Today's Laws & Customs:
• Count "Twenty-Five Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the twenty-fifth 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-five days, which are three weeks and four days, to the Omer." (If you miss the count tonight, you can count the omer all day tomorrow, but without the preceding blessing).
The 49-day "Counting of the Omer" retraces our ancestors' seven-week spiritual journey from the Exodus to Sinai. Each evening we recite a special blessing and count the days and weeks that have passed since the Omer; the 50th day isShavuot, the festival celebrating the Giving of the Torah at Sinai.
Tonight's Sefirah: Netzach sheb'Netzach -- "Ambition in Ambition"
The teachings of Kabbalah explain that there are seven "Divine Attributes" --Sefirot -- that G-d assumes through which to relate to our existence: Chessed,Gevurah, Tifferet, Netzach, Hod, Yesod and Malchut ("Love", "Strength", "Beauty", "Victory", "Splendor", "Foundation" and "Sovereignty"). In the human being, created in the "image of G-d," the seven sefirot are mirrored in the seven "emotional attributes" of the human soul: Kindness, Restraint, Harmony, Ambition, Humility, Connection and Receptiveness. Each of the seven attributes contain elements of all seven--i.e., "Kindness in Kindness", "Restraint in Kindness", "Harmony in Kindness", etc.--making for a total of forty-nine traits. The 49-day Omer Count is thus a 49-step process of self-refinement, with each day devoted to the "rectification" and perfection of one the forty-nine "sefirot."
Links:
How to count the Omer
The deeper significance of the Omer Count
Daily Quote:
"A ladder stood on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven" (Genesis 28:12) -- This is prayer.[Zohar]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Acharei-Kedoshim, 3rd Portion Leviticus 17:8-18:21 with Rashi
• Chapter 17
8And you should say to them: Any man of the House of Israel or of the strangers who will sojourn among them, who offers up a burnt offering or [any other] sacrifice, ח וַאֲלֵהֶם תֹּאמַר אִישׁ אִישׁ מִבֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִן הַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר יָגוּר בְּתוֹכָם אֲשֶׁר יַעֲלֶה עֹלָה אוֹ זָבַח:
Who offers up a burnt-offering: [This passage] comes to make liable one who causes the limbs [of a sacrifice] to go up in smoke outside [the Temple Courtyard] like the one who slaughters [a sacrifice] outside [the Courtyard. Consequently,] if one person slaughtered [the sacrifice] and his fellow offered it up [outside the Courtyard], they are both liable [to the penalty of excision]. — [Torath Kohanim 17:103; Zev. 106a] אשר יעלה עלה: לחייב על המקטיר איברים בחוץ כשוחט בחוץ, שאם שחט אחד והעלה חבירו שניהם חייבין:
9but does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to make it [a sacrifice] to the Lord, that man shall be cut off from his people. טוְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא יְבִיאֶנּוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת אֹתוֹ לַיהוָֹה וְנִכְרַת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא מֵעַמָּיו:
[that man] will be cut off [from his people]: Heb. מֵעַמּוֹ, lit. from his peoples. [The plural form of “peoples” teaches us that] his offspring will be cut off as well as his own days being cut off. ונכרת: זרעו נכרת וימיו נכרתין:
10And any man of the House of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My attention upon the soul who eats the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people. יוְאִישׁ אִישׁ מִבֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִן הַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּתוֹכָם אֲשֶׁר יֹאכַל כָּל דָּם וְנָתַתִּי פָנַי בַּנֶּפֶשׁ הָאֹכֶלֶת אֶת הַדָּם וְהִכְרַתִּי אֹתָהּ מִקֶּרֶב עַמָּהּ:
any blood: Since Scripture says, “[For it is the blood] that atones for the soul” (next verse), one might think that a person is liable only for [eating] the blood of sanctified things, [which effects atonement]. Scripture, therefore, says here, “any blood” [to include even the blood of ordinary animals]. — [Kereithoth 4b] כל דם: לפי שנאמר בנפש יכפר, יכול לא יהא חייב אלא על דם המוקדשים, תלמוד לומר כל דם:
I will set my attention: Heb. פָנַי. [The word פָנַי here is to be understood to mean] My פְּנַאי, i.e., My leisure. [God is saying,] “I will make Myself free (פּוֹנֶה) from all My affairs, and I will deal with this person!” - [Torath Kohanim 17:108] ונתתי פני: פנאי שלי, פונה אני מכל עסקי ועוסק בו:
11For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have therefore given it to you [to be placed] upon the altar, to atone for your souls. For it is the blood that atones for the soul. יאכִּי נֶפֶשׁ הַבָּשָׂר בַּדָּם הִוא וַאֲנִי נְתַתִּיו לָכֶם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְכַפֵּר עַל נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם כִּי הַדָּם הוּא בַּנֶּפֶשׁ יְכַפֵּר:
For the soul of the flesh: of every creature is dependent upon the blood, and therefore, I have given it to atone for the soul of man. [In this way,] one “soul” [namely, the blood of a sacrifice] shall come and atone for another soul. כי נפש הבשר: של כל בריה בדם היא תלויה, ולפיכך נתתיו על המזבח לכפר על נפש האדם. תבוא נפש ותכפר על הנפש:
12Therefore, I said to the children of Israel: None of you shall eat blood, and the stranger who sojourns among you shall not eat blood. יבעַל כֵּן אָמַרְתִּי לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּל נֶפֶשׁ מִכֶּם לֹא תֹאכַל דָּם וְהַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּתוֹכְכֶם לֹא יֹאכַל דָּם:
None of you: [This phrase] comes to warn adults regarding minors [not to feed them blood]. — [Torath Kohanim 17:110; Yev. 114a] כל נפש מכם: להזהיר גדולים על הקטנים:
13And any man of the children of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who traps a quarry of a wild animal or bird that may be eaten, and sheds its blood, he shall cover it [the blood] with dust. יגוְאִישׁ אִישׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִן הַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּתוֹכָם אֲשֶׁר יָצוּד צֵיד חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹף אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל וְשָׁפַךְ אֶת דָּמוֹ וְכִסָּהוּ בֶּעָפָר:
who traps: [Had the verse stated only this phrase,] we would know only [that this law applies to] creatures that require trapping. But how would we know [that the law includes also] geese and roosters, [which do not require trapping]? Scripture, therefore, adds [the word] צֵיד -a quarry, meaning in any way [even if not trapped]. But if so, why is it stated, “who traps”? [To teach us] that one should not eat flesh except with this preparation, [meaning, that just as one does not go out to trap every day, neither should one eat meat regularly at all his meals, as if he had to go out and trap it]. — [Torath Kohanim 17:111; Chul. 84a] אשר יצוד: אין לי אלא ציד, אווזין ותרנגולין מנין, תלמוד לומר ציד, מכל מקום. אם כן למה נאמר אשר יצוד, שלא יאכל בשר אלא בהזמנה הזאת:
that may be eaten: [This comes] to exclude unclean creatures [which are prohibited to be eaten, that their blood does not require covering]. — [Torath Kohanim 17:112] אשר יאכל: פרט לטמאים:
14For [regarding] the soul of all flesh its blood is in its soul, and I said to the children of Israel: You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the soul of any flesh is its blood all who eat it shall be cut off. ידכִּי נֶפֶשׁ כָּל בָּשָׂר דָּמוֹ בְנַפְשׁוֹ הוּא וָאֹמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל דַּם כָּל בָּשָׂר לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ כִּי נֶפֶשׁ כָּל בָּשָׂר דָּמוֹ הִוא כָּל אֹכְלָיו יִכָּרֵת:
its blood is in its soul: Its blood is in the place of its very soul, because the soul is dependent upon it. דמו בנפשו הוא: דמו הוא לו במקום הנפש, שהנפש תלויה בו:
for the soul of any flesh is its blood: [The word הִוא, meaning here “it is,” is feminine in gender.] “for the soul […] is the blood.” [For] the words דָּם and בָּשָׂר are masculine in gender, while the word נֶפֶשׁ is feminine in gender. [Hence, the antecedent of הִוא is נֶפֶשׁ.] כי נפש כל בשר דמו הוא: הנפש היא הדם. דם ובשר לשון זכר, נפש לשון נקבה:
15And any person, whether a native or a stranger, who eats carrion or what was torn, shall immerse his garments and immerse himself in the waters, and shall remain unclean until evening, and then he shall become clean. טווְכָל נֶפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה בָּאֶזְרָח וּבַגֵּר וְכִבֶּס בְּגָדָיו וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם וְטָמֵא עַד הָעֶרֶב וְטָהֵר:
who eats carrion or what was torn: Scripture is speaking about the carcass of a clean bird [i.e., a kosher species of bird], which transmits defilement only at the time it is swallowed into the esophagus. And it teaches you here, that it defiles [the person], when he eats it. [The trefah, the bird mortally wounded by a wild beast, or stricken with a terminal illness, however, does not transmit defilement. Consequently,] the torn one mentioned here was written only to expound upon it. Thus we learned: One might think that the carcass of an unclean bird [also] defiles when it is swallowed into the esophagus. Scripture, therefore, says, “or what was torn,” [referring to a type of bird] that may fall under the category of טְרֵפָה [i.e., a kosher bird, which is prohibited only if it is torn], thus, excluding the case of an unclean bird, which can never fall under the category of טְרֵפָה, [because it is prohibited in any case]. - [Torath Kohanim 17:126] אשר תאכל נבלה וטרפה: בנבלת עוף טהור דבר הכתוב, שאין לה טומאה אלא בשעה שנבלעת בבית הבליעה, ולמדך כאן שמטמאה באכילתה, ואינה מטמאה במגע. וטרפה האמורה כאן לא נכתבה אלא לדרוש. וכן שנינו יכול תהא נבלת עוף טמא מטמאה בבית הבליעה, תלמוד לומר טרפה, מי שיש במינו טרפה, יצא עוף טמא שאין במינו טרפה:
16But if he does not immerse [his garments] or immerse his flesh, he shall bear his sin. טזוְאִם לֹא יְכַבֵּס וּבְשָׂרוֹ לֹא יִרְחָץ וְנָשָׂא עֲוֹנוֹ:
he shall bear his sin: If he [subsequently] eats holy sacrifices or enters the Sanctuary [in his unclean state], he is punished by excision because of this uncleanness, like all other cases of uncleanness. — [Torath Kohanim 17: 129] ונשא עונו: אם יאכל קדש או יכנס למקדש חייב על טומאה זו ככל שאר טומאות:
[But if he does not]…immerse his flesh, he shall bear his sin: For [not] immersing his body he is punished by excision. However, for [not] immersing his garments, [and entering the Mishkan wearing them,] he is punished by lashes. — [Torath Kohanim 17:129] ובשרו לא ירחץ ונשא עונו: על רחיצת גופו ענוש כרת ועל כבוס בגדים במלקות:
Chapter 18
1And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: אוַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָֹה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
2Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: I am the Lord, your God. בדַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אֲנִי יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:
I am the Lord, your God: I am the One Who said at Sinai, “I am the Lord, your God” (Exod. 20:2), and you accepted My sovereignty upon yourselves [at that time]; consequently, accept My decrees. Rabbi [Yehudah Hanassi] says: “It is openly known before Him, that they would eventually be scourged by [transgressing the laws of] immoral relations, in the days of Ezra. Therefore, [concerning these laws,] God came to them with the decree: I am the Lord, your God! You should know Who is placing these decrees upon you-the Judge Who exacts retribution (אלֹקִים), but Who is faithful also to pay a reward ('ה)!”- [Torath Kohanim 18:138] אני ה' אלהיכם: אני הוא שאמרתי בסיני (שמות כ ב) אנכי ה' אלהיך, וקבלתם עליכם מלכותי, מעתה קבלו גזרותי. רבי אומר גלוי וידוע לפניו שסופן לנתק בעריות בימי עזרא, לפיכך בא עליהם בגזירה אני ה' אלהיכם, דעו מי גוזר עליכם, דיין להפרע ונאמן לשלם שכר:
3Like the practice of the land of Egypt, in which you dwelled, you shall not do, and like the practice of the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you, you shall not do, and you shall not follow their statutes. גכְּמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם אֲשֶׁר יְשַׁבְתֶּם בָּהּ לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ וּכְמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ וּבְחֻקֹּתֵיהֶם לֹא תֵלֵכוּ:
Like the practice of the land of Egypt […and like the practice of the land of Canaan]: [This verse] informs [us] that the deeds of the Egyptians and the Canaanites were more corrupt than those of all other nations, and moreover, that the [Egyptians residing in that] region [of Egypt] in which the Israelites had dwelt, were the most corrupt of all. — [Torath Kohanim 18:138] כמעשה ארץ מצרים: מגיד שמעשיהם של מצריים ושל כנעניים מקולקלים מכל האומות, ואותו מקום שישבו בו ישראל מקולקל מן הכל:
and like the practice of the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you:[This verse] informs [us] that those [Canaanite] peoples whom the Israelites conquered, were more corrupt than any other [people, even the Egyptians]. — [Torath Kohanim 18:138] אשר אני מביא אתכם שמה: מגיד שאותן עממין שכבשו ישראל מקולקלים יותר מכולם:
and you shall not follow their statutes: What did Scripture omit [until now] that it did not state [and includes in this clause]? However, these are their social practices, things that assumed the status of law (חָקוּק) for them, for example, [certain days set aside for attendance at] theaters and stadiums. Rabbi Meir says: These [practices referred to here,] are the “ways of the Amorites,” [the superstitious practices] enumerated by our Sages. — [see Shab. 67ab; Torath Kohanim 18: 139] ובחקתיהם לא תלכו: מה הניח הכתוב שלא אמר, אלא אלו נמוסות שלהן, דברים החקוקין להם, כגון טרטיאות ואצטדיאות. רבי מאיר אומר אלו דרכי האמורי שמנו חכמים:
4You shall fulfill My ordinances and observe My statutes, to follow them. I am the Lord, your God. דאֶת מִשְׁפָּטַי תַּעֲשׂוּ וְאֶת חֻקֹּתַי תִּשְׁמְרוּ לָלֶכֶת בָּהֶם אֲנִי יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:
You shall fulfill My ordinances: These are the laws stated in the Torah in justice, [i.e., which human intellect deems proper,] which, had they not been stated [in the Torah], would have been deemed worthy to be stated [e.g., not to steal, not to murder, etc.]. — [Torath Kohanim 18:140] את משפטי תעשו: אלו דברים האמורים בתורה במשפט, שאלו לא נאמרו, היו כדאי לאמרן:
and observe My statutes: These are the “King’s decrees” [without apparent rationale to man], against which the evil inclination protests, “Why should we keep them?” Likewise, the nations of the world object to them. Examples are: [The prohibition of] eating pig and wearing shaatnez [a mixture of wool and linen] (see Lev. 19:19), and the purification procedure effected by purification water [the mixture including the ashes of the red cow] (see Num., Chapter 19). Therefore it says, “I am the Lord.” I have decreed [these] upon you; you are not permitted to exempt yourselves [from fulfilling them]. — Torath Kohanim 18:140] ואת חקתי תשמורו: דברים שהם גזירת המלך, שיצר הרע משיב עליהם, למה לנו לשומרן, ואומות העולם משיבין עליהם, כגון אכילת חזיר ולבישת שעטנז וטהרת מי חטאת, לכך נאמר אני ה' גזרתי עליכם, אי אתם רשאים להפטר:
to follow them: Do not take leave from [studying] them, i.e., you shall not say, “I have learned the wisdom of Israel-now I will go and learn the wisdom of the [other] nations.” - [Torath Kohanim 18:141] ללכת בהם: אל תפטר מתוכם, שלא תאמר למדתי חכמת ישראל אלך ואלמד חכמת האומות:
5You shall observe My statutes and My ordinances, which a man shall do and live by them. I am the Lord. הוּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת חֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת מִשְׁפָּטַי אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם הָאָדָם וָחַי בָּהֶם אֲנִי יְהוָֹה:
You shall observe My statutes and My ordinances: [This comes to include other details of [laws pertaining to] this passage, that Scripture did not mention explicitly. — [Torath Kohanim 18:142] Another explanation: [This clause, “You shall observe My statutes and My judgments, which a man shall do,” was added,] in order to apply “observance” (שְׁמִירָה) and fulfillment (עֲשִׂיָּה) to statutes, and to apply “observance” (שְׁמִירָה) and “fulfillment” (עֲשִׂיָּה) to ordinances. For [up till now,] Scripture had mentioned only “fulfillment” regarding ordinances and “observance” regarding statutes (see previous verse). - [Torath Kohanim 18:134] ושמרתם את חקתי וגו': לרבות שאר דקדוקי הפרשה, שלא פרט הכתוב בהם. דבר אחר ליתן שמירה ועשייה לחוקים ושמירה ועשייה למשפטים, לפי שלא נתן אלא עשייה למשפטים ושמירה לחוקים:
and live by them: in the World-To-Come. For if you say [that the verse refers to living] in this world, does he not eventually die? [Torath Kohanim 18:134] וחי בהם: לעולם הבא, שאם תאמר בעולם הזה, והלא סופו הוא מת:
I am the Lord: faithful to pay a reward [an attribute represented by the Name ה ]. — [Torath Kohanim 18:134] אני ה': נאמן לשלם שכר:
6No man shall come near to any of his close relatives, to uncover [their] nakedness. I am the Lord. ואִישׁ אִישׁ אֶל כָּל שְׁאֵר בְּשָׂרוֹ לֹא תִקְרְבוּ לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָה אֲנִי יְהוָֹה:
No man shall come near: Heb. תִקְרְבוּ לֹא. [This comes] to admonish the female as [it does] the male. Therefore, it is stated in the plural form. — [Torath Kohanim 18:136] לא תקרבו: להזהיר הנקבה כזכר, לכך נאמר לשון רבים:
I am the Lord: faithful to pay a reward [not only for fulfilling positive commandments but also to the one who saves himself from sinning]. — [Torath Kohanim 18:145] אני ה': נאמן לשלם שכר:
7You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother; you shall not uncover her nakedness. זעֶרְוַת אָבִיךָ וְעֶרְוַת אִמְּךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה אִמְּךָ הִוא לֹא תְגַלֶּה עֶרְוָתָהּ:
the nakedness of your father: This [refers to] your father’s wife. [But how do we know this?] Perhaps it is only to be interpreted literally [as an admonition against relations with one’s father, in addition to the general admonition against pederasty]. [The answer is:] It says here, “The nakedness of your father,” and it says further, “has uncovered his father’s nakedness” (Lev. 20:11). Just as in the latter verse, Scripture is speaking of his father’s wife [as that verse begins with, “And a man who cohabits with his father’s wife”], here, too, [Scripture is speaking of] his father’s wife. - [Sanh. 54a] ערות אביך: זו אשת אביך, או אינו אלא כמשמעו, נאמר כאן ערות אביך, ונאמר להלן (ויקרא כ יא) ערות אביו גלה, מה להלן אשת אביו, אף כאן אשת אביו:
or the nakedness of your mother: [It comes] to include [in the prohibition,] his mother who is not his father’s wife. — [Sanh. 54a] וערות אמך: להביא אמו שאינה אשת אביו:
8You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness. חעֶרְוַת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה עֶרְוַת אָבִיךָ הִוא:
the nakedness of your father’s wife: [This admonition is repeated] to include [in the prohibition, one’s father’s wife, even] after the death [of one’s father]. — [Sanh. 54a] ערות אשת אביך: לרבות לאחר מיתה:
9The nakedness of your sister, whether your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether born to one who may remain in the home or born to one who must be sent outside you shall not uncover their nakedness. טעֶרְוַת אֲחוֹתְךָ בַת אָבִיךָ אוֹ בַת אִמֶּךָ מוֹלֶדֶת בַּיִת אוֹ מוֹלֶדֶת חוּץ לֹא תְגַלֶּה עֶרְוָתָן:
your father’s daughter: Included in the meaning [of the verse] is also a daughter born from a woman [the father] raped [i.e., not the father’s wife]. — [Yev. 22b] בת אביך: אף בת אנוסה במשמע:
whether born to one who may remain in the home or to one who must remain outside: מוֹלֶדֶת בַּית אוֹ מוֹלֶדֶת חוּץ, lit. born in the house or born outside. Whether they say to your father, “[You may] keep her mother [as your wife],” or whether they say to your father, “[You must] send her mother away,” for example, a mamzereth, or a nethinah [an offspring of the Gibeonites (see Josh. 9:327)]. — [Yev. 23a] מולדת בית או מולדת חוץ: בין שאומרים לו לאביך קיים את אמה ובין שאומרים לו לאביך הוצא את אמה, כגון ממזרת או נתינה:
10The nakedness of your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter you shall not uncover their nakedness, for they are your own nakedness. יעֶרְוַת בַּת בִּנְךָ אוֹ בַת בִּתְּךָ לֹא תְגַלֶּה עֶרְוָתָן כִּי עֶרְוָתְךָ הֵנָּה:
The nakedness of your son’s daughter [or your daughter’s daughter]:Scripture is speaking of his daughter born from a woman he had raped. [The case, however,] of [his son’s] daughter and his daughter’s daughter [who stem] from his wife, we learn from (verse 17 below), “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take [in marriage] her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter” about [whose nakedness] Scripture says, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter” whether this daughter stems from him or from another man. — [Yev. 22b] ערות בת בנך וגו: בבתו מאנוסתו הכתוב מדבר, ובתו ובת בתו מאשתו אנו למדין מערות אשה ובתה לא תגלה, בין שהיא ממנו ובין שהיא מאיש אחר:
The nakedness of your son’s daughter: How much more so, then, should one’s own daughter [be prohibited]! But since a Scriptural admonition must not be derived from an inference from minor to major, [but must be explicitly mentioned], they learned it from a gezeirah shavah [an exposition linking common words within verses of this passage, which is considered as if explicitly mentioned] in Tractate Yevamoth (3a). ערות בת בנך: קל וחומר לבתך, אלא לפי שאין מזהירין מן הדין למדוה מגזרה שוה במסכת יבמות (ג א):
11The nakedness of the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father she is your sister: you shall not uncover her nakedness. יאעֶרְוַת בַּת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיךָ מוֹלֶדֶת אָבִיךָ אֲחוֹתְךָ הִוא לֹא תְגַלֶּה עֶרְוָתָהּ:
The nakedness of the daughter of your father’s wife: [This verse] teaches us that one is not liable to the punishment [of excision, if he cohabited with] his sister who stems from a handmaid or a non-Jewess. Therefore, it says, “the daughter of your father’s wife” - [i.e.,] a woman fit to enter into marriage [thus excluding a handmaid and non-Jewess, marriage with whom is not binding]. — [Yev. 23a] ערות בת אשת אביך: לימד שאינו חייב על אחותו משפחה ונכרית לכך נאמר בת אשת אביך בראויה לקידושין:
12You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is the close relative of your father. יבעֶרְוַת אֲחוֹת אָבִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה שְׁאֵר אָבִיךָ הִוא:
13You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is the close relative of your mother. יגעֶרְוַת אֲחוֹת אִמְּךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה כִּי שְׁאֵר אִמְּךָ הִוא:
14You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother you shall not come near his wife; she is your aunt. ידעֶרְוַת אֲחִי אָבִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה אֶל אִשְׁתּוֹ לֹא תִקְרָב דֹּדָתְךָ הִוא:
You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother: And what is “his nakedness?” “you shall not come near his wife.” ערות אחי אביך לא תגלה: ומה היא ערותו, אל אשתו לא תקרב:
15You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter in law; she is your son's wife you shall not uncover her nakedness. טועֶרְוַת כַּלָּתְךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה אֵשֶׁת בִּנְךָ הִוא לֹא תְגַלֶּה עֶרְוָתָהּ:
[she is] your son’s wife: [Scripture says:] I have stated [the law] only [in the case of a woman] with whom your son has a marital tie. [This] excludes a woman he has raped, a handmaid, or a non-Jewess [with whom the son has cohabited]. — [Torath Kohanim 20:108] אשת בנך היא: לא אמרתי אלא בשיש לבנך אישות בה, פרט לאנוסה ושפחה ונכרית:
16You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife: it is your brother's nakedness. טזעֶרְוַת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה עֶרְוַת אָחִיךָ הִוא:
17You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take [in marriage] her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness they are close relatives, it is evil counsel. יזעֶרְוַת אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ לֹא תְגַלֵּה אֶת בַּת בְּנָהּ וְאֶת בַּת בִּתָּהּ לֹא תִקַּח לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָתָהּ שַׁאֲרָה הֵנָּה זִמָּה הִוא:
You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter:Scripture prohibits [relations with the second woman] only through a marital tie with the first one [whether the woman or her daughter]. Hence, Scripture says, לֹא תִקַּח, denoting “taking (קִיחָה) in marriage.” Similarly, when it comes to stating the punishment [of those who transgress this matter, Scripture says], “[And a man] who takes (יִקַּח) a woman and her mother [in marriage…they shall burn him and them in fire]” (Lev. 20:14), [also using] the expression of קִיחָה, “taking [in marriage].” But if he raped a woman, he is permitted to marry her daughter. — [Yev. 97a] ערות אשה ובתה: לא אסר הכתוב אלא ע"י נשואי הראשונה, לכך נאמר לא תקח, לשון קיחה, וכן לענין העונש אשר יקח את אשה ואת אמה (ויקרא כ יד), לשון קיחה, אבל אנס אשה מותר לישא בתה:
they are close relatives: Heb. שַׁאֲרָה הֵנָּה, they are related to one another. שארה הנה: קרובות (הן) זו לזו:
evil counsel: Heb. זִמָּה, counsel [like the word זָמַם, plotted]; as the Targum renders: עֲצַת חֶטְאִין, counsel of sins, which your [evil] inclination has counseled you to sin. זמה: עצה כתרגומו עצת חטאין, שיצרך יועצך לחטוא:
18And you shall not take a woman with her sister [in marriage] as rivals, to uncover the nakedness of one upon the other, in her lifetime. יחוְאִשָּׁה אֶל אֲחֹתָהּ לֹא תִקָּח לִצְרֹר לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָתָהּ עָלֶיהָ בְּחַיֶּיהָ:
a woman with her sister: both at the same time. אל אחתה: שתיהן כאחת:
as rivals: Heb. לִצְרֹר, an expression similar to צָרָה, rival, to make one a rival to the other. לצרר: לשון צרה לעשות את זו צרה לזו:
in her lifetime: This teaches you that if he divorced her, he may not marry her sister while she is still alive. — [Yev.. 8b] בחייה: למדך שאם גרשה לא ישא את אחותה כל זמן שהיא בחיים:
19And to a woman during the uncleanness of her separation, you shall not come near to uncover her nakedness. יטוְאֶל אִשָּׁה בְּנִדַּת טֻמְאָתָהּ לֹא תִקְרַב לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָתָהּ:
20You shall not lie carnally with your neighbor's wife, to become defiled by her. כוְאֶל אֵשֶׁת עֲמִיתְךָ לֹא תִתֵּן שְׁכָבְתְּךָ לְזָרַע לְטָמְאָה בָהּ:
21And you shall not give any of your offspring to pass through for Molech. And you shall not profane the Name of your God. I am the Lord. כאוּמִזַּרְעֲךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לְהַעֲבִיר לַמֹּלֶךְ וְלֹא תְחַלֵּל אֶת שֵׁם אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲנִי יְהוָֹה:
for Molech: A form of idolatry, named Molech, and this was the manner of its worship, that one would hand over one’s child to the pagan priests, who would make two huge fires. The child was then passed through on foot between these two fires. — [Sanh. 64b, see Rashi there.] למלך: עבודה זרה היא ששמה מולך, וזו היא עבודתה, שמוסר בנו לכומרים ועושין שתי מדורות גדולות ומעבירין את הבן ברגליו בין שתי מדורות האש:
And you shall not give: This refers to the handing him over to the pagan priests. לא תתן: זו היא מסירתו לכומרים:
to pass through for Molech: This refers to passing [the child] between the fire[s]. להעביר למלך: זו (היא) העברת האש:
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 49 - 54
• Chapter 49
This psalm is a strong message and inspiration for all, rich and poor alike, rebuking man for transgressions which, owing to habit, he no longer considers sinful; yet, these sins incriminate man on the Day of Judgement. The psalm speaks specifically to the wealthy, who rely not on God but on their wealth.
1. For the Conductor, by the sons of Korach, a psalm.
2. Hear this, all you peoples; listen, all you inhabitants of the world;
3. sons of common folk and sons of nobility, rich and poor alike.
4. My mouth speaks wisdom, and the thoughts of my heart are understanding.
5. I incline my ear to the parable; I will unravel my riddle upon the harp.
6. Why am I afraid in times of trouble? [Because] the sins I trod upon surround me.
7. There are those who rely on their wealth, who boast of their great riches.
8. Yet a man cannot redeem his brother, nor pay his ransom to God.
9. The redemption of their soul is too costly, and forever unattainable.
10. Can one live forever, never to see the grave?
11. Though he sees that wise men die, that the fool and the senseless both perish, leaving their wealth to others-
12. [nevertheless,] in their inner thoughts their houses will last forever, their dwellings for generation after generation; they have proclaimed their names throughout the lands.
13. But man will not repose in glory; he is likened to the silenced animals.
14. This is their way-their folly remains with them, and their descendants approve of their talk, Selah.
15. Like sheep, they are destined for the grave; death shall be their shepherd, and the upright will dominate them at morning; their form will rot in the grave, away from its abode.
16. But God will redeem my soul from the hands of the grave, for He will take me, Selah.
17. Do not fear when a man grows rich, when the glory of his house is increased;
18. for when he dies he will take nothing, his glory will not descend after him.
19. For he [alone] praises himself in his lifetime; but [all] will praise you if you better yourself.
20. He will come to the generation of his forefathers; they shall not see light for all eternity.
21. Man [can live] in glory but does not understand; he is likened to the silenced animals.
Chapter 50
This psalm speaks of many ethics and morals. The psalmist rebukes those who fail to repent humbly and modestly. He also admonishes those who do not practice that which they study, and merely appear to be righteous; they sin and cause others to sin.
1. A psalm by Asaph. Almighty God, the Lord, spoke and called to the earth, from the rising of the sun to its setting.
2. Out of Zion, the place of perfect beauty, God appeared.
3. Our God will come and not be silent; a fire will consume before Him, His surroundings are furiously turbulent.
4. He will call to the heavens above, and to the earth, to avenge His people:
5. "Gather to Me My pious ones, those who made a covenant with me over a sacrifice.”
6. Then the heavens declared His righteousness, for God is Judge forever.
7. Listen, my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against you-I am God your God.
8. Not for [the lack of] your sacrifices will I rebuke you, nor for [the lack of] your burnt offerings which ought to be continually before Me.
9. I do not take oxen from your house, nor goats from your pens;
10. for every beast of the forest is Mine, the cattle of a thousand mountains.
11. I know every bird of the mountains, and the crawling creatures of the field are in My possession.
12. Were I hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and everything in it is mine.
13. Do I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?
14. Offer confession as a sacrifice to God, and fulfill your vows to the Most High,
15. and call to Me on the day of distress; I will free you, and you will honor Me.
16. But to the wicked, God said, "What does it help you to discuss My laws, and bear My covenant upon your lips?
17. For you hate discipline, and throw My words behind you.
18. When you see a thief you run with him, and your lot is with adulterers.
19. You sent forth your mouth for evil, and attach your tongue to deceit.
20. You sit down to talk against your brother; your mother's son you defame.
21. You have done these things and I kept silent, so you imagine that I am like you-[but] I will rebuke you and lay it clearly before your eyes.
22. Understand this now, you who forget God, lest I tear you apart and there be none to save you.
23. He who offers a sacrifice of confession honors Me; and to him who sets right his way, I will show the deliverance of God."
Chapter 51
This psalm speaks of when Nathan the prophet went to David's palace, and rebuked him for his sin with Bathsheba. David then secluded himself with God, offering awe-inspiring prayers and begging forgiveness. Every person should recite this psalm for his sins and transgressions.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David,
2. when Nathan the prophet came to him after he had gone to Bathsheba.
3. Be gracious to me, O God, in keeping with Your kindness; in accordance with Your abounding compassion, erase my transgressions.
4. Cleanse me thoroughly of my wrongdoing, and purify me of my sin.
5. For I acknowledge my transgressions, and my sin is always before me.
6. Against You alone have I sinned, and done that which is evil in Your eyes; [forgive me] so that You will be justified in Your verdict, vindicated in Your judgment.
7. Indeed, I was begotten in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
8. Indeed, You desire truth in the innermost parts; teach me the wisdom of concealed things.
9. Purge me with hyssop and I shall be pure; cleanse me and I shall be whiter than snow.
10. Let me hear [tidings of] joy and gladness; then the bones which You have shattered will rejoice.
11. Hide Your face from my sins, and erase all my trespasses.
12. Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew within me an upright spirit.
13. Do not cast me out of Your presence, and do not take Your Spirit of Holiness away from me.
14. Restore to me the joy of Your deliverance, and uphold me with a spirit of magnanimity.
15. I will teach transgressors Your ways, and sinners will return to You.
16. Save me from bloodguilt, O God, God of my deliverance; my tongue will sing Your righteousness.
17. My Lord, open my lips, and my mouth shall declare Your praise.
18. For You do not desire that I bring sacrifices, nor do You wish burnt offerings.
19. The offering [desirable] to God is a contrite spirit; a contrite and broken heart, God, You do not disdain.
20. In Your goodwill, bestow goodness upon Zion; rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.
21. Then will You desire sacrifices [offered in] righteousness, olah and other burnt offerings; then they will offer bullocks upon Your altar.
Chapter 52
David laments his suffering at the hands of Doeg, and speaks of Doeg's boasts about the evil he committed. David asks, "What does he think? Does he consider the doing of evil a mark of strength?" David also curses Doeg and those like him.
1. For the Conductor, a maskil by David,
2. when Doeg the Edomite came and informed Saul, saying to him, "David has come to the house of Achimelech.”
3. Why do you boast with evil, O mighty one? God's kindness is all day long.
4. Your tongue devises treachery; like a sharpened razor it works deceit.
5. You love evil more than good, falsehood more than speaking righteousness, Selah.
6. You love all devouring words, a deceitful tongue.
7. God will likewise shatter you forever; He will excise and pluck you from the tent, and uproot you from the land of the living forever.
8. The righteous will see it and be awed, and they will laugh at him:
9. "Here is the man who did not make God his stronghold, but trusted in his great wealth, and drew strength from his treachery.”
10. But I am like a fresh olive tree in the house of God; I trust in God's kindness forever and ever.
11. I will thank you forever for what You have done; I will hope in Your Name, for You are good to Your pious ones.
Chapter 53
This psalm speaks of when Titus pierced the curtain of the Holy of Holies with his sword, and thought he had killed "himself" (a euphemism for God).
1. For the Conductor, on the machalat,1 a mas-kil2 by David.
2. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God!" They have acted corruptly and committed abominable deeds; not one does good.
3. God looked down from heaven upon mankind, to see if there was any man of intelligence who searches for God.
4. But they all regressed together; they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.
5. Indeed, the evildoers who devour My people as they devour bread, who do not call upon God, will come to realize.
6. There they will be seized with fright, a fright such as never was; for God scatters the bones of those encamped against you. You shamed them, for God rejected them.
7. O that out of Zion would come Israel's deliverance! When God returns the captivity of His people, Jacob will exult, Israel will rejoice.
Chapter 54
A prayer to God asking that in His might He save all who hope for His kindness. Read, and you will discover an awe-inspiring and wondrous prayer that should be said by all in the appropriate time.
1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music, a maskil by David,
2. when the Ziphites came and said to Saul, "Behold, David is hiding among us!”
3. O God, deliver me by Your Name, and vindicate me by Your might.
4. God, hear my prayer, listen to the words of my mouth.
5. For strangers have risen against me, and ruthless men have sought my soul; they are not mindful of God, Selah.
6. Behold, God is my helper; my Lord is with those who support my soul.
7. He will repay the evil of my watchful enemies; destroy them by Your truth.
8. With a free-will offering I will sacrifice to You; I will offer thanks to Your Name, O Lord, for it is good.
9. For He has saved me from every trouble, and my eye has seen [the downfall of] my enemy.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 46• Tuesday, Iyar 9, 5775 · April 28, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 46
In the previous chapter the Alter Rebbe described yet another manner in which a person can perform Torah and mitzvot “with his heart” — with the love and fear of G‑d — and that is, by utilizing the attribute of Jacob, which is the quality of mercy. In this case the individual arouses compassion within himself upon his exiled soul and upon its source, the Ein Sof, and in this frame of mind he studies Torah and performs mitzvot. This endeavor extricates his soul from its spiritual exile (whither it has been banished by his own inappropriate thoughts, words and deeds), and restores it to its source in the blessed Ein Sof.
In this chapter the Alter Rebbe goes on to explain how very, very close it is for every Jew to reveal his hidden love of G‑d. The approach explained in this chapter is novel (as the Rebbe clarifies), inasmuch as it utilizes the Jew’s very nature, thereby obviating the need for a specific manner of contemplation; a relatively general and tangible manner of contemplation will do, as will soon be explained. Indeed, the lower the spiritual level of the individual, the easier it is for him to awaken this hidden love — a paradox that will also be explained presently.
This manner of contemplation enables a Jew to serve G‑d with fiery, passionate love, leading him to excel in his study of Torah and performance of mitzvot. It also enables him to overcome all obstacles, whether from within or from without, that seek to hinder his service of G‑d.
Let a man think along these lines: It is in the nature of a human being that when he feels a strong emanation of love from his fellow he will respond in kind. And if the manifestation of love is showered by an exalted personage upon a very lowly individual, the responsive chord of the lowly person’s love will be all the more vibrant.
In a like manner, but infinitely more so, should this obtain when a human being is enveloped by G‑d’s boundless love for him. Such is the case with the Jewish people. G‑d showed His boundless love for His people by choosing them from all created beings, from the highest level to the lowest. This love manifested itself by His taking them out of Egypt and bestowing the Torah and its mitzvot upon them alone. And so too does G‑d show this love to every individual Jew at all times and in all places.
Such boundless love should surely awaken within a Jew an ardent reciprocal love for G‑d. Moreover, just as G‑d, because of His love for the Jewish people, “overcame all obstacles” which stood in the way of creating this world (as will be explained in ch. 49), so too should each Jew strive to overcome all obstacles that hinder his service of G‑d.
ויש דרך ישר לפני איש, שוה לכל נפש, וקרוב הדבר מאד מאד
There is yet another straight way i.e., simple and straightforward, that is equally applicable and suitable to every man, and this matter is very, very nigh, inasmuch as the technique involved is uncomplicated,
לעורר ולהאיר אור האהבה התקועה ומסותרת בלבו
to arouse and kindle the light of the love that is implanted and concealed in his heart,
This love is already found in the heart of every Jew in a concealed state; utilizing the approach about to be described, makes it very simple for every Jew to reveal and actualize it.
להיות מאירה בתוקף אורה, כאש בוערה, בהתגלות לבו ומוחו
that it may shine forth with its intense light, like a flaming fire, in the consciousness of the heart and mind,
למסור נפשו לה׳ וגופו ומאודו
ultimately enabling the person to surrender his soul to G‑d together with his body and [material] possessions,
בכל לב ובכל נפש ומאד
this being done with all his heart, and all his soul and all his “might” — with the boundless devotion of his soul’s essence,
מעומקא דלבא באמת לאמיתו
from the depth of the heart, in absolute truth,
ובפרט בשעת קריאת שמע וברכותיה, כמו שיתבאר
and especially, i.e., a most propitious time for the person to kindle this love in such a manner is, at the time of the recital of the Shema and its blessings, as will be explainedlater, on the particular connection of the Shema and its blessings to the arousal of this love.
והוא
And this technique for revealing this love is,
כאשר ישים אל לבו מה שאומר הכתוב: כמים הפנים לפנים, כן לב האדם לאדם
to take to heart the meaning of the verse:1 “As water mirrors the face to the face, so does the heart of man to man.”
פירוש: כמו שכדמות וצורת הפנים שהאדם מראה במים, כן נראה לו שם במים אותה צורה עצמה
This means2 that as [in the case of] the likeness and features of the face which a man presents to the water, the identical face is reflected back to him from the water,
That image mirrors not only the person’s external features, but also the nuances of facial expression that signify joy, sorrow, and so on, thus revealing not only his physical state but his mental state as well.
ככה ממש לב האדם הנאמן באהבתו לאיש אחר
so indeed is also the heart of a man who is loyal in his affection for another person,
הרי האהבה זו מעוררת אהבה בלב חבירו אליו גם כן, להיות אוהבים נאמנים זה לזה
for this love which he has for the other awakens a loving response for him in the heart of his friend also, so that they come to love each other loyally,
Even the love harbored in one’s heart arouses a reflected love in another.
בפרט כשרואה אהבת חבירו אליו
especially when he sees his friend’s love for him, freely revealed.
והנה זהו טבע הנהוג במדת כל אדם, אף אם שניהם שוים במעלה
Such is the common nature in the character of every man, even when they are equal in status.
ועל אחת כמה וכמה, אם מלך גדול ורב מראה אהבתו הגדולה והעצומה לאיש הדיוט ונבזה ושפל אנשים, ומנוול ומוטל באשפה
How much more so is this the case if a great and mighty king who rules over many lands displays his great and intense love for a commoner who is despised and lowly among men, a disgraceful creature cast on the dunghill,
The king depicted here rules not over one land but over many; his love for the person is not only harbored in the heart but is manifest; the manner of love is not ordinary but “great and intense”; and the love is shown not to an ordinary person but to a truly despicable character. The Alter Rebbe goes on to state how his love is displayed:
ויורד אליו ממקום כבודו עם כל שריו יחדיו
yet he the king comes down to him from the place of his glory, together with all his retinue,
ומקימו ומרימו מאשפתו, ומכניסו להיכלו, היכל המלך, חדר לפנים מחדר, מקום שאין כל עבד ושר נכנס לשם
and raises him and exalts him from his dunghill and brings him into his palace — the royal palace, and within the palace itself he leads him in the innermost chamber, a place such as no servant nor lord ever enters,
ומתייחד עמו שם ביחוד וקירוב אמיתי, וחיבוק ונישוק, ואתדבקות רוחא ברוחא בכל לב ונפש
and there shares with him the closest companionship with mutual embraces and kisses and attachment of “spirit to spirit,” with their whole heart and soul, —
When a mighty king shows such great affection and companionship to such a lowly person, then,
על אחת כמה וכמה שתתעורר ממילא האהבה כפולה ומכופלת בלב ההדיוט ושפל האנשים הזה אל נפש המלך, בהתקשרות הנפש ממש, מלב ונפש, מעומקא דלבא לאין קץ
how much more so will there be aroused, of itself, a doubled and redoubled love in the heart of this most common and humble individual for the person of the king,3 with a true attachment of spirit, from heart and soul, from the infinite depths of his heart.
ואף אם לבו כלב האבן, המס ימס והיה למים, ותשתפך נפשו כמים בכלות הנפש ממש, לאהבת המלך
Even if his heart be like a heart of stone, and not easily roused to tender feelings of love for another, yet, in such a situation, it will surely melt and become [like] water, and his soul will pour itself out like water, with soulful longing for the love of the king.
The Alter Rebbe goes on to explain that all the details mentioned in the parable of the king are infinitely more applicable with regard to the object of the parable — the relationship of G‑d with each and every Jew. For G‑d, the King of kings, showed his unending love of the Jewish people by taking them out of their nethermost level, in Egypt, and exalting them to the highest of levels by giving them the Torah. Through study of Torah and performance of mitzvot, Jews are united with G‑d to the utmost possible degree.
This was so not only at the time the Torah was given. But at all times, as shall soon be explained, contemplating this matter will arouse within every Jew — “as water mirrors the face to the face” — a parallel love of G‑d.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Mishlei 27:19. |
| 2. | The Rebbe explains that by going on to say “This means...” after having quoted fromMishlei, the Alter Rebbe is expounding the verse in a manner other than its supposed simple meaning. As stated at the opening of Mishlei, the purpose of the book is to teach “wisdom and ethics” — proper moral behavior. This verse, then, teaches us that “as water mirrors the face...,” so, too, should one person’s heart respond to the other; one should not repay kindness with evil, and so on. It goes without saying that some of the ethical exhortations of Proverbs are easier to fulfill than others. Accordingly, this verse cannot serve to buttress that which is being taught here in Tanya — that G‑d’s love of Jews should arouse a similar response within each and everyJew. The Alter Rebbe therefore does not interpret the verse to mean that “so should be the heart of man to man,” but that “so is the heart of man to man.” King Solomon is not exhorting: he is merely stating an established fact; just as the nature of water is to reflect an image, so, too, is it in man’s nature to mirror the emotion of another. To accomplish this, one need not labor at all; one has but to recognize and consider the fact that his friend is showing him love. He will then immediately be filled with love in return. However, according to the interpretation of the Alter Rebbe, what is the verse teaching us? And teach us it must, for as mentioned above the purpose of Mishlei is to instruct the reader in proper conduct, and not merely to state truisms. The lesson may be, proposes the Rebbe, as follows: Since it is indeed a fact that “love reflects love,” one should make an effort to love his fellow abundantly, thereby ensuring that he, in turn, will reflect this love towards himself. Even if the other person may hate him for the moment, still, by being shown love, he will eventually become aware of it; his hatred will wither, and be replaced by love. In the episle to his chassidim upon his release from Peterburg (entitled Katonti, and appearing in Iggeret HaKodesh as Epistle 2), the Alter Rebbe exhorts them likewise "not to become haughty-minded in relation to their brethren nor to speak defiantly against them. Rather they are to subdue their spirit and heart before everyone.... And, perhaps, through all that, G-d will put it into the heart of their brethren that as water [reflects] the face...." |
| 3. | The Rebbe notes that according to the explanation provided in the previous note it becomes abundantly clear how the arousal of love in this manner is not only suitable to all, but is also “very nigh indeed.” Inasmuch as it is within the nature of man to mirror love, the arousal of such love is an approach “suitable for all.” This is true even when both parties are on the same level. Furthermore, it is “very nigh,” for in the analogue of G‑d’s love for the Jewish people, the two are on entirely different levels. His love for them is similar to the love that a great king showers upon a most coarse commoner. This provides all the more reason for the king’s love to evoke a similar response in the heart of the commoner. Additionally, not only is it “very nigh,” but it is “very nigh indeed.” For this love is unique in that the lower the level of the person upon whom the love is showered, the more it evokes a reciprocal love. Thus, G‑d’s love for insignificant man should arouse within him an intense love for G‑d in return. This is alluded to by the Alter Rebbe when he enumerates the various levels in his analogy. For even when two people are on the same plane, love will mirror love. How much more so when the love is shown by (a) “a king”; moreover, (b) “a great king”; furthermore, (c) “a great and mighty king.” Surely, then, the recipient will reciprocate this love. The person to whom the love is shown is also described in a number of ways. Not only is he unlike the king: he is also (a) “a commoner”; moreover, (b) he is “despised”; furthermore, (c) he is “lowly among men,” and so on. At any rate, the lower the person’s spiritual level and the feebler his comprehension, the greater should be his impetus to arouse this form of love within himself. It is therefore “very nigh indeed” for people to arouse their love of G‑d when they become cognizant of His love for them. This, then, is what is novel in this chapter of Tanya. The previous chapters informed us thateven a person of lowly spiritual stature may nevertheless attain a love for G-d. In this chapter the Alter Rebbe explains that quite the opposite is the case: the very lowliness of the individual serves as an impetus to his attainment of a love for G-d; the lower he is, the greater his ability to arouse it within himself. Moreover, this love may be achieved by all for it requires only awarness, not contemplation. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
Tuesday, Iyar 9, 5775 · April 28, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 127
The First Tithe
"But the tithes of the Children of Israel which they offer to G‑d as a gift..."—Numbers 18:24.
We are commanded to separate a tenth of our crops and give it to a Levite.
This biblical precept only applies in the Land of Israel.
Tithe
Positive Commandment 127
Translated by Berel Bell
The 127th mitzvah is that we are commanded to separate ma'aser from produce which grows from the ground.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "[The inheritance I am giving the Levites shall consist of] the ma'aser of the Jewish people which they shall separate."
The verse itself explains that ma'aser is given to the Levites.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Ma'aseros.
This is called ma'aser rishon, and is a Biblical requirement only in Eretz Yisroel.2
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 27:30.
2.By Rabbinic law, ma'aser must be given from some lands which surround Eretz Yisroel. See Hilchos Terumos, 1:1.
Positive Commandment 128
The Second Tithe
"You shall surely tithe all the produce of your seed that the field produces every year"—Deuteronomy 14:22.
We are commanded to separate a "Second Tithe" [from our harvest, in addition to the First Tithe given to the Levites].
Some of the rules that pertain to this tithe:
The produce is brought to Jerusalem where it is consumed by its owners.
If it is difficult to transport the produce to Jerusalem, due to its distance, the produce can be "redeemed" with money. This money is then brought to Jerusalem and used to purchase food [which is, in turn, consumed in Jerusalem].
If the owner himself redeems the tithe, he must add an extra 25% to the produce's monetary value.
This mitzvah only applies during the Temple era.
This biblical precept only applies in the Land of Israel.
The Second Tithe
Positive Commandment 128
Translated by Berel Bell
The 128th mitzvah is that we are commanded to separate ma'aser sheni.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "Take a tithe [Aser t'aser] from year to year of all the seed crops that come forth in the field."
The Sifra says: "The words 'Shanah shanah' ['from year to year'] teach us that one may not take ma'aser from one year's crops for [what should have taken from] another year's crops. But this only tells us about the subject of this verse, ma'aser sheni.3 How do we know that this applies to the other types of ma'aser? From the words, Aser t'aser"4
The Torah says explicitly5 that ma'aser sheni is brought to Jerusalem and eaten there by its owners, and we have already mentioned6 the words of our Sages on this subject.
The verse itself also gives details of this mitzvah: that when it is impossible to actually bring it because of the distance, it must be redeemed, with the money brought to the Bais Hamikdosh and spent on food. The source of this law is G‑d's statement7 "If the place is too far for you" "and you cannot carry it there." The Torah has given other details of this mitzvah: that if a person redeems it, he must add one-fifth.8 The source of this is G‑d's statement,9 "If a person wishes to redeem his tithes, he must add an additional fifth."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Ma'aser Sheni.
This too is a Biblical mitzvah only for produce which grew in Eretz Yisroel, and may be eaten only when the Bais Hamikdosh is standing. In the words of the Sifri: "The verse10 compares eating a b'chor [first-born animal] and ma'aser sheni: just as the b'chor may be eaten only when the Bais Hamikdosh is standing, so too ma'aser sheni may be eaten only when the Bais Hamikdosh is standing."
FOOTNOTES
1.After terumah and ma'aser are separated, one-tenth of the remainder is designated as ma'aser sheni. This occurs in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th years of the 7 year shemittah cycle. In the 3rd and 6th years of the cycle, it is called ma'aser oni and is given to the poor.
2.Deut. 14:22.
3.This phrase, "the subject of this verse, ma'aser sheni," proves the Rambam's point: that the "tithe" referred to in this verse is ma'aser sheni.
4.The double mention of "ma'aser" comes to include all types of ma'aser (see P127, P130).
5.Ibid. 14:23.
6.P119, which in the Rambam's order precedes this mitzvah.
7.See Ibid.
8.Of the total amount, i.e. 25% of the value of the food. The amount he adds comes out to be "one-fifth" of the total amount.
9.Lev. 27:31.
10.See Deut. 14:23. Temurah 21a.
Negative Commandment 152
Expending Second Tithe Funds on Non-Food Items
"Nor have I given of it for the dead"—Deuteronomy 26:14.
It is forbidden to purchase with Second Tithe funds any item other than food or drink.
The Midrash explains the verse "I have not given of it for the dead" as referring to using the funds to purchase a casket and shrouds. Though such a purchase is a mitzvah, it cannot be done with Second Tithe funds.
It appears to me that purchasing anything other than food items with these monies is like giving the monies to a dead person—who has no gain from such a gift...
Second Tithe Funds on Non-Food Items
Negative Commandment 152
Translated by Berel Bell
The 152nd prohibition is that we are forbidden from spending money which was used to redeem ma'aser sheni for anything except food and drink.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "I have not given it for the dead." In the words of the Sifra: "[This verse means] that I have not used it to buy a coffin and burial shrouds." One who used the money to buy something else [other than food or drink] must spend an equivalent amount on food [in Jerusalem], as explained in the appropriate place.2
The verse mentions "the dead" for greater emphasis: as if to say "One may still not use ma'aser sheni, even for a mitzvah.3" It also seems to me that [the verse mentions "the dead" to teach us that] since G‑d has commanded us to spend ma'aser sheni only on food — as the verse4 says, "You may then spend the money [on anything you desire, whether it be cattle, smaller animals, wine,..."] — using it for something other than food is like giving it to the dead, who have no use for it.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 26:14.
2.See tractate Ma'aser Sheni, 1:7. Hilchos Ma'aser Sheni, Ch. 3, Hal. 10.
3.Such as buying a coffin and burial shrouds.
4.Ibid. 14:26.
Shabbos - Chapter Twenty Seven
Halacha 1
A person who goes beyond [his] city's Sabbath limit should be punished by lashes, as [Exodus 16:29] states: "No man should leave his place on the seventh day."1 [The term] "place" refers to the city's Sabbath limits.
The Torah did not [explicitly] state the measure of this limit. The Sages, however, transmitted the tradition that this measure was twelve mil,2 the length of the Jews' encampment [in the desert]. Thus, Moses our teacher was instructing them, "Do not go out beyond the camp."
Halacha 2
[From the above,] it follows that a person may walk throughout the expanse of [any] city, even if it is as large as Nineveh, whether or not it is surrounded by a wall.5
Similarly, it is permitted for a person to walk two thousand cubits in all directions outside the city. [When calculating these two thousand cubits, the entire area] is considered to be square, like a tablet,6 so that [the area in between] its furthest corners will also be included.7
If a person goes beyond two thousand cubits up to a distance of twelve mil, he should be given "stripes for rebelliousness"8. If he goes even one cubit beyond twelve mil, he should be punished by lashing [as prescribed] by the Torah.
Halacha 3
[There is a question whether] a person [is liable] if he goes beyond the Sabbath limit, [travelling] at a height of more than ten handbreadths above the ground9 - e.g., he jumps from one pillar to another - when none of the pillars has a surface area of four handbreadths by four handbreadths.10 For there remains an unresolved question [among the Sages] whether or not the Sabbath limits apply ten handbreadths above the ground.11.
[The matter is one of question only in an instance similar to the example given.] If, by contrast, a person walks on a surface that is four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths], it is as if he is walking on the ground [even though the surface is ten handbreadths above the ground].12 The Sabbath limits apply in such an instance.
Halacha 4
A person who spends the Sabbath in a barn in the desert,13 in a corral, in a cave, or in a similar type of private domain may walk through its entire space and [may continue] to the limits of a square extending two thousand cubits in every direction [from that domain].
Similarly, a person who spends the Sabbath in an [open] valley14may walk to the limits of a square extending two thousand cubits in every direction from the place [at which he is located at the commencement of the Sabbath]. [This applies] even when he was sleeping at the time of the commencement of the Sabbath and thus did not consciously acquire the place as his Sabbath base.15
A person who is walking in an open valley and does not know how far his Sabbath limit extends may take two thousand ordinary steps. This is [his] Sabbath limit.
Halacha 5
When a person walks the two thousand cubits that he is entitled to walk and his limit ends in a barn, in a corral, in a cave, or in a city, he is allowed to proceed only to the end of his limit. We do not say that since his limit ends within a private domain, he is entitled to walk throughout that domain.16
When does the above apply? When his limit ends in the midst of the city or in the midst of the cave. If, however, that private domain is included within his two thousand cubits,17 that entire domain is considered to be only four cubits, and the remainder [of the two thousand cubits] is calculated accordingly.
Halacha 6
What is implied? If there were one thousand cubits from the place a person established as his base for the Sabbath, or from the town [in which he spent the Sabbath],18 to a city or a cave that is a thousand cubits long or less, he may walk through the entire city or cave that he encounters and [continue] beyond it for 996 cubits.
Halacha 7
If, however, [in the instance mentioned above,] the city or the cave that begins within his Sabbath limits extends one thousand and one cubits, the person may walk only one thousand cubits - i.e., he may proceed to the end of the two thousand cubits [granted] him, [but no further].
Halacha 8
A person whose Sabbath limits end in the midst of a town may, nevertheless, move an article to any place within the town by throwing it.19
When a person spends the Sabbath in an open valley, and gentiles surround him with an enclosure on the Sabbath, he may still walk only two thousand cubits - even when this measure is included within the enclosure - in any direction.20 He may, nevertheless, move an article to any place within the enclosure by throwing it, provided it was enclosed for the sake of habitation.21
Halacha 9
[The following rule applies when] a person is in the midst of a journey - whether on sea or on dry land - and [intends] to enter a city: If he comes within two thousand cubits of the city before the commencement of the Sabbath, even though he did not arrive at the city until [after] the Sabbath [had commenced], he is permitted to enter,22 to walk throughout the entire city,23 and [continue] for two thousand cubits outside of it in all directions.
Halacha 10
[The following rule applies when] a person [is in the midst of a journey and intends to enter] a city, but falls asleep on the way, and does not awake until [after] the Sabbath [has commenced]: If when he awakes, he finds himself within the city's [Sabbath] limits, he is permitted to enter, to walk throughout the entire city, and [continue] for two thousand cubits outside of it in all directions.24
[This is permitted] because his intent was to journey to this city. Therefore, he is considered to have established his "place" for the Sabbath together with the inhabitants of this city, since he entered into their limits.
Halacha 11
A person who goes25 even a single cubit beyond [a city's] Sabbath limits should not reenter them. [The rationale is that] the four cubits that a person is granted in which to walk begin from the place where the person is standing. Therefore, since the person went a cubit or more beyond his Sabbath limit, he must remain in his place. He may not walk except in the four cubits that begin from the place in which he is standing, and continue in a forward direction.26
Similarly, a person who is even one cubit outside a city's Sabbath limits when darkness falls should not enter the city.27 Instead, he may proceed only two thousand cubits from the place where he was standing when the Sabbath commenced. If a person's Sabbath limit ends in the midst of the city, he may proceed [no further] than the end of his Sabbath limit, as has been explained.28
If one of a person's feet is inside [a city's] Sabbath limits and his other foot is outside the Sabbath limits [when the Sabbath commences], he may enter.29
Halacha 12
[The following rules apply to] a person who left the Sabbath limits unintentionally - e.g., gentiles took him outside [the limits], he was possessed by an undesirable temperament,30 or he inadvertently went beyond [the limit]: He may walk no more than four cubits.
If he returned [within his previous Sabbath limits] voluntarily, he may walk no more than four cubits. If [the forces that caused him to depart] returned him, it is as if he had never departed.31
If [these forces] left him in a private domain - e.g., the gentiles placed him in a barn, a corral, a cave, or another city - he may walk throughout that domain.32Similarly, if he inadvertently left his Sabbath limits [and entered] a domain of this nature, and became conscious of his actions while in this domain, he may walk throughout that domain.33
Halacha 13
When a person voluntarily left the Sabbath limits, he may walk only within four cubits, even when he was returned to his [original] Sabbath limits involuntarily34- e.g., he was taken back by gentiles or because of an undesirable temperament.
Similarly, if he voluntarily left the Sabbath limits, he may walk only within four cubits even when he is within a private domain - e.g., a barn or a corral.35
A person who sets out on the Mediterranean Sea may walk throughout the ship and carry throughout the ship, even though he is outside the Sabbath limits that he originally established as his Sabbath base.36
Halacha 14
Whenever a person leaves his Sabbath limits unintentionally, and is surrounded by an enclosure on the Sabbath,37 he may walk throughout [the area of] that enclosure, provided it does not exceed two thousand cubits.38
When this enclosure that is created without his knowledge overlaps part of the Sabbath limit that he left [an additional leniency is granted]. Since he is allowed to walk throughout that enclosure, he may reenter his Sabbath limits. Once he enters, [he may proceed freely,] as if he had never left.39
Halacha 15
[The following rules apply when] any of the individuals whose movement is restricted to four cubits must relieve himself: He may leave [these four cubits], move away [an appropriate distance], relieve himself,40 and then return to his place.41
If when moving away to relieve himself, the person enters a portion of the Sabbath limits that he originally left: since he has entered, [his] entry [is accepted as fact], and it is as though he had never departed.42 [This leniency applies] provided he originally left unintentionally. If he left intentionally, he may walk only [within] four cubits, even if he reentered [his original limits].43
Halacha 16
[The following rules apply to] all individuals who are sanctioned by the court [to leave their Sabbath limits] - e.g., witnesses who are going to testify regarding their sighting of the moon,44 - and all others who are allowed to depart because of a mitzvah:45 When they reach their destination, they may proceed two thousand cubits in all directions.46 Should they become located in a city, they [are governed by] the same [rules as] the inhabitants of that city, and may proceed two thousand cubits beyond the city in all directions.
Halacha 17
[The following rules apply when] a person was sanctioned to depart [from his Sabbath limits], but in the midst of his journey, he was informed that the mitzvah that he had intended to perform had already been completed: He may proceed two thousand cubits in all directions. If a portion of the Sabbath limit from which he departed overlaps these two thousand cubits, he may return to his [original] place, and it is as though he had never departed.
All those who depart [from the Sabbath limits] to rescue Jewish lives from gentiles, from a [flooding] river, or from an avalanche, are granted two thousand cubits [in which to walk] from the place where they rescue them. [When Jews are rescued from gentiles, but] the gentiles' position is strong, and the rescuers fear spending [the remainder of] the Sabbath in the place where they rescue them, they may return to their [original] place, [carrying] their weapons.47
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 321) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 24) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
Having covered all the prohibitions associated with the performance of labor on the Sabbath, in this and the next chapter the Rambam focuses on another Biblical prohibition associated with the Sabbath - the prohibition against departing from one's location. With regard to this prohibition, it is also significant to consult Hilchot Eruvin, Chapters 6-8, which mention extending the Sabbath limits mentioned here through a convention of Rabbinic origin known as eruv t'chumim.
|
| 2. |
A mil is approximately one kilometer.
There are those who interpret the Rambam's ruling here as a change in his position from Sefer HaMitzvot, which can be interpreted as stating that the limit of two thousand cubits has its source in the Torah itself. In a responsa, however, the Rambam explicitly states that his statements inSefer HaMitzvot were intended to be general in nature, to be clarified in the Mishneh Torah.
It must also be noted that there are many authorities (among them the Ramban and the Rashba) who maintain that the Sabbath limits are a Rabbinic prohibition. (According to this view, the allusion to Exodus 16:29 is merely an asmachta.) Significantly, there is an early reference in the Rambam's works (Commentary to the Mishneh, Sotah 5:3) which supports this view.
The fundamental basis for these positions can be explained as follows: The measure of twelve milis mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud (Eruvin 1:10), but not in the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud (Eruvin 17a) cites a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and other Sages. Rabbi Akiva maintains that the Torah established a Sabbath limit of two thousand cubits, but the other Sages differ. According to the Rambam, the ruling of the Jerusalem Talmud is accepted. According to the other view, this represents a difference of opinion between the majority opinion in the Babylonian Talmud (which appears to state that the Torah did not establish Sabbath limits) and the Jerusalem Talmud. Generally, when there is a difference between the majority opinion in the Babylonian Talmud, and the Jerusalem Talmud, the majority opinion of the Babylonian Talmud is accepted.
The Rabbinic origin of the prohibition of two thousand cubits is universally accepted. It would appear that the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 404:1) accepts the position that the entire concept of Sabbath limits is a Rabbinic institution. The Ramah, however, requires that consideration be taken of the Rambam's view.
Note also the Tzafenat Paneach, which emphasizes that all authorities agree that the observance of limits on travel on the holidays is Rabbinic in origin.
|
| 3. |
According to the Rambam, as a safeguard to the prohibition of the Torah. According to the other view, as an independent prohibition.
|
| 4. |
See Numbers 35:5.
|
| 5. |
Nineveh is used as a classic example of a metropolis because of the description of the city's size in the Book of Jonah (3:3, 4:11). Significantly, the Talmud (Eruvin 61b) gives Antioch as the example, and not Nineveh.
The entire city is considered to be the person's "place," in the wording used in Exodus (loc. cit.). Hence, as long as he stays within the city's confines, or goes less than two thousand cubits beyond them, he is not considered to have "left his place."
With the expression, "whether or not, it is surrounded by a wall," the Rambam touches on a Halachic point of particular relevance in the diaspora where it is not common for a city to have aneruv. There is a question if the term "city" used throughout this chapter refers to all cities, or only to those surrounded by a wall.
The rationale behind the latter thesis is that only when a city is surrounded by a wall is it a private domain, and fit to be described as a person's "place." When the city lacks a wall, the person's place is his individual domain. See Rashi, Eruvin 61b, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 396:1.
The Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss to these halachot, and more specifically, in his gloss to Hilchot Eruvin 7:4), explains that the Rambam does not subscribe to this restriction, and considers even a city without a wall as "one's place" even if it is forbidden to carry within it.
|
| 6. |
There is a difference of opinion among the Sages of the Mishnah (Eruvin 4:8) whether the city is considered to be the center of a circle with a radius of two thousand cubits, or the center of a square whose sides are twice that length. The Rambam follows the latter opinion, thus expanding the permitted area to include the corners of the square.
The determination of the limits of the city's boundaries from which these two thousand cubits are measured is discussed at the beginning of the following chapter.
|
| 7. |
The Maggid Mishneh states that although the corners of the square are included, one is allowed to walk 2800 cubits (the approximate distance to the corner of the square) only when one is, in fact, pointed in the direction of that diagonal. One may not arbitrarily rotate the area encompassed by the square so that one will always be walking along its diagonal.
|
| 8. |
This is the punishment given for the violation of a Rabbinic prohibition.
|
| 9. |
Since a public domain and a carmelit extend only to a height of ten handbreadths, the Sages questioned whether or not this same concept applied with regard to the Sabbath limits.
|
| 10. |
A surface less than four handbreadths by four handbreadths is not comfortable to use. Therefore, it is a matter of question (Rashi, Eruvin 43a).
|
| 11. |
The Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh cite one of the Rambam's responsa, which states that this entire question applies on dry land only. On the sea or on a river, all authorities agree that if the sea or river is more than ten handbreadths deep, the Sabbath limits do not apply.
The rationale for this leniency is that the laws concerning the Sabbath limits are also derived from the encampment of the Jews in the desert, and there the Sabbath limits were measured only on the land, and more particularly, in a public domain. When a domain is classified within the category of carmelit, e.g., seas and rivers, the establishment of the Sabbath limits is merely Rabbinic in origin. Therefore, since the case at hand - whether the Sabbath limits apply above ten handbreadths - is a point in question, we follow the principle: When in doubt regarding a point of Rabbinic law, the more lenient view should be followed. (See Chapter 30, Halachah 13 and notes, for a further discussion of this issue.)
|
| 12. |
Eruvin 43a uses the expression, "It is like thick ground."
|
| 13. |
The intent is a private domain that is located outside a city and that was enclosed for the purpose of dwelling, or that is less than 5000 square cubits (Rashba, as quoted by the Maggid Mishneh). (See Chapter 16, Halachah 12, and Hilchot Eruvin 7:4.)
Halachah 2 emphasizes that a person's "place" can refer to the entire city in which he lives. Similarly, in this instance, since this private domain is a distinct entity, it is considered to be the person's "place," and the calculation of a person's Sabbath limits begins from the end of its borders.
|
| 14. |
I.e., a carmelit that is not enclosed (Chapter 14, Halachah 4). Needless to say, the same laws would apply in a public domain (Maggid Mishneh).
In this instance, the four square cubits surrounding the place where he is standing at the commencement of the Sabbath is considered his "place," and the two thousand cubits are calculated accordingly (Rashba, as quoted by the Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 15. |
This point is the subject of a difference of opinion among our Sages (Eruvin 4:5). There are opinions that maintain that a person must consciously acquire his place on the Sabbath. Otherwise, he is allowed to move within a square of four cubits alone. Eruvin 46a substantiates the opinion that the Rambam quotes as halachah.
|
| 16. |
The Hagahot Maimoniot quotes sources that allow a person to proceed throughout a domain - but no further - even though his Sabbath limits end within that domain. This view is also cited by the Ramah (Orach Chayim 408:1).
|
| 17. |
These concepts also apply in regard to a city. If it is included within the two thousand cubits of a person's Sabbath limits, it is only considered as four cubits. In this context, the commentaries clarify that when the urban area of a city is included within a person's two thousand cubits, but the city possesses some pasture land that extends beyond the two thousand cubits, the pasture land is not significant, and the city is still counted as four cubits (Ra'avad, as quoted by the Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 18. |
In this instance, we have based our translation on Rav Kapach's Yemenite manuscripts of theMishneh Torah, because the precise meaning of the wording employed in the standard printed text is extremely difficult to comprehend.
|
| 19. |
Needless to say, this ruling applies when the town is surrounded by an eruv. Eruvin 42b states that it is necessary to state this law, lest one think that this would be forbidden lest a person be drawn after the article he threw.
|
| 20. |
As stated in Chapter 16, Halachah 22, an enclosure that is erected on the Sabbath is significant - and therefore, the person is allowed to carry within it. Nevertheless, the erection of such an enclosure does not have any effect on the extent of a person's Sabbath limits, because these are established at the commencement of the Sabbath.
|
| 21. |
See Chapter 16, Halachah 1.
|
| 22. |
This refers to a classic instance recorded in the Mishnah, Eruvin 4:2. Once, when several Rabbis were traveling together with Rabban Gamliel on a ship, they had not reached port before the commencement of the Sabbath. After the ship docked, the Sages asked Rabban Gamliel if they might disembark or not. He assured them that they might, because at the commencement of the Sabbath, he had looked to see that they were within two thousand cubits of the city.
|
| 23. |
Regardless of its size, even if it is more than 2000 cubits. It is considered as if the person had already entered the city before the commencement of the Sabbath.
|
| 24. |
This also refers to a classic instance that occurred concerning Rabbi Tarfon. Eruvin 45a states that he was on his way to a city when night fell on Friday. Unsure of whether or not he was within the city limits, he did not proceed any further and spent the night in the fields. In the morning, the shepherds found him and told him, "Rabbi, the city is right in front of you. Why don't you enter?" He indeed did so, and lectured in the house of study throughout the entire day.
The Ra'avad questions why the Rambam quotes the story of Rabbi Tarfon, which is a baraita, rather than the Mishnah, Eruvin 4:4. The Mishnah states that a person who was journeying toward a city, but sat down to rest at nightfall, may enter the city on the Sabbath, if he has already passed within its Sabbath limits. Although the person was unsure whether or not he entered the Sabbath limits, since he was actually within those limits and desired to be in the city on the Sabbath, he is given the privileges of the city's inhabitants.
If, however, the person did not have a desire to be within the nearby city, or specifically stated "This is my place for the Sabbath," he may walk no more than 2000 cubits from that specific place, despite the fact that he is within the city limits. Since he consciously segregated himself from the inhabitants of the city, he is not granted their privileges (Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruchand Ramah, Orach Chayim 400:1).
|
| 25. |
This refers to a person who left the city's Sabbath limits either intentionally, for purposes not directly associated with a mitzvah, unintentionally, or because of forces beyond his control, as mentioned in the following halachah.
|
| 26. |
A key to the understanding of this halachah and the questions it has raised among the commentaries is the principle of הבלעת תחומים, the overlapping of boundaries. What this means is that when a person has a Sabbath limit already established, but leaves - either intentionally or because of forces beyond his control - he is given a new Sabbath limit in which he may walk. If the boundaries of that new limit overlap into his previous Sabbath limit, he may return there and walk freely within that limit.
To apply these principles to the case at hand: When a person leaves his Sabbath limits voluntarily, the place at which he stops is considered to be his base for the remainder of the Sabbath. He is granted only four cubits in which to walk. Moreover, as indicated in the notes on Chapter 12, Halachah 15, the Rambam maintains that this does not mean that the person may walk four cubits in all directions, but that he may walk four cubits in one of the four directions. Once he walks four cubits to one side, however, he may not walk four cubits in the other direction.
In the case of a person who willfully departs from the Sabbath limits, he is considered to have chosen the four cubits in front of him. Therefore, it is only within these four cubits that he may walk; he may not turn back in the direction of his original place at all.
This is the explanation given by the Maggid Mishneh for the Rambam's ruling. The Maggid Mishneh questions, however, the restriction imposed by the Rambam: Why must we say that the person is restricted to the four cubits in front of him? The person has the choice of four cubits in any direction. If he chooses the four cubits behind him, he will be able to reenter his previous Sabbath limits, and, based on the principle of הבלעת תחומים mentioned above, he would then be able to conduct himself as any other member of the city. Why prevent him from utilizing this option?
This objection - first mentioned by the Ra'avad - is echoed by Rav Yosef Karo in the Kessef Mishneh. In the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 405:1), however, Rav Karo quotes the Rambam's decision. Based on the above principles, the Magen Avraham 405:1 allows a person to return to his previous Sabbath limits if he leaves the city's Sabbath limits unintentionally or because of forces beyond his control, provided the four cubits in which he is allowed to walk overlap his previous Sabbath limits. If, however, he intentionally leaves the city's Sabbath limits, no leniency is allowed, as the Rambam states.
|
| 27. |
Since the person is outside the city's Sabbath limits, he is more than two thousand cubits away. Thus, he cannot enter the city unless he transgresses and goes beyond his own Sabbath limits.
|
| 28. |
In Halachot 5 and 7. The Maggid Mishneh raises an obvious question: Since the person is located more than two thousand cubits outside the city, how is it possible for his Sabbath limits to end within the city? [Significantly, when quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:3) omits this clause.]
The Maggid Mishneh answers that this refers to a situation in which a person was traveling to a city when night fell on Friday, and consciously decided to be considered as an individual, rather than as a member of the city. (See the notes on Halachah 10.)
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam is speaking of a second location, a town other than the one that the person originally desired to enter. The Or Sameach offers a unique explanation, stating that this refers to a situation where the person was more than two thousand cubits outside the city, and thus beyond its Sabbath limits. Nevertheless, there was a large cave included within his two thousand cubits. Since that cave is considered to be only four cubits, it is possible that his own Sabbath limits will extend into the city.
|
| 29. |
He may conduct himself as a member of the city with regard to its Sabbath limits. Although the Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, the Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:2) follow the Rambam.
|
| 30. |
More literally, this phrase would be rendered as "an evil spirit." Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 4:1, the source for this halachah), which interprets this phrase as referring to "any malfunction in a person's intellectual functioning, whatever the cause may be."
|
| 31. |
And he may walk within its limits at will. Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 405:8), which follows the ruling of Rabbenu Asher and allows a person to walk through his city at will, even if he returned voluntarily. The rationale is that since this was his original Sabbath limit, it is as though he had never departed.
|
| 32. |
In this instance, we apply the principle that an entire domain can be considered to be four cubits. This ruling is the subject of a difference of opinion in the Mishnah cited above, and there areGeonim who follow the more stringent ruling and restrict the person to four cubits in this situation as well. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 405:6) and the other later authorities follow the Rambam's decision.
|
| 33. |
For Eruvin 43b equates acting without awareness of the prohibition involved to being taken away forcefully by gentiles.
|
| 34. |
Needless to say, according to the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch mentioned previously in Note 31, one would be allowed to walk freely in such circumstances.
|
| 35. |
The Maggid Mishneh relates that the Rashba differs with this decision, maintaining that, in this instance, we should also apply the principle that an entire domain can be considered to be four cubits. It is, however, the Rambam's view that is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim405:6).
|
| 36. |
This ruling also reflects a classic incident related by the Mishnah (Eruvin 4:1): Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Yehoshua were on a ship that left the port of Plandarsin on the Sabbath. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar walked throughout the ship despite the fact that it had traveled beyond their original Sabbath limits. (This follows the ruling in Halachah 12, that if gentiles take a person outside his Sabbath limits, but place him in an enclosed area, he may walk throughout the entire area. The gentiles took the Sages outside their Sabbath limits, but since the ship was enclosed, they were allowed to walk throughout its confines.)
The Mishnah continues, stating that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehoshua remained within the four cubits in which they were standing. Nevertheless, the Mishnah explains that this was merely a stringency they accepted upon themselves and not a binding obligation.
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:7) accepts the more lenient view and allows one to proceed throughout a ship's confines. It must be emphasized, however, that this leniency applies only when there are barriers around a ship's deck. When the barriers surrounding a ship's deck are removed, one may proceed throughout the ship only when it is moving. If it is anchored, the passengers may move only four cubits.
|
| 37. |
As stated in Halachah 8, and in Chapter 16, Halachah 22, an enclosure that is erected on the Sabbath is significant. Therefore, this situation is considered analogous to that of a person who leaves his Sabbath limits unintentionally and enters an enclosed domain.
|
| 38. |
The Rambam does not grant the person any greater leniency than if he had been located in that place when the Sabbath began, and afterwards gentiles surrounded it with an enclosure. (See Halachah 8.)
The Ra'avad and the Rashba differ and explain that greater leniency should be granted in this instance. Halachah 8 is speaking about establishing a person's place at the beginning of the Sabbath. Hence, if the enclosure is not erected at that time, it is not significant. This halachah is speaking about a person who is removed from his Sabbath limits against his will. Since we follow the principle that any enclosure is considered to be merely four cubits - whatever the size of that enclosure - he should be granted permission to walk throughout its limits, and 1996 cubits beyond it.
|
| 39. |
In this instance as well, the Rambam is referring to a well known Talmudic incident. Eruvin 43b relates that Rav Nechemiah, one of Rav Nachman's students, had taken a Sabbath stroll, and while lost in thought had strayed beyond the Sabbath limits.
"Your student, Nechemiah, is beset by disturbance," Rav Chisda told Rav Nachman.
"Make a human partition around him [see Chapter 16, Halachah 23] and let him enter," Rav Nachman replied.
|
| 40. |
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 406:1), which questions if this leniency applies when the person must urinate, or if it applies only when he must defecate.
|
| 41. |
Here we see how important the consideration of human dignity is. Even the prohibitions of our Sages - which the Torah obligates us to fulfill - are waived because of it (Rashi, Eruvin 41b).
This would appear to indicate that, according to the Rambam - who rules that the Sabbath limit of twelve mil has its source in the Torah - a person who travels more than twelve mil beyond his Sabbath limits may not move beyond four cubits, even to relieve himself (Minchat Chinuch, Mitzvah 24).
|
| 42. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states that one may intentionally move toward one's Sabbath limits in search of a private place to relieve oneself. Nevertheless, if such a place presents itself before one is able to return to his Sabbath limits, he must avail himself of it. He may then move far enough away so as not to be bothered by the odor, but then he must confine himself to a square of four cubits.
|
| 43. |
As mentioned in Halachah 13, even if he was returned to his Sabbath limits by gentiles, the restrictions against his walking freely are not lifted.
|
| 44. |
See Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 3:2-4, which describes how witnesses who saw the new moon should proceed to Jerusalem to give testimony, even if it is necessary to violate the Sabbath laws.
|
| 45. |
Rosh HaShanah 2:6 explains that this refers to individuals who leave their Sabbath limits in an attempt to save lives - e.g., a midwife or a person who goes to rescue people from drowning, from an attack, or from an avalanche, as mentioned in the following halachah.
|
| 46. |
Rosh HaShanah (ibid.) explains that originally such people were considered to be individuals who leave their Sabbath limits voluntarily, and therefore could proceed no more than four cubits. Rabban Gamliel was the one who granted this leniency.
|
| 47. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 23, where these concepts have been explained.
|
Maaser - Chapter 13
Halacha 1
Fruits that we can assume to be ownerless:1 e.g., wild figs,2 brush berries, thorn apples, white figs, other species of wild figs, anise, dates that fall of the tree before they have swelled,3 capers, coriander, and the like are free from the stringency of demai. One who purchases them from a common person does not have to separate terumat ma'aser or the second tithe from them for we assume that they grew ownerless. Even if a common person told him that they have not been tithed, they are exempt from the tithes until it is known that they grew from produce that was guarded.4
Halacha 2
Produce that ripens first and last in a valley are exempt from the obligations ofdemai.5 Similar produce in a garden is liable, because it is watched.
What is meant by produce that ripens first? All the produce that ripens before [the owner] employs a guard for the valley to protect his produce.
Halacha 3
When decrees were enacted concerning demai, they were enacted only with regard to produce from the land that was inhabited by the Jews who returned from Babylonia,9 i.e., from Kziv inward.10 Kziv itself is considered as outside these boundaries. All produce from Kziv and further are exempt from the obligations of demai for we operate under the assumption that the produce came from the place where it is found.11
Halacha 4
When we know12 that produce was grown in the land that was inhabited by the Jews who ascended from Babylonia, the laws of demai apply with regard to it even though it is presently found in Syria or in the land that was inhabited only by the Jews who ascended from Egypt. [Thus] terumat ma'aser and the second tithe must be separated from it.
Therefore a fat fig whose species is found only in the land inhabitant by the Jews who ascended from Babylon - and similarly, large dates, straight carobs,13rice that is exceedingly white, and oversized cumin14 - must be tithed like demaiin the entirety of Eretz Yisrael and in Syria. Similar laws apply with regard to all produce that is comparable to these species.
Halacha 5
When donkey-drivers bring produce to Tyre,15 the laws governing demai apply to it, for we assume that it came from the nearby land inhabited by the Jews who ascended from Babylonia.16 We do not harbor any suspicions with regard to rice. Instead, all the rice that is found in the Diaspora that neighbors the land which was inhabited by the Jews who ascended from Babylonia is exempt17from demai unless it was obvious that it grew [only in Eretz Yisrael] as we explained.18
Halacha 6
When a person purchases [produce] from the owners of storehouses in Tyre, he is exempt from [the obligations of] demai. We do not say that they stored produce from Eretz Yisrael.19 Similarly, if one donkey20 enters Tyre laden with produce, it is exempt from [the obligations of] demai, for we assume that [the produce comes] from the fields around the city.
Halacha 7
When a person purchases [produce] from the owners of storehouses in Tzidon,21 he is obligated in [the laws of] demai, because it is closer to Eretz Yisrael than Tyre and we operate under the assumption that they store produce from the land inhabited by the Jews who ascended from Babylonia. If, however, one purchases [produce] from donkey-drivers in Tzidon, is exempt from [the obligations of] demai, for we assume that they are bringing [the produce] from the Diaspora.22
Halacha 8
[The following rules apply when a person] purchases [produce] from a gentile in the land inhabited by the Jews who ascended from Babylonia. If the gentile was a merchant23 who purchases produce from Jews, the produce is [considered as] demai. Therefore at the outset, when the majority of Eretz Yisrael was in the hands of Jews,24 when a person purchased produce from a gentile merchant, he would separate tithes as one does for demai just like one does when [purchasing] from a [Jewish] common person.
Halacha 9
Who is a merchant? One who brings [produce to the market] two or three times. If, however, he brings once - even if he brings three loads at once, or even if he, his son, and his servant each brings loads - he is not presumed to be a merchant.25
Halacha 10
When [our Sages] issued a decree concerning demai, the decree did not apply to produce from the Diaspora that was brought into Eretz Yisrael.26
Halacha 11
When the majority of the produce [in a mixture] is from Eretz Yisrael and not from the Diaspora, [the laws of] demai apply.27 If the majority of the mixture is produce from the Diaspora, it is exempt from demai. [This law applies] also to species that we can presume that most frequently come from the Diaspora, e.g., nuts and plums.28
Halacha 12
[When there was a doubt whether] produce came from the Diaspora or not, our Sages [maintained that the ruling] is not dependent on the appearance [of the produce], its flavor, or its fragrance,29 but rather where the majority [of produce in the marketplace originated]. If produce [from the Diaspora] constitutes the majority, it is permitted.30 If not, it is forbidden.
What is implied? When there is a majority [of produce from the Diaspora] in a city, but not in its outlying areas, or in the outlying areas31 and not in the city, in the mountain, but not in the valley, in the valley, but not in the mountain, for a storekeeper, but not for a private homeowner, for a private homeowner and not for a storekeeper, for those where [produce from the Diaspora] is the majority, they are permitted.32 For those where it is not in the majority, they are obligated [to heed the restrictions of] demai.
Halacha 13
If, at first, there was a majority of produce from the Diaspora in the market place and then, that quantity was reduced, the market place returns to its original status, and one who purchases [produce] is obligated in [the restrictions of] demai.
Halacha 14
At the time the decree concerning demai was issued, it was not applied in the following situations. All of the [following] instances are exempt from the obligations of demai: One who purchases: produce for seed or as animal fodder, flour for the processing of hides33 or for a compress or a bandage, oil to kindle a lamp or to apply to utensils, wine for an eye ointment.34 [This ruling also applies to] challah separated by a common person,35 a mixture of terumahand ordinary produce,36 produce purchased with money from the second tithes,37 flour left over from a meal offering,38 and produce added to thebikkurim offerings.39 If a common person tells him that the appropriate separations have been made, there is no obligation to tithe it.40
Halacha 15
Halacha 16
Fragrant oil43 is exempt from [the obligations of] demai for we assume it will not be eaten. When a comber of wool purchases oil to put it in the wool,44it is exempt from [the obligations of] demai, because it is absorbed by the wool.45When, however, a weaver purchases oil to apply between his fingers,46it is obligated in [the laws of] demai. The rationale is that it is absorbed in his body and the application of oil is considered as drinking in all instances.47
Halacha 17
When a gentile asks a Jew to place oil on his wound,48 he is forbidden to use oil from which he is certain the appropriate separations have not been made. He is, however, permitted to use demai for this purpose.49 If a gentile places oil50on a tablet to twist around,51 after he arises, it is permitted for a Jew to sit on it afterwards.52
Halacha 18
When oil that is demai falls on a person's flesh, he may rub it without concern.53When a person purchases wine for fishbrine or a mixture of wine and water or legumes to crush and mix with honey, he is obligated in the restrictions ofdemai.54 If, however, he purchased fishbrine that contains wine, a mixture of wine and oil, or a mixture of crushed legumes and honey, he is exempt from the restrictions of demai, for [our Sages] did not apply their decree to a mixture ofdemai and other substances. If the entity that was demai that became mixed with other substances was something like spices or yeast,55since its flavor is evident, the restrictions involving demai must be observed for the entire mixture.
Halacha 19
In all those situations where one is exempt from demai because [our Sages] did not apply their decree in these instances, if one corrected [the produce as one does] demai, separating terumat ma'aser and the second tithe, his actions are considered of consequence.56 If, however, he sought to correct [produce that is] demai like one does produce from which we are certain that no separations were made,57 separating the great terumah and the tithes from it58 or he sought to correct produce from which we are certain that no separations were made by making separations like one does demai, his deeds are of no consequence.59
Halacha 20
[The following laws apply when] all [of the individuals in] a town sell produce that is definitely [tevel], one person sells demai , and one purchases [produce] from a person without knowing from whom he purchased. How should he correct the produce?60 He should separate terumah and terumat ma'aser and give it to the priest. And then he should separate the second tithe and it is considered as the second tithe of demai.
Halacha 21
Similar [concepts apply] if there were two containers [of produce] before a person: one containing tevel and one containing produce from which the separations were made. If one of them is lost,61 one must separate terumahand terumat ma'aser from the other one and give it to any priest he desires. And he should separate the second tithe and it is considered as the second tithe of demai.62
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
That grow wild and do not have an owner. Such produce does not have to be tithed.
|
| 2. |
Our definition of this and the following terms are dependent on the definitions given in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 1:1) as interpreted by Rav Kapach.
|
| 3. |
The literal translation is "when they will become yeast," the intent is when they will swell like bread into which yeast was placed. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 1:2).
|
| 4. |
In which instance even if generally, the species is exempt, in this instance, the produce must be tithed.
|
| 5. |
The owners generally leave such produce free to be taken by anyone, as the Rambam proceeds to explain. Hence, there is no obligation to separate tithes from it.
|
| 6. |
The nets where grapes and figs that have been harvested are kept to dry [ibid. (Nedarim 8:4)].
|
| 7. |
The peels and seeds of the grapes and the dregs that are separated from the wine and fall to the bottom of the container [ibid. (Ma'aserot 5:6)].
Our translation follows the standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah. There are manuscripts and early printings that stated tamarim instead of temadim. According to that version, the translation would be "date vinegar." The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh, however, follow the version stated in the standard texts.
|
| 8. |
The Kessef Mishnehexplains that the rationale is that the wine dregs are usually left as ownerless. Hence, it is only in a place where that is the common practice that this law applies.
|
| 9. |
In contrast to the area inhabited by the Jews who ascended from Egypt in the first conquest.
|
| 10. |
See Hilchot Terumah, ch. 1, for a description of these geographic terms.
|
| 11. |
Conversely, we operate under the assumption that any produce found within the borders of Eretz Yisrael is bound by the restrictions of demai [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai1:3)].
|
| 12. |
If, however, there is a doubt concerning the matter, we assume that the produce grew in the land where it was found.
|
| 13. |
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 2:1).
|
| 14. |
All of these species grow only in Eretz Yisrael.
|
| 15. |
A city in Southern Lebanon, close to, but not immediately bordering on Eretz Yisrael.
|
| 16. |
Since the produce was brought by donkey-drivers who travel longer distances, we consider the possibility that it was brought from Eretz Yisrael (Radbaz). As indicated by a comparison to the following halachah, here we are speaking about a caravan of donkeys.
|
| 17. |
Because rice which requires plentiful water is not usually grown in Eretz Yisrael.
|
| 18. |
As explained in the previous halachah.
|
| 19. |
But instead, stored the local produce.
|
| 20. |
As opposed to the caravan mentioned in the previous halachah, a single donkey-driver will travel short distances.
|
| 21. |
Also a city in Southern Lebanon. It is very close to Eretz Yisrael.
The commentaries have questioned the Rambam's comments, noting that in actual fact, Tyre is closer to Eretz Yisrael than Tzidon. Among the explanations given is that there were two cities named Tzidon and the smaller one was in fact closer to Eretz Yisrael than Tyre. See Rambam LeAm.
|
| 22. |
Here as well we are speaking about a caravan of donkey-drivers who travel long distances. As such, it is unlikely that they brought produce from Eretz Yisrael, for it is relatively close.
|
| 23. |
If, however, the gentile grew the produce himself, it is exempt from the obligation of tithes.
|
| 24. |
In later eras, by contrast, the land was owned primarily by gentiles and there is no need to consider the produce as demai (Radbaz).
|
| 25. |
And it is possible that he brought from his own produce.
|
| 26. |
The Radbaz states that this applies to produce that was sold to a Jew who completed the tasks associated with its preparation. Even though such produce must be tithed, the stringency of demaidoes not apply.
|
| 27. |
For as in all matters, the ruling is dependent on the majority (Radbaz).
|
| 28. |
The particular species of plums the Rambam mentions grew primarily in Damascus and the laws of demai do not apply to produce that grows there (Chapter 12, Halachah 11).
|
| 29. |
I.e., one might say that as a result of these factors one could identify the source of the produce.
|
| 30. |
I.e., without tithing.
|
| 31. |
This is the interpretation of the term followed by most authorities. From the Rambam's wording inHilchot Ishut 13:17, the interpretation would be: "When there is a majority in a town, but not in a metropolis...."
|
| 32. |
To partake of it without observing the restrictions of demai.
|
| 33. |
See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 1:3) for clarification regarding this and the other subjects mentioned in this halachah.
|
| 34. |
Produce used for purposes other than for food.
|
| 35. |
For challah like terumah carries a punishment of death at the hand of heaven and even the common people were careful with regard to its observance.
|
| 36. |
Since such a mixture contains terumah which involves such a severe penalty, the common people were careful with regard to the prohibitions involved.
|
| 37. |
I.e., after the second tithe is redeemed, the money used for its redemption must be used to purchase food in Jerusalem.
|
| 38. |
The priest would take a handful of flour from a meal offering to offer on the altar. The remainder was eaten by the priests. We do not suspect that the remainder was demai.
|
| 39. |
The first fruits of the seven species for which Eretz Yisrael is praised must be brought to the Temple and given to the priests as the bikkurim offerings. Occasionally, fruits of the same species were added to the offering to make it more impressive. These are referred to as "produce added to the bikkurim."
|
| 40. |
Nevertheless, even in these instances, the initial preference should be to purchase the produce from a trustworthy source (Radbaz).
|
| 41. |
The separations are necessary in this instance, for the gentile may sell the produce to another Jew (Radbaz).
|
| 42. |
For once he has incurred the obligation to make the separations associated with demai, he is not absolved from that responsibility until he does so (ibid.).
|
| 43. |
Olive oil mixed with fragrant spices [Rav Kappach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 1:3)].
|
| 44. |
Wool would be combed to remove its dirt and other impurities attached to it. Oil was applied to the wool to make the combing process easier.
|
| 45. |
Like the oil applied to utensils mentioned in Halachah 14.
|
| 46. |
As protection for them in the weaving process.
|
| 47. |
See Hilchot Shivitat Esor 1:5.
|
| 48. |
I.e., he is asking a chavair to use the chavair's own oil for this purpose.
|
| 49. |
As a salve. If a chavair knows that produce has not been tithed, he may not use it in a manner that removes it from his possession or destroys it until he tithes it. For using it to benefit another person is equivalent to a sale (Chasdai David). With regard to demai, however, leniency may be shown, for he is using it for medical purposes for a gentile. If, however, he is using it for a Jew, the tithes must be separated even in this instance.
|
| 50. |
This refers even to oil from which we are certain separations have not been made.
|
| 51. |
One of the ways people would apply oil to their flesh was to place it on a marble tablet and then roll on the tablet.
|
| 52. |
Even though the oil will be applied to his flesh. The rationale is that once the gentile used it, the holiness vested in the terumah has been defiled and it is no longer necessary to make any separations from it. Note a parallel in Hilchot Terumot 11:8 (Chasdei David). In this instance, we are speaking about demai (which is feared to be tevel) and not terumah and in its present state, it is not holy. Nevertheless, the same principles can be applied.
|
| 53. |
As mentioned above, one should not apply oil that is demai to one's body. In this instance, however, the oil fell on the person's body against his will and its holiness is defiled at that time. Hence, what happens afterwards is not significant and he can continue rubbing that oil into to his flesh.
|
| 54. |
Because they were already distinct entities obligated in the restrictions of demai before the mixture came into being.
|
| 55. |
I.e., an entity that has an effect that is far greater than what could be expected from its size. This is a general principle applied with regard to all of the Torahs prohibitions; see Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 16:1-2.
|
| 56. |
He must give the terumat ma'aser to a priest and redeem the second tithe and use it to purchase food in Jerusalem.
|
| 57. |
Our translation follows the text suggested by the Kessef Mishneh. It is found in several authentic manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The version in the standard printed text - which was also the version possessed by the Ra'avad - differs slightly.
|
| 58. |
This is unnecessary, for we assume that terumah has already been separated. With regard to the tithes - the first tithe and the tithe for the poor - for demai, it is not necessary to give these to the Levite and the poor person, as one does when he is certain that the separations have not been made. Instead, all that is necessary is to make the separations.
|
| 59. |
In the latter instance, his deeds are of no consequence, because since he is not separating the great terumah, he is making the separations in improper order. Since that is undesirable, we assume that had he known what he was required to do, he would have made the separations in the appropriate order. Hence the separation that he did make is considered to have been made in error and therefore invalid.
|
| 60. |
Because it is possible that it is demai and it is possible that it is definitely tevel. Generally, we follow the principle that whenever the existence of an entity is fixed, we do not look at the actual ratio of permitted and forbidden entities. Instead, we consider it as if half are forbidden and half are permitted (see Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 8:11) . Now, in this instance, there is a stringency in considering the produce as tevel - that one must separate the great terumah. And there is a stringency in considering the produce as demai - that he must separate terumat ma'aser and the second tithe. To permit the use of the produce, he must fulfill both stringencies. He must also separate the first tithe and the tithe for the poor. He does not have to give this produce away, because of the doubt concerning its status. Instead, he may keep it for himself.
|
| 61. |
But we do not know which one.
|
| 62. |
In this instance as well, since it is possible that the separations have already been made, we do not require him to give the first tithe and the tithe of the poor. Those separations that involve prohibitions, by contrast, must be made.
|
Maaser - Chapter 14
Halacha 1
When a person purchases [produce] from a wholesaler and then purchases [produce] from him a second time, he should not separate tithes from one batch for another. [This applies] even if they are of one species, and even from one container, and even if he himself recognized the barrel [from which the produce was taken].1 [The rationale is that] a wholesaler purchasers from many different people and sells [it]. Perhaps the produce he first sold was from a common person whose produce is demai2 and the batch he sold later was from a chavairwho made the appropriate separations. As we already explained,3 we do not separate tithes from produce that is obligated to be tithed for produce that is exempt or from produce that is exempt for produce that is obligated. If the wholesaler said that [both batches] are from one person, we rely on his word.4
Halacha 2
When [a wholesaler] sells hops or vegetables and they are being brought and collected before him, a purchaser should tithe each bunch of hops, each bundle [of vegetables], and each date individually.5
Halacha 3
When a person purchases [produce] from a private individual and then purchases [the same species] from him a second time, he may separate the tithes from one batch for the other.6 [This applies] even when he purchases [produce] from two containers, and even from two cities. [The rationale is that] we operate under the presumption that a private person sells only his own produce.
Halacha 4
[Different rules apply when] a private person sells vegetables in the market place. When [produce] is brought to him from his gardens, [a purchaser] may tithe from one batch for the entire quantity. If, however, he is also brought [produce] from other gardens, should one purchase a batch from him and then purchase a second batch, he should not tithe from one for the other.7
Halacha 5
When a person purchases bread from a baker, he should not tithe from the warm bread for the cool bread, for one might say that the wheat [used for] yesterday's [bread] was from one person and that [used] for today's is from another.8
Halacha 6
When a person purchases [bread] from a bakery9 he may tithe from one loaf for all the others even if [the loaves] are from different molds. For a baker who sells to a bakery10 bakes his dough in different molds. If, however, one purchases [bread] from a distributor, one should tithe each mold individually,11 for a distributor purchases from two [or more] bakers.
Halacha 7
When nine distributors purchase [bread] from ten bakers, since one of them purchases from two [bakers], anyone who purchases [bread] from one of the nine must tithe each mold individually.12
Halacha 8
When a person purchases [bread] from a poor person and similarly, if a poor person was given13 slices of bread or slices of a cake of dried figs, he should tithe each one individually. For dates and dried figs, he should group the entire quantity together and tithe them.
Halacha 9
If a person ground a loaf of bread [into] crumbs or ground dried figs and made them into a cake,16 he should separate tithes for the entire quantity.
Halacha 10
When workers or guests were reclining and eating and they left over slices [of bread], one should tithe each one individually.17
Blessed be the Merciful One who grants assistance.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
And thus one might think that both batches came from the same person.
|
| 2. |
Since the wholesaler sells in large quantities, he is permitted to sell demai (Chapter 11, Halachah 2).
|
| 3. |
Chapter 1, Halachah 6; Hilchot Terumah 5:12.
|
| 4. |
Even though he is a common person. The rationale is that he has nothing to gain by lying.
|
| 5. |
The tithes cannot be separated from one for the other for the reason stated in the previous halachah.
|
| 6. |
For each person may separate tithes from one batch of his own produce for another. Since the person who grows this produce has this option, it is also granted to one who purchases from him.
|
| 7. |
For it is possible that the second batch came from a different person and the difficulties mentioned in the first halachah might apply. This suspicion also applies in the halachot that follow.
|
| 8. |
This applies even if the appearance of the bread is similar and they were baked in the same mold [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 5:3)].
|
| 9. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.).
|
| 10. |
Our version of the text is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.). The standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah follows a slightly different version.
|
| 11. |
When many loaves were made from the same mold, it is sufficient to separate tithes from one loaf for all those made in the same mold. One need not separate from each loaf individually, because we assume that all the loaves from the same mold came from the same baker.
|
| 12. |
This applies even when the majority of the distributors bought their bread from one baker.
|
| 13. |
I.e., as charity. If he was given them as part of the presents given to the poor, he is not liable to make separations from them.
|
| 14. |
Since the donor is generous, we assume that he also separated the tithes. Hence, the obligation to separate the tithes is merely a stringency. Therefore we are lenient with regard to its observance and do not suspect that the produce was given to the poor person by different people [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 5:5)].
|
| 15. |
Since the donor was tightfisted, it is unlikely that he separated the tithes. Hence, the obligation to separate the tithes is more compelling and we are stringent with regard to the above suspicion (ibid.).
|
| 16. |
A loaf of bread and a cake of dried figs is considered as a large present. Hence the more lenient laws mentioned in the previous halachah apply (see Radbaz).
|
| 17. |
We are speaking about the guests or workers of one person. Nevertheless, one cannot be lenient and separate tithes for the entire batch as one, for it is possible that one of the workers or guests separated the tithes and others did not and thus one might be separating tithes from produce from which tithes had been separated for produce from which they had not been. Although demai may be fed to guests (Chapter 10, Halachah 11), there may be some who desire to separate tithes as a stringency, but others will not.
|
Maaser Sheini - Chapter 1
Halacha 1
After1 separating the first tithe every year, we separate the second tithe,2as [Deuteronomy 14:22] states: "You shall certainly tithe the produce of your crops."3 In the third and sixth years [of the seven year agricultural cycle], we separate the tithe for the poor instead of the second tithe, as we explained.4
Halacha 2
The first of Tishrei is the beginning of the year with regard to the reckoning of the tithes5 for grain, legumes,6 and vegetables. Whenever the term Rosh HaShanah is used [with regard to crops], the intent is the first of Tishrei. The fifteenth of Shvat is the beginning of the year with regard to reckoning the tithes for fruit-trees.
What is implied? If grain or legumes7 reach "the phase of tithing"8 before Rosh HaShanah of the third year,9 the second tithe should be separated from them even though they became fully developed and were gathered in the third year. If, however, they did not reach "the phase of tithing" until after Rosh HaShanah of the third year,10the tithe for the poor should be separated from them. Similarly, if fruit from trees reaches "the phase of tithing" before the fifteenth of Shvat in the third year, it should be tithed according to the previous year and the second tithe should be separated from it even though it became fully developed and was gathered at the end of the third year. Similarly, if it reaches "the phase of tithing" before the fifteenth of Shvat in the fourth year, the tithe for the poor should be separated from it even though it became fully developed and was gathered at the end of the fourth year. If it reaches "the phase of tithing" after the fifteenth of Shvat, it should be tithed like the produce of the coming year.
Halacha 3
Even though the fruit of carob trees begin to ripen11 before the fifteenth of Shvat, they should be tithed according to the coming year,12 since [the obligation to] tithe them is of Rabbinic origin.13
It appears to me that this applies only with regard to the carobs that grow in Tzalmona or other similar species that are not fit to be eaten by most people. [Hence,] the obligation to partake of them is Rabbinic in origin.14 It appears to me that other carobs are similar to the rest of the fruit of the trees.15
Halacha 4
Vegetables should be tithed according to the year when they are harvested.16What is implied? If they are harvested on the day of Rosh HaShanah of the third year,17 the tithe for the poor should be separated from them even though they reached "the phase of tithing"18 and [indeed,] fully matured19 in the second year. If they were harvested in the fourth year, the second tithe should be separated from them.
Halacha 5
Similarly, among fruit from trees, only an esrog is like a vegetable,20 [i.e., the laws governing it] whether for tithes or the Sabbatical year are dependent on when it is harvested.
What is implied?21 If it was harvested in the third year after the fifteenth of Shvat, the tithe for the poor should be separated from it even though its growth was completed in the second year. Similarly, if it was gathered in the fourth year before the fifteenth of Shvat, the tithe for the poor should be separated from it.22 If it was harvested in the fourth year after the fifteenth of Shvat, the second tithe should be separated from it.
Halacha 6
Although the laws governing an esrog depend on when it was reaped, when an esrog that grew23 in the sixth year entered the seventh year, tithes must be separated from it.24 [This applies] even though it was only an olive size [at the beginning of the Sabbatical year] and became the size of a loaf of bread [during that year].
Halacha 7
We apply both the stringencies that apply to trees and those that apply to vegetables to caper berries.25 Thus if they grew26 from the second year and then they entered into the third year and were harvested before the fifteenth of Shvat, the first tithe should be separated. Afterwards, another tithe27 should be separated. Afterwards, it should be redeemed28 and then given to the poor.29The proceeds of the redemption [should be used to purchase food that] is eaten according to the laws of the second tithe. Thus it is as if he separated both the second tithe and the tithe for the poor.
Halacha 8
With regard to rice, millet,30 poppy seed, and sesame seeds, even if the plants took root before Rosh HaShanah, we are concerned only with the completion of [the maturity of] the fruit and thus the tithes are separated as is the produce of the coming year. Similarly, with regard to Egyptian beans, even though a portion of the crop took root before Rosh HaShanah and a portion afterwards, he should gather the entire crop together31 and separate terumah and tithes from the entire crop as one. For everything depends on the produce reaching maturity.32
Halacha 9
When one withheld water from onions that do not produce sprouts33 for 30 days or when one withheld water from onions that are irrigated from three periods34before Rosh HaShanah, they should be tithed as produce of the previous year.35 If water was withheld from them for less than this - and thus they began to dry up before Rosh HaShanah36 - they should be tithed like produce of the coming year.
Halacha 10
[The following rules apply when] Egyptian beans reached a third of their growth before Rosh HaShanah. If they were sown to produce seed,37 they should be tithed as produce of the previous year.38 If they were sown to produce vegetables,39 they should be tithed as produce of the coming year.40 If they were sown to produce seed and vegetables or they were sown to produce seed and then [the owner changed his mind and] thought to use them for vegetables [as well], he should tithe from the seeds for the vegetables and from the vegetables as seeds.41
[Different rules apply if the beans] did not reach one third of their growth before Rosh HaShanah. If they were sown to produce seed, they should be tithed as produce of the previous year, but the vegetables that grow should be tithed as they are harvested, provided they are harvested before Rosh HaShanah.42 If they were harvested after Rosh HaShanah, both the vegetables and the seeds should be tithed as produce of the coming year.43
If they were sown to produce seed and then [the owner changed his mind and] thought to use them for vegetables [only], the ruling follows his thought.44 If they were sown to produce vegetables and then [the owner changed his mind and] thought to use them for seed, the thought to use it as seed has no effect on the ruling unless he withholds water from it for three periods45 when [the plants] would be ordinarily be watered,46 and [then,] only when [the plants] reached a third of their growth before Rosh HaShanah.47
[They are, however, governed by different rules] if they did not reach a third of their growth before Rosh HaShanah even though he withheld water from it for three periods when [the plants] would be ordinarily be watered.48 If he sowed it for the purpose of seed and the entire crop grew into fully grown plants before Rosh HaShanah, the seed is tithed as produce of the previous year49 and the vegetables are tithed according to when they are harvested.50 If some of the plants reached their full growth and some did not, to this situation, we apply our Sages' statement:51 "He should gather the entire crop together." [Thus he should separate tithes from the entire crop as one,] separating tithes from the seed for the vegetables and from the vegetables as seed.52
Halacha 11
When produce from the second year becomes mixed with produce from the third year or produce from the third year becomes mixed with that of the fourth year, we follow the majority.53 If it is half and half, we separate the second tithe from the entire quantity, but not the tithe for the poor.54 [The rationale is that] the second tithe is a more severe obligation, because it is sacred,55 while the tithe for the poor is ordinary produce. Similarly, when there is a doubt whether produce is from the second year or from the third year, the second tithe should be separated from it.
Halacha 12
Whenever [produce] is exempt from the first tithe, it is also exempt from the second tithe and the tithe for the poor.56 Whenever produce is obligated in the first tithe, it is also obligated in these two. All of the individuals who may separate terumah may also separate [these] tithes and those who are not entitled to separate terumah may not separate these tithes. When any of the individuals with regard to whom it is said that [they should not separateterumah,] but if they separate terumah, the separation is effective57 separate these tithes, their separation is effective. When any of the individuals with regard to whom it is said that their separation of terumah is ineffective58separate these tithes, their separation is ineffective.
Halacha 13
When a person separated the first tithe from produce before the obligation to tithe was established,59 he may snack from it before separating the second tithe. For [separating] the first [tithe] does not create an obligation to separate the second. If, however, an obligation to tithe was established, it is forbidden to snack from it until he separates the second tithe or the tithe for the poor even though he has already separated the first tithe.60
Halacha 14
Since the second tithe must be brought [to Jerusalem],61 it should not be brought from the Diaspora,62 like the firstborn of animals.63 For this reason, our Sages did not obligate the separation of the second tithe in Syria.64
It appears to me that the second tithe that is separated in Babylonia and in Egypt65 should be redeemed and the proceeds taken to Jerusalem. Similarly, it appears to me that the obligation to separate the second tithe in these places was established only so that there would be an obligation to separate the tithe for the poor, so that the poor of the Jewish people could rely on it.66
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
For preferably, the tithes should be separated in order, as stated in Hilchot Terumah 3:23.
|
| 2. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 128) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 473) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. In Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam states that separating the second tithe and partaking of it in Jerusalem are considered two facets of one mitzvah. The Ramban (in his Hosafot to Sefer HaMitzvot) differs and considers partaking of the produce in Jerusalem as another positive mitzvah.
|
| 3. |
From the context of the passage, it is obvious that it is referring to another tithe and not to the first tithe which is given to the Levites.
|
| 4. |
Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 6:3; Hilchot Ma'aser 9:3-4.
|
| 5. |
I.e., with regard to the reckoning of the years of the agricultural cycle. These concepts also apply to with regard to the Sabbatical year.
|
| 6. |
This is the popular translation of the Hebrew term kitniyot. More particularly, the Hebrew term includes many species that are not legumes3.
|
| 7. |
Vegetables are not mentioned here, because different laws apply to them, as stated in Halachah 4. With regard to kitniyot, note, however, Halachah 8.
|
| 8. |
I.e., one third of their full growth, as stated in Hilchot Ma'aser 2:5.
|
| 9. |
I.e., they reached this level of growth during the second year of the agricultural cycle. As mentioned above, the second tithe is separated in the second year of the agricultural cycle and the tithe for the poor in the third year.
|
| 10. |
Even though their initial growth was in the second year.
|
| 11. |
Black spots begin to appear upon them. This is "the phase of tithing" for them, as stated in Hilchot Ma'aser 2:5.
|
| 12. |
I.e., the year when they are harvested.
|
| 13. |
See Hilchot Terumah 3:3; Hilchot Ma'aser 1:9.
Because the obligation is Rabbinic in origin, they are tithed like vegetables for the obligation to tithe them is also of Rabbinic origin.
|
| 14. |
According to Scriptural Law, there is no obligation to tithe them, because most people do not partake of them. Nevertheless since there are some who do partake of them, our Sages imposed this obligation.
|
| 15. |
And the mitzvah of tithing them is of Scriptural origin.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, maintaining that the carobs of Tzalmona need not be tithed at all and that the obligation to tithe all trees is Rabbinic in origin. The Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh discuss these points at length.
|
| 16. |
Our Sages (Kiddushin 3a) explain the difference between vegetables and other crops. Unlike other crops for which the water from the rains suffice, vegetables require irrigation.
|
| 17. |
It is forbidden for a Jew to harvest produce on Rosh HaShanah. We are speaking about produce belonging to a Jew harvested by a gentile.
|
| 18. |
In contrast to the fruit mentioned in Halachah 4.
|
| 19. |
In contrast to the species mentioned in Halachah 8.
|
| 20. |
For it also requires water from irrigation.
|
| 21. |
Here the Rambam is outlining the laws governing the tithes. The laws governing the Sabbatical year are described in Hilchot Shemitah 4:12.
|
| 22. |
Because with regard to trees, the fourth year does not start until the fifteenth of Shvat.
|
| 23. |
I.e., reached "the phase of tithing."
|
| 24. |
The Ra'avad has a different understanding of Rosh HaShanah 15a-b, the source for the Rambam's ruling and differs on that basis. The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's understanding of that passage and hence his ruling here.
|
| 25. |
The Ra'avad notes that the Rambam's ruling appears to contradict Berachot 36a which cites the position quoted by the Rambam in the name of the School of Shammai, while the School of Hillel considers it only as the fruits of a tree. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that capers are considered as the fruits of a tree only with regard to the prohibitions ofkilayim and orlah. With regard to the second tithe, by contrast, since there is no loss in observing both stringencies, we follow the stricter ruling.
|
| 26. |
Reaching one third of their growth.
|
| 27. |
Which as reflected in the continuation of the halachah will serve as both the second tithe and the tithe for the poor.
|
| 28. |
As is done with the second tithe.
|
| 29. |
As is done with the tithe for the poor.
|
| 30. |
According to some opinions, the translation of these two terms should be reversed.
|
| 31. |
The Ra'avad questions that Rambam's ruling, for seemingly, if everything depends on when the produce reaches maturity, it is not necessary to gather all the produce together. Instead, it can be tithed as it is gathered. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam is saying that even if the produce is gathered all together, there is no difficulty. We do not say that the produce is from different years, because everything depends on when the produce reaches maturity. He is not, however, required to gather the produce together.
|
| 32. |
See Halachah 10 where the Rambam mentions other particulars with regard to Egyptian beans.
|
| 33. |
The literal translation of the Rambam's words (taken from Shivi'it 2:9) is "eunuch onions." In his Commentary to the Mishnah, he explains that term: "[Generally,] when onions are left in a moist place after being uprooted from the ground, they sprout forth green leaves. There is one type that does not do this. They are called 'eunuch onions,' for they represent a eunuch who does not produce seed."
|
| 34. |
I.e., three periods in which they would ordinarily be watered. For example, if it was customary to water them every week, the laws that follow would apply if one withheld water from tem for three weeks.
|
| 35. |
Even though they are not harvested immediately, their growth has already ceased.
|
| 36. |
And thus one might think that their growth has been completed.
|
| 37. |
I.e., to take the beans. See Rav Kappach's version of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shivi'it 8:2).
|
| 38. |
I.e., even the vegetables. For the vegetables are considered as secondary to the seed (beans). Thus these plants are judged as other legumes in which case, the ruling depends on when the beans reach one third of their growth as stated in Halachah 2.
|
| 39. |
I.e., the leaves of the plant.
|
| 40. |
I.e., even the seed. For the seed are considered as secondary to the vegetables and vegetables should be tithed according to when they are gathered as stated in Halachah 4.
|
| 41. |
I.e., he separates one tithe for both the vegetables and the seeds, even though there is reason to say that the tithes for each of the two should be separated separately. If he harvested the plants primarily for the seeds, even the vegetables should be tithed as if they were seeds. Conversely, if he harvested the plants primarily as vegetables, even the seeds should be tithed as such.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, questioning why he bases his ruling on the Jerusalem Talmud (Shivi'it 2:8) when - the Ra'avad states - that ruling is problematic. The Radbaz and theKessef Mishneh support the Rambam's view.
|
| 42. |
Only in such a situation should the produce be tithed as produce of the second year. The Ra'avad notes that this ruling is problematic: Since the produce has not reached a third of its growth, why is there a need to tithe it? The Radbaz explains that since the person gathers, it is significant for him, and - as far as he is concerned, it has reached its full growth.
|
| 43. |
For the vegetables, this ruling is obvious and even for the seeds, it applies because the plants did not reach one third of their growth in the previous year.
|
| 44. |
And they should be tithed according to when they are harvested.
|
| 45. |
When produce is grown to be used as a vegetable, it is watered before it is harvested. When it is grown for seeds, it is not (Radbaz). The Ra'avad questions the Hebrew term used by the Rambam. The Radbaz states that it means "harvests," because, as explained above, vegetables are usually watered before they are harvested.
|
| 46. |
For his intent to be significant, it has to be reinforced by a deed.
|
| 47. |
Otherwise, it would not be appropriate for them to be tithed as produce of the second year.
|
| 48. |
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling in this instance as well and again the Radbaz and theKessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's approach.
|
| 49. |
For they reached a level of growth obligated them to be tithed at that time.
|
| 50. |
Since he intended to use the plants for vegetables, we do not say that the vegetables are entirely insignificant.
|
| 51. |
Rosh HaShanah 13b.
|
| 52. |
As explained in Halachah 8.
|
| 53. |
I.e., the entire quantity of produce is tithed according to the laws governing the majority. For we assume that any individual fruit was separated from the majority.
|
| 54. |
The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the tithe for the poor should also be separated, for if it is not separated, the produce is tevel. Rav Yosef Korcus differs, explaining that the same logic could be used with regard to the first clause of the halachah, and that ruling is based on an explicit mishnah (Makshirin 2:11). This explanation provides us with a new definition of tevel - produce from which the separations have been made to the best of man's ability.
|
| 55. |
I.e., it is considered as sacred property, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 17.
|
| 56. |
See Hilchot Ma'aser 1:7.
|
| 57. |
See Hilchot Terumot 4:4.
|
| 58. |
See ibid.:2.
|
| 59. |
I.e., through one of the six situations mentioned in Hilchot Ma'aser 3:2-3.
|
| 60. |
For the prohibition against partaking of tevel applies until all the tithes have been separated. SeeHilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 10:20.
|
| 61. |
As explained in the following chapter.
|
| 62. |
The Scriptural obligation to separate the second tithe applies only in Eretz Yisrael. Furthermore, not only is there no Rabbinic obligation, one should not do so.
|
| 63. |
The firstborn offspring of kosher animals must be offered as a sacrifice. Nevertheless, a firstborn animal in the Diaspora should not be brought to Jerusalem. Indeed, even if it is brought to the Temple, it is not offered as a sacrifice. See Hilchot Bechorot 1:5.
|
| 64. |
I.e., since the second tithe should not be brought from Syria to Jerusalem, our Sages did not require its separation there. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, but it is justified by the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh.
|
| 65. |
See Hilchot Terumot 1:1 which states that our Prophets and Sages ordained that terumah should be separated in these lands.
|
| 66. |
I.e., there was always a substantial Jewish community in these lands and our Sages wanted to provide the poor with an opportunity to receive their livelihood. This provision was not enacted with regard to Syria, because it was relatively close to Eretz Yisrael and the poor could receive their livelihood from the tithe for the poor separated there (Radbaz). The Ra'avad maintains that the second tithe should also be separated in Syria, but the commentaries follow the Rambam's view.
|
• Tuesday, Iyar 9, 5775 · 28 April 2015
Iyar 9, 24th day of the omer
Torah lessons: Chumash: Emor, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 49-54.
Tanya: This is also (p. 245)...preceding Atzilut.) (p. 247).
Our teacher the Baal Shem Tov said: Every single thing one sees or hears is an instruction for his conduct in the service of G-d. This is the idea of avoda, service, to comprehend and discern in all things a way in which to serve G-d.
___________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment