered as combined together even if they are in two separate buildings, for it is possible to gather the two in one building.12 If, however, the two containers were in two cities, they are not combined.
Halacha 6
How should he remove the se'ah which fell in?13 If he desires to remove it from one of them, he may. If he desires to remove half from one and half from the other, he may.
[The following laws apply when] there are jugs filled with dried figs that are ordinary produce and [the owner] pressed a litra of figs that are terumah into the opening of one of them, but he does not remember which one. If there are 101 jugs, the terumah is considered nullified. He should take one jug and sell it to a priest except for the worth of the litra [of terumah]14 and the remainder [of the jugs] are permitted. If there are less than 100 jugs, [the figs at] the openings [of the jugs] are considered miduma and those at the bottom are permitted.15
Halacha 7
Similar laws apply if one pressed [a litra of] figs into the opening of akaveret16or into the top of a cake.17 If he pressed them onto the top of a cake, but does not know whether he pressed them onto the northern portion [of the cake] or its southern portion, nor does he know which cake he pressed them onto, we look at all the figs as if they were separate entities and [the figs that are terumah] should be nullified based on weight. If all the cakes weigh 10018litra, the terumah is nullified19 proved each of the cakes weighs more than twolitra so that in each cake, the terumah is nullified because there is a majority of ordinary produce.20 The rationale is that when there is a doubt concerning the presence of terumah, it is nullified when there is a majority of ordinary produce.
Halacha 8
When terumah is definitely [present in a mixture], it is forbidden if the mixture is 100 [or less times its weight]. If there is merely a doubt concerning the presence of terumah, it is forbidden if there are only fifty. It is permitted only if one adds a majority [of the new mixture].21 If there are more than fifty, one need not add such a majority.
What is implied? One fig that is terumah fell into 99 figs and they are all present. They are all forbidden to non-priests, as explained.22
Halacha 9
If, [after a fig that is terumah fell into 50 other figs, and then] one of the mixture becomes lost, it is possible that one of the ordinary figs was the one that was lost, but it is possible that it was the fig that fell in. Hence, the mixture is forbidden until one adds ordinary produce to it from another source,23 adding 51 figs to the entire quantity. If one fig fell into 51 figs and one of the mixture was lost, the remainder is permitted to non-priests.24
Halacha 10
[The following rules apply when] a se'ah of terumah fell into less than 100 se'ahof the first tithe from which terumat ma'aser was not separated or into [produce from] the second tithe or consecrated property that was not redeemed and the entire mixture became miduma. If [the terumah] fell into the first tithe, theterumat ma'aser should be designated,25 and the entire mixture sold to the priests with the exception of the worth of the terumah that fell into it and the worth of the terumat ma'aser.26 If it fell into [produce from] the second tithe or consecrated property that was not redeemed, they should be redeemed27and then sold to a priest with the exception of the worth of the terumah.
Halacha 11
When a se'ah of impure terumah falls into less than 100 se'ah of ordinary produce or into produce that is from the first tithe, or from the second tithe, or from consecrated property - whether [the latter three] are ritually pure or ritually impure - [the mixture] is miduma.28 Hence, the entire mixture is like impureterumah which is forbidden to everyone. Thus it is all forbidden and must be left until it rots.29
When does the above apply? With regard to an entity that is not eaten raw.30When, by contrast, it is normal practice to partake of a type of produce uncooked,31 one should not set them aside lest someone encounter them and partake of it.32 Instead, the entire mixture should be used as fuel, like impureterumah is used as fuel.
Halacha 12
When a se'ah of pure terumah falls into less than 100 se'ah of ordinary produce that is impure, the entire mixture should be sold to a priest with the exception of the worth of the terumah. The priest should eat this mixture which is miduma as roasted kernels33 or he should make them into a dough using fruit juice which does not render produce fit to contract impurity,34 so that [contact with] the impure ordinary produce will not render the terumah as impure.35
Alternatively, he should make this mixture that is miduma into a dough that is less than the size of an egg. [This is beneficial], because impure food does not cause other food to become impure until [the impure food] is the size of an egg.36 Or he may divide the mixture that is miduma and place a portion of it that is less than the size of an egg in each dough so that the terumah in it will not become impure.
Halacha 13
When a se'ah of impure terumah falls into 100 se'ah of ordinary produce that is pure or a se'ah of pure terumah falls into 100 se'ah of ordinary produce that is impure, it should be removed and the terumah is nullified, because the new mixture is 101 times [the size of the terumah that fell in. That se'ah] should be eaten as roasted kernels, or it should be made into dough with fruit juice, or into dough that is less than the size of an egg.37 [The rationale is that] the se'ahwhich fell in is not [necessarily] the se'ah that was removed.38
Halacha 14
Halacha 15
There were two containers [of grain, each containing less than 100 se'ah]. Ase'ah of terumah fell into one of them and it was known into which one it fell.41Afterwards, a second se'ah of terumah, but it was not known into which it fell. [The rationale is that] we assume that the second se'ah fell into the same place as the first se'ah, for we associate the problematic issue with the [previous] problem.
If, however, the first se'ah fell into one of the containers, but it was not known into which it fell and afterwards, a second se'ah fell into one and it was known into which one it fell, we do not say that the first one fell into the same place as the second. Instead, both are considered to be problematic.42
Halacha 16
Halacha 17
When there are two containers, one containing pure terumah45 and one containing impure ordinary produce,46 should a se'ah of pure terumah fall into one of them,47 we assume that it fell into the one containing terumah.48 The ordinary produce should, however, be eaten in a state of ritual purity liketerumah.49
Halacha 20
Halacha 21
If a se'ah of impure terumah fell into one of these containers, both of them are forbidden.56 [The rationale is that when] there is a doubt [whether produce is] impure terumah, it is forbidden to be eaten, while when there is a doubt whether it is miduma, it is permitted. For the prohibition against partaking of impure terumah is Scriptural in origin,57 while the prohibition against partaking of a mixture that is miduma is Rabbinic in origin58 based on the principles explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot.59
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
The same laws also apply if there are 30 light figs and 70 dark ones, or any other combination of numbers (Radbaz).
|
| 2. |
Because the fig that was terumah was not dark.
|
| 3. |
Because there are not enough to nullify its presence. We do not count the dark figs together with the light figs, because there is no possibility to mix the two with each other.
|
| 4. |
Although the fig that was mixed in has a specific color, both types of figs can be counted together to nullify it, for it is possible to press all the figs into a single cake of figs (Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura, Terumot 4:7). Alternatively, since we do not know which type of fig fell in, the fact that it was of a specific color is not significant to us (Yayin Malchut).
|
| 5. |
The rationale is that since at the outset he knew the color of the fig and there are neither enough dark figs or light figs to nullify it, the fig is considered as forbidden. And once it is forbidden, his forgetting its color does not cause it to become permitted again (Radbaz).
|
| 6. |
If, however, we know that a large cake fell in, but we are uncertain about its size, we cannot merely count 101 cakes both large and small to nullify it (Rabbi Akiva Eiger).
|
| 7. |
I.e., since there were 101 cakes, 101 times the number of cakes that fell in, the cake that wasterumah could be nullified. We assume that it was small and hence, to fulfill the obligation to remove a cake, we remove a small one.
|
| 8. |
The remainder are permitted, because it is possible that there was 101 times the weight of theterumah in the mixture. It is sufficient to remove a small one. The rationale is that since theterumah has been nullified, the removal of the cake is required only as a financial matter: to give the priest his due. Hence, to receive a larger cake, the priest must prove that a larger cake did indeed fall in.
|
| 9. |
I.e., there is one container of flour and one container of finely sifted flour. Terumah fell into one of the containers, but we do not know which one. We do not say that the two containers of flour should be considered like the two groups of figs and considered as a single entity. Instead, we judge them individually. The rationale is that once the terumah becomes mixed with the flour or the finely sifted flour, it is part of one mixture and not the other. Hence it is not appropriate to combine them (Radbaz).
|
| 10. |
And in this instance, that is not true, for it is positioned at the top of the storage container.
|
| 11. |
And in this instance, we do.
|
| 12. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 12:4), the Rambam writes that containers are frequently moved and in the process of their being moved, the two containers could be combined. Hence, we view them as if they were combined at present. This ruling is also quoted in other contexts; see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 111:7).
|
| 13. |
I.e., as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 1, one se'ah must be removed from the mixture and given to the priest. How should that be done in the present instance? For the terumah fell into only one of the containers and we do not know which one.
|
| 14. |
Although only the figs on the top of the opening are terumah, we require himself to sell the entire jug, because of the impression that might be created (Shita Mekubetzet, Beitzah 4a).
|
| 15. |
Since we are talking about compressed figs, they will not mix with the contents of the jugs, but instead will be found on the top of a jug. Hence, when considering nullifying the figs, only the tops of the jugs are considered, but not the bottoms. Therefore we require 101 jugs, not 101 times the weight of the initial amount of terumah.
The Radbaz explains that this situation differs from that described in Halachah 1. In that situation, although the light figs and the dark figs could be distinguished from each other, they were all mixed together. Hence, it is possible to speak about one type being combined with the other to nullify theterumah. In the situation described by our Halachah, the tops and the bottoms will always remain discrete.
|
| 16. |
The term kaveret literally means "bee-hive." Here we are talking about a storage compartment that is built like a bee-hive.
|
| 17. |
I.e., we require 101 of the containers and count only the figs at the openings of the containers.
|
| 18. |
I.e., without the terumah, 101 litra with the terumah.
|
| 19. |
I.e., we consider the entire mixture as a single entity unlike the previous instances where the bottoms of the containers were considered as separate from the tops. In the previous instances, he knew that he pressed the terumah onto the tops of the container. Therefore only the tops are considered. In the present instance, he does not know the portion of the cakes unto which he pressed the figs. That lack of knowledge works to his advantage, enabling us to count in the entire mixture.
|
| 20. |
In addition to considering the status of the entire mixture, we must consider the status of each cake individually. Each cake must have enough figs to nullify the presence of the terumahaccording to Scriptural Law.
|
| 21. |
I.e., as the Rambam explains in the following halachah, one must add enough figs so that there is 101 times the amount of terumah that fell in (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 22. |
As stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 1, it is necessary to have 101 times the amount of terumah.
|
| 23. |
It is, however, permitted to add such produce. We do not apply the principle that, as an initial preference, one should not nullify the presence of a forbidden substance, because here we are not certain that there is a forbidden substance present, for one fig has been lost.
|
| 24. |
Since one fig has been lost, 51 figs are sufficient. We do not require 101. Note th contrast to Chapter 15, Halachah 2.
|
| 25. |
So that the mitzvah of separating it has been fulfilled.
|
| 26. |
For such produce must be given to the priests as a present. The majority of the mixture, however, belongs to its owner. Even though it is being given to the priest, because the owner may not make use of it, the priest must reimburse the owner for its value. Nevertheless, as mentioned previously, the value of produce that is terumah is less than that of ordinary produce.
The Radbaz mentions another possible solution to this difficulty: If the Levite has a large amount of produce from which terumat ma'aser has not been separated, he may make this entire mixtureterumat ma'aser for that produce and in this way, not suffer any financial loss.
|
| 27. |
At which point they are considered as ordinary produce and the laws mentioned in Chapter 13, Halachah 2, apply.
|
| 28. |
Because there are less than 100 se'ah to nullify the se'ah of terumah.
|
| 29. |
One would think that it should be used as fuel and thus the person will derive some benefit from it. The Radbaz explains that this is not allowed for the following reason. Since there is not enough other produce to nullify the terumah, the entire mixture is considered as terumah. Nevertheless, since it is not impure, it should not be burnt, because it is forbidden to burn pure terumah. This stringency is, however, only observed when there is no danger that the terumah will be eaten, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
|
| 30. |
E.g., wheat or barley.
|
| 31. |
E.g., oil.
|
| 32. |
See Chapter 12, Halachah 12, which states that impure terumah should be placed in repugnant container so that no one will accidentally partake of it.
|
| 33. |
In which instance, the impure grain does not cause the pure terumah to become impure, for produce does not become fit to contract impurity until comes in contact with one of seven liquids (Hilchot Tumat Ochalin 1:1-2). Since the kernels of the terumah are roasted without contact with water, they are never fit to contract impurity.
|
| 34. |
Fruit juice is not one of these seven liquids. Hence dough made with fruit juice is not susceptible to ritual impurity (Ibid. 3; 13:13).
|
| 35. |
It is not only that the priest will be suffering a loss because the terumah becomes impure. It is forbidden to cause terumah to become impure as stated above.
|
| 36. |
See Ibid. 4:1, 12. Making the mixture into small loaves is the Rambam's interpretation of the termnikudim in the Mishnah (Terumot 5:1).
|
| 37. |
I.e., he should use the grain in a manner that will prevent it from contracting ritual impurity, as described in the previous halachah.
|
| 38. |
I.e., and hence it is permitted to be eaten.
|
| 39. |
There is no need for any safeguards.
|
| 40. |
As explained in Halachah 11.
|
| 41. |
And the contents of that container was considered as miduma.
|
| 42. |
I.e., they are both miduma. The rationale is that the problematic status of the two containers was established before the second one fell in and the fact that we know into which one it fell cannot resolve the existing problem.
Rav Yosef Korcus maintains that this is the interpretation of the Rambam's ruling. Nevertheless, he and the Radbaz both maintain that this law applies even if the first container contains 100 se'ahand the first se'ah is nullified. Since one se'ah has to be removed from it, it can also be considered as problematic.
|
| 43. |
The Kessef Mishneh explains that this law applies whether the grain in the containers wasterumah or ordinary produce.
|
| 44. |
I.e., we follow the same principle mentioned in the first clause of the previous halachah, because the impure grain is also considered as "problematic."
|
| 45. |
The Kessef Mishneh suggests that the text should read "impure terumah."
|
| 46. |
The Kessef Mishneh suggests that the text should read "pure ordinary produce." His rationale for these emendations is that if the ordinary produce is impure, it is not proper to say that it should be "eaten in a state of ritual purity." With these emendations, he resolves the objections of the Ra'avad. As will be explained, the Radbaz offers an interpretation that preserves the standard version of the text.
|
| 47. |
But we do not know which.
|
| 48. |
This represents the converse of the principle mentioned in Halachah 15, just as there, we associate the problematic issue with the existing problem, here we associate the produce that is of a positive nature (terumah) with the existing terumah (Radbaz).
|
| 49. |
I.e., according to one of the three suggestions given in Halachah 12. The intent is that we are not certain that the terumah did indeed fall into the container containing terumah. Were it to have fallen into the other container, it would be forbidden to prepare a dough from it in the ordinary manner, because that would cause the terumah to contract ritual impurity which is forbidden.
|
| 50. |
Our text is taken from the Shabsei Frankel printing of the Mishneh Torah which is based on authentic manuscripts and early printing. The standard printed text is both redundant and problematic.
|
| 51. |
For we assume that the terumah fell into terumah.
|
| 52. |
To prevent it from contracting ritual impurity as mentioned above.
|
| 53. |
Here also the Kessef Mishneh suggests inverting the words pure and impure in the text. Otherwise, this ruling would be a contradiction to Halachah 17.
|
| 54. |
And thus the entire mixture is considered as impure terumah.
|
| 55. |
So that the terumah will not be subject to contracting ritual impurity (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 56. |
I.e., the leniencies of assuming that the problematic se'ah fell into the produce that was already problematic or that terumah fell into terumah are not granted, because, as the Rambam continues to explain, here a Scriptural prohibition is involved.
|
| 57. |
See Chapter 7, Halachah 3. The impure terumah does not become nullified because it was mixed with a larger quantity of other produce.
|
| 58. |
For according to Scriptural Law, as long as there is a majority of non-terumah produce, theterumah is nullified.
|
| 59. |
See Chapter 15:1-3, 13, 15.
|
Terumot - Chapter 15
Halacha 1
A sealed barrel [of wine that is terumah] makes a mixture miduma whatever the ratio [between it and the other barrels].
Halacha 2
When a sealed barrel [that contains terumah] becomes mixed with 100 barrels and then one falls into the Mediterranean Sea, they are all permitted. We assume that it is the one that is terumah that fell in. This is not the case when a fig falls into 100 figs. In the latter instance, it is necessary to set aside one [fig].3[The rationale for the distinction is] that a barrel that falls into the sea is noticeable. A fig and the like which fall are not noticeable.
Halacha 3
When a sealed barrel [that contains terumah] becomes mixed with 100 barrels and one of them is opened,4 he should remove one hundredth of it,5 and then he may drink the barrel.6 The other barrels are, however, forbidden until they are opened. Whenever any one of them is opened, he should remove the percentage that causes the mixture to be miduma and drink the remaining hundred portions.
If a barrel [containing terumah] became mixed with 150 barrels and 100 of them were opened, he should remove the percentage that causes the mixture to bemiduma, i.e., one barrel and drink [he remaining barrels]. The remaining 50 are still forbidden; we do not presume that the barrel that was terumah was among the majority [that were opened].7 Even if there are several thousand barrels, they are all considered miduma. Whenever any one is opened, he should remove one hundredth of it and then he may drinking the remainder [of that barrel]. The other barrels, however, are miduma,
Halacha 4
We have already explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot8 that a leavening agent or a spice9 causes a mixture to be forbidden regardless of how small the amount is mixed in.10 Therefore if a person pureed an apple that was terumahand put it in a dough and it caused [the dough] to leaven, the entire dough becomes miduma and is forbidden to non-priests.
Halacha 5
When an egg, even its yolk,11 was flavored with spices that are terumah, it is forbidden, because it absorbs.
Halacha 6
When yeast that is terumah fell into a dough and it was removed and afterwards, the mixture became leavened, [the dough] is permitted.12
Halacha 7
We have already explained13 that if terumah becomes mixed with a substance of a different type, [the mixture is forbidden if the terumah] imparts its flavor [to the mixture]. Therefore, [the following laws apply when] a diced onion is cooked together with other food. If the onion is terumah and the other food is ordinary produce and it is flavored by the onion, the other food is forbidden to non-priests. If the onion is ordinary produce and the cooked food is terumah and the flavor of the cooked food was imparted to the onion, the onion is forbidden [to non-priests].14
Halacha 8
[The following laws apply if] lentils were cooked and then a dry onion was placed among them: If the onion was whole, it is permitted.15 If it was diced, [the ruling depends on whether] its flavor was imparted.16 If he cooked the onion with the lentils, whether it is whole or diced, we estimate whether it imparted its flavor.17 With regard to the remainder of the cooked food,18regardless of whether the onion was placed upon it after it was cooked or cooked with it, or whether it was whole or diced, we estimate whether it imparted its flavor.19
Why do we not estimate [whether flavor was imparted] when a whole onion was placed among cooked lentils? Because it does not absorb from them, for it is whole, nor does it impart [flavor] to them, because they have already been cooked. If the onions were soft,20 it is considered as if they were diced. Similarly, if its tip or its outer shell21 was removed or it was moist, it is considered as if it was diced. Wild onions, whether moist or dry, whether whole or diced, we see if they have imparted their flavor.
Halacha 9
When one pickles vegetables that are ordinary produce with those of terumah,they are permitted to non-priests22 with the exception of onions, scallions, and garlic.23 [With regard to these species,] if one pickled vegetables that are ordinary produce with onions that are terumah or onions that are ordinary produce with onions that are terumah, they are forbidden to non-priests. If one pickled vegetables that are terumah with an onion that is ordinary produce, the onion is permitted to non-priests.24
Halacha 10
[The following rules apply when] olives that are ordinary produce were pickled together with olives that are terumah. If they were both crushed, or the ordinary olives were crushed, but those which were terumah were whole,25 or they were pickled in brine that was terumah, they are forbidden to non-priests.26 If, however, they were both whole or the olives that were terumah were crushed and those that were ordinary produce were whole, they are permitted, because those that are crushed absorb from those which are whole.
Halacha 11
Water in which terumah was pickled or cooked is forbidden to non-priests.27
Halacha 12
The laws governing terumah apply to anise as long as it has not yet flavored a dish [of food].28 Once it has flavored a dish, the laws of terumah no longer apply.
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
When an oven has been heated with cumin that is terumah, the bread is permitted. For it does not have the flavor of the cumin, only its fragrance and fragrance does not create a prohibition.31
Halacha 15
When barley that is terumah falls into a cistern of water, the water is permitted even if [the barley] spoils the flavor of the water, for food that imparts an undesirable flavor does not bring about a prohibition.32
Halacha 16
Halacha 17
When there are two cups of wine: one of terumah and one of ordinary wine35and they were each mixed with water and then combined, we consider it as if the ordinary wine was not present and as if the wine that was terumahwas mixed with the water alone, for water is not of its type. If that water is sufficient to nullify the taste of the terumah wine in the mixture, the entire mixture is permitted to non-priests. If not, it is forbidden, for as we have explained,36 water does not nullify wine.
Halacha 18
When wine that is terumah falls on produce, one may wash the fruits and they are permitted.37 Similarly, when oil that is terumah falls on produce, one may wash the fruits and they are permitted.38
When oil [that is terumah] falls on [ordinary] wine, one should make it coagulate39 and the wine is then permitted to non-priests. If [oil that is terumah] mixes with brine, it should be made to coagulate, then the upper layer of the brine should be removed40 so that all the brine that has the taste of oil will be removed.
Halacha 19
A pot in which terumah was cooked should not be used to cook ordinary produce. If it was cooked in it, it causes it to be forbidden if its flavor is recognizable. If he washes out the pot with wine or with water, it is permitted to cook in it.41 If he cooked [terumah] in part of the pot, it is not necessary to wash out the entire pot, only the place where it was cooked.42
Halacha 20
The great terumah, terumat ma'aser, challah,43 and the first fruits are all referred to as terumah.44 With regard to terumat ma'aser, [Numbers 18:26] states: "And you shall remove the terumah of G-d from it" and [ibid. 15:20] states that it should be "like the terumah of your grain heap."45
With regard to challah, [ibid.] states: "You shall separate challah as terumah." And [Deuteronomy 12:17]: "You may not eat in your gates the tithes of your grain, your wine, and your oil,... and the terumah of your hand." Now there are no substances that are required to be brought [to Jerusalem to be eaten] that are not explicitly mentioned in the verse except the first fruits. Thus the phrase "the terumah of your hand" can be applied to them. Thus we see that they are [also] called terumah.
Halacha 21
Therefore the laws regarding partaking of all four types of substances and mixtures of them and other substances are the same. All can be nullified in a mixture of 101 times the original substance. They are also all combined with each other.46 If they become impure, they should all be burnt. The laws that apply to terumat ma'aser that is demai,47 are the same that apply to terumat ma'aser separated from produce [from which the tithes were] definitely [not separated]. It is only that its violation is not punishable by lashes.
Halacha 22
Anyone who partakes of terumah should recite the blessing for that particular food and then recite the blessing:487 "[Blessed are You... who has sanctified us with the holiness of Aaron and commanded us to partake of terumah."49 We have received the tradition and observed that people would recite this blessing even when partaking of challah separated in the Diaspora.50 For even partaking of sacred foods from the boundaries [of our Holy Land] is like service [in the Temple],51 as [Numbers 18:7] states: "I have granted you your priestly service as a gift."
Blessed be the Merciful One who grants assistance.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
This follows the principle devar shebiminyan lo betal: "The presence of an object that is sold by number is never considered insignificant." Since these objects are sold by number, each one is considered important and it is not appropriate to say that one is insignificant (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 16:1-3).
|
| 2. |
For once the barrels are opened, they are no longer considered as important. It is, however, forbidden to open the barrels, for this would be considered as purposefully nullifying a forbidden substance and that is prohibited (Radbaz).
|
| 3. |
And give it to a priest. The Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 4:7) records a difference of opinion concerning this matter between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan. Reish Lakish's opinion is the one cited by the Rambam. Rabbi Yochanan, however, differs and maintains that the same law applies even with regard to figs. The Rambam rules according to Reish Lakish's opinion, for the Babylonian Talmud (Zevachim 74b) mentions his view only and not that of Rabbi Yochanan. See also Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:10 where the Rambam issues a similar ruling.
The Ra'avad does not accept this ruling. He maintains that the Babylonian Talmud mentions Reish Lakish's opinion only in connection with the discussion of another minority view. Hence, it is not necessary to mention Rabbi Yochanan's view.
|
| 4. |
Inadvertently. It is forbidden to open such a barrel intentionally.
|
| 5. |
More precisely, 1/101. I.e., the percent of the mixture that is terumah. This is given to a priest.
|
| 6. |
It is true that this ruling is somewhat problematic. For if the barrel is in fact terumah, the entire barrel, not only the hundredth portion, must be given to the priest. And if it is not terumah, it is permitted to drink it in its entirety. Nothing need be given to the priest.
The Ma'aseh Rokeach explains the reason for the stringency. Were this safeguard not taken, one might permit the barrels even when they were all opened.
|
| 7. |
Although when considering those barrels, it is necessary to give a barrel to a priest because of the suspicion that one is terumah, we are still stringent regarding those remaining.
|
| 8. |
Chapter 16, Halachah 1.
|
| 9. |
Based on Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 16:26, the Radbaz states that this same law applies ifterumah is used to cause cheese to harden.
|
| 10. |
I.e., the standard ration of 1/101 is not effective to nullify the terumah. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 2:4; Terumot 10:2), the Rambam explains that since the effects of the terumahare evident in the food - it rises or it is spiced because of it - we cannot say that the terumah is nullified.
|
| 11. |
We are speaking about a situation where the egg is cooked whole. Thus despite the fact that the yolk is on the inside and covered by the whites, a spice intended for it can cause it to be forbidden, because it absorbs (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 12. |
Since the yeast was removed, we do not say that it caused the dough to rise. Instead, we assume that the dough rose on its own accord (Radbaz).
|
| 13. |
Chapter 13, Halachah 2; Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:1,6.
|
| 14. |
How do we know whether the flavor of the terumah was imparted to the mixture. We give it to a priest to taste (ibid. 15:29).
|
| 15. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 10:1), the Rambam explains that this applies whether the onion is terumah and the lentils ordinary produce or the reverse. In both instances, since the lentils are already cooked and the onion is whole, there is little likelihood that one will absorb the flavor from the other.
|
| 16. |
Here also the same principle applies whether it is the onion or the lentils which are terumah. Since the onion is diced, it will both impart and absorb flavor easier.
|
| 17. |
Since the onion is cooked, even if it is whole, it can both impart and absorb flavor easily.
|
| 18. |
I.e., in addition to the lentils.
|
| 19. |
As the Rambam proceeds to explain, lentils are considered as being unique. Once they are cooked, they do not absorb flavor from other foods easily. Other foods are more absorbent. Even after they have been cooked, they may absorb the flavor of the onion.
|
| 20. |
The Kessef Mishneh suggests that the text should read rabbim, "many," instead of rachim, "soft;" i.e., one onion that is whole will not impart that much flavor, but several onions will.
|
| 21. |
Once the tip or the outer shell is removed, its flavor will be imparted easily even though it is still whole.
|
| 22. |
In certain contexts (see Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:34), pickling is considered as cooking. Nevertheless, in this instance, the Rambam rules leniently.
|
| 23. |
Because their sharp and pungent taste nature causes their flavor to be imparted to any vegetables pickled with them [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 10:10)].
|
| 24. |
For the onion will not absorb the flavor of the other produce.
|
| 25. |
When olives are crushed, they will absorb easier [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 10:7)].
|
| 26. |
For the brine imparts its flavor to the objects pickled in within it.
|
| 27. |
For it has absorbed the flavor of the terumah.
|
| 28. |
Anise is used as flavoring. Once it has flavored other foods, it is discarded. Hence, until it has flavored other foods, it is significant and the laws of terumah apply. Afterwards, it is considered as a wasteproduct (Radbaz).
|
| 29. |
Even though the bread may absorb the fragrance of the wine, it does not absorb its substance and the fragrance alone is of no consequence. This is a general principle that applies with regard to all prohibited foods; see Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:33.
|
| 30. |
It is considered as the actual substance of the wine has been imparted to the bread.
|
| 31. |
In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 16:22, the Rambam writes that when an oven is heated with shells of produce that is orlah or mixed species in a vineyard, whatever is cooked in the oven is forbidden. The commentaries note, however, that there is a fundamental distinction between the two instances. It is forbidden to benefit from - not only to eat - the prohibited substances mentioned in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot. It is, by contrast, permitted to benefit from terumah.
|
| 32. |
This concept also applies with regard to all the Torah's prohibitions; see Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:28.
|
| 33. |
A pungent herb.
|
| 34. |
I.e., without the influence of the plant whose flavor is similar to that of the seeds. The rationale is that the plant is not considered as terumah [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot10:5)]. See also Chapter 2, Halachah 4.
|
| 35. |
And the ordinary wine is less than 100 times the amount of terumah wine.
|
| 36. |
See Chapter 13, Halachah 9, which explains that the water is not combined with the ordinary wine to create a mixture 100 times the amount of the terumah.
|
| 37. |
The Radbaz notes that in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 16:32, the Rambam writes a similar law with regard to wine associated with idol worship that fell on produce. There, however, he rules stringently, stating that the fruits are forbidden if the wine is poured upon them while they are broken open. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam did not mention the point here, because he relied on what he had stated earlier. Indeed, if the fruit was broken open and the wine improved its flavor, it should be sold to a priest at the price of terumah.
|
| 38. |
Even though oil is more likely to cling to fruit than wine, it is sufficient to wash the fruit. Generally, oil does not improve the taste of fruit (Radbaz).
|
| 39. |
For in this way, the oil can be removed without it mixing with the wine. Similarly, oil impairs the flavor of wine (ibid.).
|
| 40. |
This stringency is necessary, because oil improves the flavor of brine (ibid.).
|
| 41. |
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, asking why this instance is different from the laws involving non-kosher food absorbed in a utensil. In that instance, it is not sufficient to wash out the utensil, one must perform hagalah, boiling water in the utensil to purge the absorbed matter. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam maintains that this concept applies with regard to sanctified foods and other prohibitions, but not with regard to terumah. The rationale is that if the priests consider the terumah insignificant - as would be the case with regard to terumah absorbed in a pot - it is no longer of consequence. He draws support for this explanation from the mishnah inTerumot 11:8 (quoted in Chapter 11, Halachah 15) which states that after one pours out the contents of a jug of wine of terumah, one can pour ordinary wine into the container even if there is a small amount of residue from the previous wine. This explanation is also given in one of the responsa ascribed to the Rambam in a response to a question concerning this subject by the sages of Lunil. The Kessef Mishneh also cites these ideas and states that the reason the Rambam requires that the pot be washed out is because the contents are being cooked. If they were not to be cooked, even washing would not be necessary.
|
| 42. |
This leniency applies only with regard to terumah and not to prohibited food absorbed in a utensil. The rationale is the same as in the previous note: Since the priests consider this terumahinsignificant, we do not show concern about it (Radbaz).
|
| 43. |
The portion of dough that must be separated and given to a priest.
|
| 44. |
See Chapter 10, Halachah 4.
|
| 45. |
This verse refers to challah; or it is comparing challah to the great terumah. Perhaps a scribal error crept into the text and this was intended as support for the following clause. The Radbaz, however, gives an explanation why it was included here.
|
| 46. |
I.e., to cause a mixture to be forbidden to non-priests.
|
| 47. |
Produce from which we are unsure that the tithes have been separated.
|
| 48. |
For partaking of terumah is a mitzvah and we are required to recite a blessing before the observance of all mitzvot (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 49. |
See Hillchot Bikkurim 1:2.
|
| 50. |
Even though it is only a Rabbinic commandment.
|
| 51. |
Pesachim 72b relates that one day Rabbi Tarfon did not come to the House of study. Rabban Gamliel rebuked him for his absence. Rabbi Tarfon answered that he was carrying out priestly worship. Rabban Gamliel asked him how that was possible, for they lived in the era of the Temple's destruction. Rabbi Tarfon replied that partaking of terumah was equivalent to serving in the Temple.
|
• Thursday, Iyar 4, 5775 · 23 April 2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Emor, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 23-28.
Tanya: Ch. 46. There is yet (p. 241)...love for him. (p. 241).
It is a Jewish custom not to shave or cut a baby boy's hair until his third birthday.
The first haircutting or opsherenish of a baby boy is a Jewish custom of great importance. The essence of the custom is the educational act of leaving (uncut) thepeyot (sidelocks). From the day of the haircutting and leaving the peyot it is the custom to take particular care in accustoming the little boy to wear a tallit katan, to recite the early-morning b'rachot, the grace after meals (birkat hamazon p. 89) and the bedtimesh'ma (p. 118).
Daily Thought:
Unsecret Wisdom
In the holy Zohar it is written that through the study of the secret wisdom, the final liberation will come with compassion. Not with judgment alone.
Now the wisdom is no longer secret. Sages and masters have found ways to make it accessible to all. Those who learn it and spread it, they are bringing divine compassion and redemption to the world.
_____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment