Today's Laws & Customs:
• Count "Twenty-Six Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the twenty-sixth 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-six days, which are three weeks and five 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: Hod sheb'Netzach -- "Humility in Ambition"
The teachings of Kabbalah explain that there are seven "Divine Attributes" --Sefirot -- that G-d assumes through which to relate to our existence: Chessed,Gevurah, Tifferet, Netzach, Hod, Yesod and Malchut ("Love", "Strength", "Beauty", "Victory", "Splendor", "Foundation" and "Sovereignty"). In the human being, created in the "image of G-d," the seven sefirot are mirrored in the seven "emotional attributes" of the human soul: Kindness, Restraint, Harmony, Ambition, Humility, Connection and Receptiveness. Each of the seven attributes contain elements of all seven--i.e., "Kindness in Kindness", "Restraint in Kindness", "Harmony in Kindness", etc.--making for a total of forty-nine traits. The 49-day Omer Count is thus a 49-step process of self-refinement, with each day devoted to the "rectification" and perfection of one the forty-nine "sefirot."
Links:
How to count the Omer
The deeper significance of the Omer Count
Today in Jewish History:
• Passing of Eli (891 BCE)
Eli the High Priest died upon learning that the Holy Ark containing the Tablets was captured by the Philistines, and that his two sons were killed in battle. Eli was the 13th in the line of the "Shoftim" ("judges") who led the People of Israel during the four centuries between the passing of Joshua in 1245 BCE and the crowning of King Saul in 879 BCE.
Link: The High Priest Eli
• Passing of Rif (1103)
Rabbi Isaac Al-Fasi (1013-1103), known by the acronym "Rif," was one of the earliest codifiers of the Talmud. In 1088 he was forced to flee his hometown of Fez, Morocco, to Spain, where he assumed the position of rabbi in Alusina (Lucene).
Daily Quote:
Fundamental to Judaism is the belief in One G-d, and the quest to seek unity in all things... What is truly remarkable is that this idea has also gained prominence in the sciences, particularly in recent years. Increasingly, scientific theory and research is focusing on the endeavor to express all physical phenomena in a single formula and, more importantly, to discover the singular unifying force which underlies all other forces, so that all other forces are shown to be aspects and outgrowths of this singular force...[The Lubavitcher Rebbe}
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Acharei-Kedoshim, 4th Portion Leviticus 18:22-19:14 with Rashi
• Chapter 18
22You shall not lie down with a male, as with a woman: this is an abomination. כב וְאֶת זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה הִוא:
23And with no animal shall you cohabit, to become defiled by it. And a woman shall not stand in front of an animal to cohabit with it; this is depravity. כגוּבְכָל בְּהֵמָה לֹא תִתֵּן שְׁכָבְתְּךָ לְטָמְאָה בָהּ וְאִשָּׁה לֹא תַעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי בְהֵמָה לְרִבְעָהּ תֶּבֶל הוּא:
this is depravity: Heb. תֶּבֶל, an expression denoting prostitution, sexual immorality, and adultery. Similarly, “and My wrath, because of their depravity (תַּבְלִיתָם).” (Isa. 10:25) Another explanation of תֶּבֶל הוּא : An expression which denotes mingling (בּלל) and mixing up; [here, it refers to the perverted mingling of] human seed and animal seed. תבל הוא: לשון קדש וערוה וניאוף, וכן ואפי על תבליתם (ישעיה י כה). דבר אחר תבל הוא לשון בלילה וערבוב, זרע אדם וזרע בהמה:
24You shall not defile yourselves by any of these things, for the nations, whom I am sending away from before you, have defiled themselves with all these things. כדאַל תִּטַּמְּאוּ בְּכָל אֵלֶּה כִּי בְכָל אֵלֶּה נִטְמְאוּ הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מְשַׁלֵּחַ מִפְּנֵיכֶם:
25And the land became defiled, and I visited its sin upon it, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. כהוַתִּטְמָא הָאָרֶץ וָאֶפְקֹד עֲוֹנָהּ עָלֶיהָ וַתָּקִא הָאָרֶץ אֶת ישְׁבֶיהָ:
26But as for you, you shall observe My statutes and My ordinances, and you shall not do like any of these abominations neither the native, nor the stranger who sojourns among you. כווּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אַתֶּם אֶת חֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת מִשְׁפָּטַי וְלֹא תַעֲשׂוּ מִכֹּל הַתּוֹעֵבֹת הָאֵלֶּה הָאֶזְרָח וְהַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּתוֹכְכֶם:
27For the people of the land who preceded you, did all of these abominations, and the land became defiled. כזכִּי אֶת כָּל הַתּוֹעֵבֹת הָאֵל עָשׂוּ אַנְשֵׁי הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵיכֶם וַתִּטְמָא הָאָרֶץ:
28And let the land not vomit you out for having defiled it, as it vomited out the nation that preceded you. כחוְלֹא תָקִיא הָאָרֶץ אֶתְכֶם בְּטַמַּאֲכֶם אֹתָהּ כַּאֲשֶׁר קָאָה אֶת הַגּוֹי אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵיכֶם:
And let the land not vomit you out: This can be compared to a prince who was fed obnoxious food, which could not stay in his intestines; so he vomited it out. Likewise, the Land of Israel cannot retain transgressors [and thus, it vomits them out]. — [Torath Kohanim 20:123] The Targum rendersוְלֹאתָקִיא, as: וְלֹא תְרוֹקֵן as:, denoting “emptying out” (רִקּוּן), i.e., the Land empties itself of the transgressors. ולא תקיא הארץ אתכם: משל לבן מלך שהאכילוהו דבר מאוס, שאין עומד במעיו אלא מקיאו, כך ארץ ישראל אינה מקיימת עוברי עבירה. ותרגומו ולא תרוקין, לשון ריקון, מריקה עצמה מהם:
29For anyone who commits any of these abominations, the persons doing so shall be cut off from the midst of their people. כטכִּי כָּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה מִכֹּל הַתּוֹעֵבֹת הָאֵלֶּה וְנִכְרְתוּ הַנְּפָשׁוֹת הָעֹשׂת מִקֶּרֶב עַמָּם:
the people doing so: הַנְּפָשׁוֹת הָעֹשׂת. [Since the verse begins, “anyone who does,” it should have used the singular form here. By using the plural, “the people doing so,”] it means both the male and female [involved in the act]. — [B.K. 32a] הנפשות העשת: הזכר והנקבה במשמע:
30And you shall observe My charge, not to commit any of the abominable practices that were done before you, and you shall not become defiled by them. I am the Lord your God. לוּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת מִשְׁמַרְתִּי לְבִלְתִּי עֲשׂוֹת מֵחֻקּוֹת הַתּוֹעֵבֹת אֲשֶׁר נַעֲשׂוּ לִפְנֵיכֶם וְלֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ בָּהֶם אֲנִי יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:
And you shall observe My charge: This [clause come] to admonish the courts regarding the matter. — [Torath Kohanim 18:151] ושמרתם את משמרתי: להזהיר בית דין על כך:
and you shall not become defiled by them. I am the Lord, your God:But if you do become defiled,“ [says God,] ”I am not your God, and you will be cut off from Me. What benefit will I have from you? Moreover, you will deserve annihilation.“ Therefore, it says, ”I am the Lord, your God." - [Torath Kohanim 18:151] ולא תטמאו בהם אני ה' אלהיכם: הא אם תטמאו, איני אלהיכם, ואתם נפסלים מאחרי, ומה הנאה יש לי בכם, ואתם מתחייבים כלייה, לכך נאמר אני ה' אלהיכם:
Chapter 19
1And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, אוַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָֹה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
2Speak to the entire congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them, You shall be holy, for I, the Lord, your God, am holy. בדַּבֵּר אֶל כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם קְדשִׁים תִּהְיוּ כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אֲנִי יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:
Speak to the entire congregation of the children of Israel: [This] teaches us that this passage was stated in the assembly [of the entire congregation of Israel] because most of the fundamental teachings of the Torah are dependent on it [i.e., they are encapsulated in this passage]. — [Torath Kohanim 19:1; Vayikra Rabbah 24:5] דבר אל כל עדת בני ישראל: מלמד שנאמרה פרשה זו בהקהל, מפני שרוב גופי תורה תלויין בה:
You shall be holy: Separate yourselves from sexual immorality and from sin, for wherever one finds a barrier against sexual immorality, one finds holiness, [for example:], “[They (the kohanim) shall not take in marriage] a woman who is a prostitute or one who was profaned…I, the Lord, Who sanctifies you [am holy]” (Lev. 21:7-8); and, “he shall not profane his offspring…I am the Lord, Who sanctifies him” (Lev. 21:15); and, “They shall be holy…[They shall not take in marriage] a woman who is a prostitute or one who was profaned” (Lev. 21:6-7). - [Vayikra Rabbah 24:4-6; and see also Sefer Hazikkaron] קדשים תהיו: הוו פרושים מן העריות ומן העבירה, שכל מקום שאתה מוצא גדר ערוה אתה מוצא קדושה, אשה זונה וחללה וגו' אני ה' מקדשכם, (ויקרא כא ז - ח) ולא יחלל זרעו אני ה' מקדשו (ויקרא כא טו) קדושים יהיו אשה זונה וחללה וגו' (ויקרא כא ו - ז):
3Every man shall fear his mother and his father, and you shall observe My Sabbaths. I am the Lord, your God. גאִישׁ אִמּוֹ וְאָבִיו תִּירָאוּ וְאֶת שַׁבְּתֹתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ אֲנִי יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:
Every man shall fear his mother and father: Every one of you shall fear his father and his mother. This is its simple meaning. Its Midrashic explanation, however, [is as follows]. Since the verse literally means, “Every man shall fear…,”] we know only [that this law applies to] a man; how do we know [that it applies to] a woman [as well]? When Scripture says, תִּירָאוּ [you shall fear, using the plural form], two are included [in the verse, namely, men and women]. But if this is so, why does the verse say, “Every man…?” Because a man has the ability to fulfill this [commandment without restriction, since he is independent and thus obliged to fear his parents], whereas a woman is [sometimes] under the authority of others [namely her husband. — [Kid. 30b; Torath Kohanim 19:3] איש אמו ואביו תיראו: כל אחד מכם תיראו אביו ואמו, זהו פשוטו. ומדרשו אין לי אלא איש, אשה מנין, כשהוא אומר תיראו, הרי כאן שנים אם כן למה נאמר איש, שהאיש סיפק בידו לעשות, אבל אשה רשות אחרים עליה:
[Every man] shall fear his mother and his father: Here, Scripture mentions the mother before the father, because He is privy to the fact that a child fears his father more than his mother [and therefore, by mentioning the mother first, Scripture emphasizes the duty of fearing her also. However,] in the case of honoring [one’s parents], Scripture mentions the father before the mother, because He is privy to the fact that a child honors his mother more than his father, since she wins his favor by [speaking kind and loving] words. [Therefore, by mentioning the father first in the context of honor, Scripture emphasizes the duty of honoring him also]. — [Kid. 31a] אמו ואביו תיראו: כאן הקדים אם לאב, לפי שגלוי לפניו שהבן ירא את אביו יותר מאמו, ובכבוד הקדים אב לאם, לפי שגלוי לפניו שהבן מכבד את אמו יותר מאביו, מפני שמשדלתו בדברים:
and you shall observe My Sabbaths: Scripture juxtaposes [the commandment of] observing the Sabbath with [that] of fearing one’s father [and mother], in order to state [the following principle]: “Although I have admonished you regarding the fear of your father, nevertheless, if he tells you to desecrate the Sabbath, do not listen to him.” And this is also the case with all the [other] commandments. — [B.M. 32a] [This is indicated by:] ואת שבתתי תשמרו: סמך שמירת שבת למורא אב, לומר אף על פי שהזהרתיך על מורא אב, אם יאמר לך חלל את השבת אל תשמע לו, וכן בשאר כל המצות:
I am the Lord, your God: [where “your” is in the plural form, meaning to say,] both you and your father are obligated to honor Me! Therefore, do not listen to him to negate My commands. — [B.M. 32a] Now, what constitutes “fear”? One must not sit in his place, speak in his stead [when it is his father’s turn to speak] or contradict him. And what constitutes “honor”? One must give [the father and mother] food and drink, clothe them and put on their shoes, and accompany them when they enter or leave. — [Torath Kohanim 19:3; Kid. 31b] אני ה' אלהיכם: אתה ואביך חייבים בכבודי, לפיכך לא תשמע לו לבטל את דברי. איזהו מורא, לא ישב במקומו ולא ידבר במקומו ולא יסתור את דבריו. ואיזהו כבוד, מאכיל ומשקה, מלביש ומנעיל, מכניס ומוציא:
4You shall not turn to the worthless idols, nor shall you make molten deities for yourselves. I am the Lord, your God. דאַל תִּפְנוּ אֶל הָאֱלִילִם וֵאלֹהֵי מַסֵּכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ לָכֶם אֲנִי יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:
You shall not turn to the worthless idols: to serve them. [The term] הָאֶלִילִם stems from אַל, naught , meaning that [these idols] are considered as naught. אל תפנו אל האלילם: לעבדם. אלילים לשון אל, כלא הוא חשוב:
molten deities: At first, they are just worthless idols. But if you turn after them, eventually, you will make them into deities. — [Torath Kohanim 19:8] ואלהי מסכה: תחילתן אלילים הם, ואם אתה פונה אחריהם, סופך לעשותן אלהות:
nor shall you make [molten deities] for yourselves: [This verse is to be understood as two separate admonitions, the first:] “Nor shall you make” [meaning] for other people; [the second:] “for yourselves” [meaning] nor shall others make them for you. Now, if you say that [this verse is one admonition, namely,] that you shall not make [molten deities] for yourselves, but others may make [them] for you, [this cannot be so, since] it has already been stated, “You shall not have [any other deities]” (Exod. 20:3) neither your own nor those of others. — [Torath Kohanim 19:9] לא תעשו לכם: לא תעשו לאחרים ולא אחרים לכם. ואם תאמר לא תעשו לעצמכם אבל אחרים עושין לכם, הרי כבר נאמר (שמות כ ג) לא יהיה לך, לא שלך ולא של אחרים:
5When you slaughter a peace offering to the Lord, you shall slaughter it for your acceptance. הוְכִי תִזְבְּחוּ זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים לַיהוָֹה לִרְצֹנְכֶם תִּזְבָּחֻהוּ:
When you slaughter…: This passage is stated only to teach us that the offerings must be slaughtered with the intent that they be eaten within this time, for if [you think that this passage comes to] fix a time limit for eating them, [this cannot be so, for] it has already been stated, “And if his sacrifice is a vow or a voluntary donation [it may be eaten]….” (Lev. 7:16). - [Torath Kohanim 19:10] וכי תזבחו וגו': לא נאמרה פרשה זו אלא ללמד שלא תהא זביחתן אלא על מנת להאכל בתוך הזמן הזה, שאם לקבוע להם זמן אכילה, הרי כבר נאמר (ויקרא ז טז) ואם נדר או נדבה זבח קרבנו וגו':
you shall slaughter it for your acceptance: The very outset of your slaughtering [the offering] must be with the intent that [it is for the purpose of causing] contentment [to God, as it were,] for your acceptance [by Him]. For if you think an invalidating thought regarding it, [says God,] the sacrifice will not gain your acceptance before Me. לרצנכם תזבחהו: תחלת זביחתו תהא על מנת נחת רוח שיהא לכם לרצון, שאם תחשבו עליו מחשבת פסול לא ירצה עליכם לפני:
for your acceptance: Heb., apaisement in French, appeasement. [Note that the spelling in Mikraoth Gedoloth matches the Italian appaciamento, more closely than the French. In Old French, it is spelled apayement according to Greenberg, or apaiemant according to Gukovitzki, and this form appears in many editions of Rashi.] This is according to its simple meaning. Our Rabbis, however, learned from here, that if someone was involved in another activity (מִתְעסֵּק) and accidentally slaughtered [e.g., if he threw a knife, and in its path it slaughtered an animal] designated for a holy sacrifice, it is invalid, because [in the context of sacrifices] one must intend to slaughter. — [Chul. 13a] לרצנכם: אפיימנ"ט [פיוס]. זהו לפי פשוטו. ורבותינו למדו (חולין יג א), מכאן למתעסק בקדשים שפסול, שצריך שיתכוין לשחוט:
6It may be eaten on the day you slaughter it and on the morrow, but anything left over until the third day, shall be burned in fire. ובְּיוֹם זִבְחֲכֶם יֵאָכֵל וּמִמָּחֳרָת וְהַנּוֹתָר עַד יוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי בָּאֵשׁ יִשָּׂרֵף:
It may be eaten on the day you slaughter it: When you slaughter it, you must slaughter it with the intent that you will eat it within this time limit, which I have already fixed for you [regarding that particular sacrifice]." ביום זבחכם יאכל: כשתזבחוהו, תשחטוהו על מנת לאכלו בזמן שקבעתי לכם כבר:
7And if it would be eaten on the third day, it is abominable; it shall not be accepted. זוְאִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי פִּגּוּל הוּא לֹא יֵרָצֶה:
And if it would be eaten…: If this [verse] does not refer to [an intention to eat the sacrifice] outside its time limit, since this has already been stated, “And if, [on the third day,] any of the flesh of his sacrifice would be eaten,” (Lev. 7:18) [explained there by Rashi to refer to someone who, while slaughtering the sacrifice, intends, to eat it outside its time limit], it must be utilized to refer to [someone who, while slaughtering the sacrifice, intends to eat it] outside its permitted location. — [Torath Kohanim 19:10] Now, one might think that if someone eats from it, he is liable to the punishment of excision [just like a sacrifice slaughtered with the intention to eat it outside its time limit]. Scripture, therefore, states, “And the person who eats from it, shall bear his sin” (Lev. 7:18)-“from it,” but not from anything like it. This excludes [from the punishment of excision, a sacrifice] slaughtered with the intention [of eating it] outside its [permitted] location. — [Zev. 29a] ואם האכל יאכל וגו': אם אינו ענין לחוץ לזמנו, שהרי כבר נאמר (ויקרא ז יח) ואם האכל יאכל מבשר זבח שלמיו וגו', תנהו ענין לחוץ למקומו. יכול יהיו חייבין כרת על אכילתו, תלמוד לומר (שם) והנפש האוכלת ממנו עונה תשא, ממנו ולא מחבירו, יצא הנשחט במחשבת חוץ למקומו:
it is abominable: Heb. פִּגּוּל, abominable, like, “and broth of abominable things (פִּגּוּלִים) is in their vessels” (Isa. 65:4). פגול: מתועב, כמו (ישעיה סה ד) ומרק פגולים כליהם:
8And whoever eats it shall bear his sin, because he has profaned what is holy to the Lord, and that person shall be cut off from his people. חוְאֹכְלָיו עֲוֹנוֹ יִשָּׂא כִּי אֶת קֹדֶשׁ יְהוָֹה חִלֵּל וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מֵעַמֶּיהָ:
And whoever eats it, shall bear his sin: Scripture is referring to a sacrifice actually left over (נוֹתָר) [past its time limit]. But one is not punished by excision in the case of a sacrifice slaughtered [with the intention of eating it] outside its permitted location, for Scripture has already excluded this case [from the punishment of excision (see Rashi on verse 7 above)]. Rather, this verse is referring to actual נוֹתָר. [And how do we know this?] In Tractate Kereithoth (5a) we learn this through a gezeirah shavah [a Rabbinical tradition that links the word קֹדֶשׁ common to our verse and to Exod. 29:34, the latter dealing with actual נוֹתָר]. ואכליו עונו ישא: בנותר גמור הכתוב מדבר ואינו ענוש כרת על הנשחט חוץ למקומו שכבר מיעטו הכתוב. וזהו בנותר גמור מדבר. ובמסכת כריתות (ה א) למדוהו מגזירה שוה:
9When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not fully reap the corner of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. טוּבְקֻצְרְכֶם אֶת קְצִיר אַרְצְכֶם לֹא תְכַלֶּה פְּאַת שָׂדְךָ לִקְצֹר וְלֶקֶט קְצִירְךָ לֹא תְלַקֵּט:
You shall not fully reap the corner of your field: [meaning] that one should leave the corner at the edge of his field [unharvested]. — [Torath Kohanim 19:15] לא תכלה פאת שדך: שיניח פאה בסוף שדהו:
gleanings of your harvest: Heb. לֶקֶט. [This refers to individual] stalks that fall down at the time of harvest. [And how many stalks constitute לֶקֶט ?] One or two; three, however, do not constitute לֶקֶט [and the owner may gather them for himself]. — [Peah 6:5] ולקט קצירך: שבלים הנושרים בשעת קצירה אחת או שתים, אבל שלש אינן לקט:
10And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you collect the [fallen] individual grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger. I am the Lord, your God. יוְכַרְמְךָ לֹא תְעוֹלֵל וּפֶרֶט כַּרְמְךָ לֹא תְלַקֵּט לֶעָנִי וְלַגֵּר תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָם אֲנִי יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:
And you shall not glean: Heb. לֹא תְעוֹלֵל, you shall not take the small clusters (עוֹלֵלוֹת) therein, and these are identifiable. “Which clusters עוֹלֵלוֹת ? Any one which has neither a כָּתֵף [a shoulder] or a נָטֵף [drippings].” [Peah 7:4. See Rashi Deut. 24:21 for explanation.] לא תעולל: לא תטול עוללות שבה והן ניכרות. איזהו עוללות כל שאין לה לא כתף ולא נטף:
the [fallen] individual grapes: Heb. וּפֶרֶט. Individual grapes which fall off at the time of the vintage. ופרט כרמך: גרגרי ענבים הנושרים בשעת בצירה:
I am the Lord, your God: A Judge Who exacts punishment; and [for this sin] I will exact from you nothing less than [your] souls, as it is said, “Do not rob a poor man…for the Lord will plead their cause, and rob those who rob them, of life” (Prov. 22: 2223). - [Torath Kohanim 19:22] אני ה' אלהיכם: דיין להפרע ואיני גובה מכם אלא נפשות, שנאמר (משלי כב - כג) אל תגזל דל וגו' כי ה' יריב ריבם וגו':
11You shall not steal. You shall not deny falsely. You shall not lie, one man to his fellow. יאלֹא תִּגְנֹבוּ וְלֹא תְכַחֲשׁוּ וְלֹא תְשַׁקְּרוּ אִישׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ:
You shall not steal: Heb. לֹא תִּגְנֹבוּ. This is an admonition against someone stealing money, while “You shall not steal (לֹא תִגְנֹב) ” in the Ten Commandments is an admonition against stealing people [i.e., kidnapping]. [This is] a matter derived from its context [namely, “You shall not murder,” “ You shall not commit adultery,” each of which is] a capital crime, [which is the case of kidnapping but not of stealing money]. — [see Rashi on Exod. 20:13; Sanh. 86a] לא תגנבו: אזהרה לגונב ממון, אבל לא תגנוב (שמות כ יג) שבעשרת הדברות, אזהרה לגונב נפשות, דבר הלמד מענינו, דבר שחייבין עליו מיתת בית דין:
You shall not deny falsely: Since Scripture says, “and he denies it” (Lev. 5:22), he must pay the principal and [an additional] fifth [of its value], we know the punishment [involved]. But where do we find the admonition [against denying a rightful claim]? Therefore, Scripture says, “You shall not deny falsely.” ולא תכחשו: לפי שנאמר (ויקרא ה כב) וכחש בה, משלם קרן וחומש. למדנו עונש, אזהרה מנין, תלמוד לומר ולא תכחשו:
You shall not lie: Since Scripture says “and he…swears falsely” (Lev. 5:22), he must pay back the principal and [an additional] fifth [of its value], we know the punishment [involved]. [But] where do we find the admonition [against swearing falsely]? Therefore, Scripture says, “You shall not lie.” ולא תשקרו: לפי שנאמר (שם) ונשבע על שקר, ישלם קרן וחומש. למדנו עונש, אזהרה מנין, תלמוד לומר ולא תשקרו:
You shall not steal. You shall not deny falsely. You shall not lie,… You shall not swear [falsely]: If you steal, you will eventually come to deny falsely, and consequently, you will come to lie and then swear falsely. — [Torath Kohanim 19:26] לא תגנבו ולא תכחשו ולא תשקרו ולא תשבעו: אם גנבת, סופך לכחש, סופך לשקר, סופך להשבע לשקר:
12You shall not swear falsely by My Name, thereby profaning the Name of your God. I am the Lord. יבוְלֹא תִשָּׁבְעוּ בִשְׁמִי לַשָּׁקֶר וְחִלַּלְתָּ אֶת שֵׁם אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲנִי יְהוָֹה:
You shall not swear falsely by My Name: Why is this stated? Since Scripture says, “You shall not take the Name of the Lord (יהוה), your God in vain” (Exod. 20:7), one might think that a person is liable only regarding the special Name [of God יהוה]. How do we know that included [also in this prohibition] are the כִּנּוּיִין [i.e., all the ancillary Names that represent various attributes of God, thus adopting the status of a “Name of God”]? Because Scripture says here, “You shall not swear falsely by My Name”- [meaning,] any Name that I have. — [Torath Kohanim 19:27] ולא תשבעו בשמי: למה נאמר, לפי שנאמר (שמות כ ז) לא תשא את שם ה' אלהיך לשוא, יכול לא יהא חייב אלא על שם המיוחד, מנין לרבות כל הכנויין, תלמוד לומר ולא תשבעו בשמי לשקר, כל שם שיש לי:
13You shall not oppress your fellow. You shall not rob. The hired worker's wage shall not remain with you overnight until morning. יגלֹא תַעֲשֹׁק אֶת רֵעֲךָ וְלֹא תִגְזֹל לֹא תָלִין פְּעֻלַּת שָׂכִיר אִתְּךָ עַד בֹּקֶר:
You shall not oppress: Heb. לֹא תַעֲשֹׁק. This refers to one who withholds a hired worker’s wages. — [Torath Kohanim 19:29] לא תעשק: זה הכובש שכר שכיר:
shall not remain… overnight: Heb. לֹא תָלִין. This [verb] is feminine in gender, referring to פְּעֻלַּת, the wages. [Although the word תָלִין, could be understood as, “You shall not keep overnight,” i.e., a command in the second person masculine, since it always appears as an intransitive verb, Rashi prefers to interpret it as the third person feminine, referring to פְּעֻלַּת.] לא תלין: לשון נקבה מוסב על הפעולה:
until morning: The verse is speaking about a worker hired for a day, whose departure [from his work] is at sunset. Therefore, the time for him to collect his wages is the entire night [and the employer has till dawn to pay him]. But elsewhere, Scripture says, “[You shall give him his wage on his day and not let the sun set over it,” (Deut. 24:15) [which seems to contradict our verse. However, that verse] is speaking about a worker hired for the night, the completion of whose work is at the break of dawn. Therefore, the time for him to collect his wages is the entire day because the Torah gave the employer time, namely, an עוֹנָה [a twelve-hour period] to seek money [to pay his workers]. — [B.M. 110b] עד בקר: בשכיר יום הכתוב מדבר, שיציאתו מששקעה החמה, לפיכך זמן גבוי שכרו כל הלילה. ובמקום אחר הוא אומר (דברים כד טו) ולא תבוא עליו השמש, מדבר בשכיר לילה, שהשלמת פעולתו משיעלה עמוד השחר, לפיכך זמן גבוי שכרו כל היום, לפי שנתנה תורה זמן לבעל הבית עונה לבקש מעות:
14You shall not curse a deaf person. You shall not place a stumbling block before a blind person, and you shall fear your God. I am the Lord. ידלֹא תְקַלֵּל חֵרֵשׁ וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל וְיָרֵאתָ מֵאֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲנִי יְהוָֹה:
You shall not curse a deaf person: [From this verse] I know only that [one may not curse] a deaf person. But from where do I know that this [prohibition] includes [cursing] any person [even if he is not deaf]? Therefore, Scripture says, “You shall not curse…among your people.” But if this is so [that this law is not exclusive to deaf people], why does it say here, “a deaf person?” (Exod. 22:27). [The answer is that] just as a deaf person is special insofar as he is alive, likewise, [one is prohibited from cursing] anyone who is alive. This excludes [cursing] a dead person, for he is not alive. — [Torath Kohanim 19:35] לא תקלל חרש: אין לי אלא חרש, מנין לרבות כל אדם, תלמוד לומר (שמות כב כז) בעמך לא תאר, אם כן למה נאמר חרש, מה חרש מיוחד שהוא בחיים אף כל שהוא בחיים, יצא המת שאינו בחיים:
You shall not place a stumbling block before a blind person: Before a person who is “blind” regarding a matter, you shall not give advice that is improper for him. [For instance,] do not say to someone,“ Sell your field and buy a donkey [with the proceeds], ”while [in truth,] you plan to cheat him since you yourself will take it from him [by lending him money and taking the donkey as collateral. He will not be able to take the field because a previous creditor has a lien on it.] - [Torath Kohanim 19:34] ולפני עור לא תתן מכשל: לפני הסומא בדבר לא תתן עצה שאינה הוגנת לו, אל תאמר מכור שדך וקח לך חמור, ואתה עוקף עליו ונוטלה הימנו:
and you shall fear your God: [Why is this mentioned here?] Because this matter [of misadvising someone] is not discernible by people, whether this person had good or evil intentions, and he can avoid [being recriminated by his victim afterwards] by saying, “I meant well!” Therefore, concerning this, it says, “and you shall fear your God,” Who knows your thoughts! Likewise, concerning anything known to the one who does it, but to which no one else is privy, Scripture says, “and you shall fear your God.” - [Torath Kohanim 19:34] ויראת מאלהיך: לפי שהדבר הזה אינו מסור לבריות לידע אם דעתו של זה לטובה או לרעה, ויכול להשמט ולומר לטובה נתכוונתי, לפיכך נאמר בו ויראת מאלהיך המכיר מחשבותיך. וכן כל דבר המסור ללבו של אדם העושהו ואין שאר הבריות מכירות בו, נאמר בו ויראת מאלהיך:
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 55 - 59
• Chapter 55
David composed this psalm upon escaping from Jerusalem in the face of the slanderers, Doeg and Achitofel, who had declared him deserving of death. David had considered Achitofel a friend and accorded him the utmost honor, but Achitofel betrayed him and breached their covenant. David curses all his enemies, so that all generations should "know, and sin no more."
1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music, a maskil by David.
2. Listen to my prayer, O God, do not hide from my pleas.
3. Pay heed to me and answer me, as I lament in my distress and moan -
4. because of the shout of the enemy and the oppression of the wicked; for they accuse me of evil and hate me passionately.
5. My heart shudders within me, and the terrors of death have descended upon me.
6. Fear and trembling penetrate me, and I am enveloped with horror.
7. And I said, "If only I had wings like the dove! I would fly off and find rest.
8. Behold, I would wander afar, and lodge in the wilderness forever.
9. I would hurry to find shelter for myself from the stormy wind, from the tempest.”
10. Consume, O Lord, confuse their tongue; for I have seen violence and strife in the city.1
11. Day and night they encircle her upon her walls, and iniquity and vice are in her midst.
12. Treachery is within her; fraud and deceit never depart from her square.
13. For it is not the enemy who taunts me-that I could bear; nor my foe who raises himself against me, that I could hide from him.
14. But it is you, a man of my equal, my guide and my intimate.
15. Together we took sweet counsel; we walked with the throng to the house of God.
16. May He incite death upon them, let them descend to the pit alive; for there is evil in their dwelling, within them.
17. As for me, I call to God, and the Lord will save me.
18. Evening, morning and noon, I lament and moan-and He hears my voice.
19. He redeemed my soul in peace from battles against me, because of the many who were with me.
20. May God-He who is enthroned from the days of old, Selah-hear and humble those in whom there is no change, and who do not fear God.
21. He extended his hands against his allies, he profaned his covenant.
22. Smoother than butter are the words of his mouth, but war is in his heart; his words are softer than oil, yet they are curses.
23. Cast your burden upon the Lord, and He will sustain you; He will never let the righteous man falter.
24. And You, O God, will bring them down to the nethermost pit; bloodthirsty and treacherous men shall not live out half their days; but I will trust in You.
Chapter 56
David composed this psalm while in mortal danger at the palace of Achish, brother of Goliath. In his distress David accepts vows upon himself.
1. For the Conductor, of the mute dove1 far away. By David, a michtam, 2 when the Philistines seized him in Gath.
2. Favor me, O God, for man longs to swallow me; the warrior oppresses me every day.
3. My watchful enemies long to swallow me every day, for many battle me, O Most High!
4. On the day I am afraid, I trust in You.
5. [I trust] in God and praise His word; in God I trust, I do not fear-what can [man of] flesh do to me?
6. Every day they make my words sorrowful; all their thoughts about me are for evil.
7. They gather and hide, they watch my steps, when they hope [to capture] my soul.
8. Should escape be theirs in reward for their iniquity? Cast down the nations in anger, O God!
9. You have counted my wanderings; place my tears in Your flask-are they not in Your record?
10. When my enemies will retreat on the day I cry out, with this I will know that God is with me.
11. When God deals strictly, I praise His word; when the Lord deals mercifully, I praise His word.
12. In God I trust, I do not fear-what can man do to me?
13. My vows to You are upon me, O God; I will repay with thanksgiving offerings to You.
14. For You saved my soul from death-even my feet from stumbling-to walk before God in the light of life.
Chapter 57
David composed this psalm while hiding from Saul in a cave, facing grave danger. Like Jacob did when confronted with Esau, David prayed that he neither be killed nor be forced to kill. In the merit of his trust in God, God wrought wonders to save him.
1. For the Conductor, a plea to be spared destruction. By David, a michtam, when he fled from Saul in the cave.
2. Favor me, O God, favor me, for in You my soul took refuge, and in the shadow of Your wings I will take refuge until the disaster passes.
3. I will call to God the Most High; to the Almighty Who fulfills [His promise] to me.
4. He will send from heaven, and save me from the humiliation of those who long to swallow me, Selah; God will send forth His kindness and truth.
5. My soul is in the midst of lions, I lie among fiery men; their teeth are spears and arrows, their tongue a sharp sword.
6. Be exalted above the heavens, O God; let Your glory be upon all the earth.
7. They laid a trap for my steps, they bent down my soul; they dug a pit before me, [but] they themselves fell into it, Selah.
8. My heart is steadfast, O God, my heart is steadfast; I will sing and chant praise.
9. Awake, my soul! Awake, O harp and lyre! I shall awaken the dawn.
10. I will thank You among the nations, my Lord; I will praise You among the peoples.
11. For Your kindness reaches till the heavens, Your truth till the skies.
12. Be exalted above the heavens, O God; let Your glory be over all the earth.
Chapter 58
David expresses the anguish caused him by Avner and his other enemies, who justified Saul's pursuit of him.
1. For the Conductor, a plea to be spared destruction; by David, a michtam.
2. Is it true that you are mute [instead of] speaking justice? [Instead of] judging men with fairness?
3. Even with your heart you wreak injustice upon the land; you justify the violence of your hands.
4. The wicked are estranged from the womb; from birth do the speakers of falsehood stray.
5. Their venom is like the venom of a snake; like the deaf viper that closes its ear
6. so as not to hear the voice of charmers, [even] the most skillful caster of spells.
7. O God, smash their teeth in their mouth; shatter the fangs of the young lions, O Lord.
8. Let them melt like water and disappear; when He aims His arrows, may they crumble.
9. Like the snail that melts as it goes along, like the stillbirth of a woman-they never see the sun.
10. Before your tender shoots know [to become] hardened thorns, He will blast them away, as one [uprooting] with vigor and wrath.
11. The righteous one will rejoice when he sees revenge; he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked.
12. And man will say, "There is indeed reward for the righteous; indeed there is a God Who judges in the land."
Chapter 59
This psalm speaks of the great miracle David experienced when he eluded danger by escaping through a window, unnoticed by the guards at the door. The prayers, supplications, and entreaties he offered then are recorded here.
1. For the Conductor, a plea to be spared destruction, By David, a michtam, when Saul dispatched [men], and they guarded the house in order to kill him.
2. Rescue me from my enemies, my God; raise me above those who rise against me.
3. Rescue me from evildoers, save me from men of bloodshed.
4. For behold they lie in ambush for my soul, mighty ones gather against me-not because of my sin nor my transgression, O Lord.
5. Without iniquity [on my part,] they run and prepare-awaken towards me and see!
6. And You, Lord, God of Hosts, God of Israel, wake up to remember all the nations; do not grant favor to any of the iniquitous traitors, Selah.
7. They return toward evening, they howl like the dog and circle the city.
8. Behold, they spew with their mouths, swords are in their lips, for [they say], "Who hears?”
9. But You, Lord, You laugh at them; You mock all nations.
10. [Because of] his might, I wait for You, for God is my stronghold.
11. The God of my kindness will anticipate my [need]; God will show me [the downfall] of my watchful foes.
12. Do not kill them, lest my nation forget; drive them about with Your might and impoverish them, O our Shield, my Master,
13. [for] the sin of their mouth, the word of their lips; let them be trapped by their arrogance. At the sight of their accursed state and deterioration, [people] will recount.
14. Consume them in wrath, consume them and they will be no more; and they will know that God rules in Jacob, to the ends of the earth, Selah.
15. And they will return toward evening, they will howl like the dog and circle the city.
16. They will wander about to eat; when they will not be sated they will groan.
17. As for me, I shall sing of Your might, and sing joyously of Your kindness toward morning, for You have been a stronghold to me, a refuge on the day of my distress.
18. [You are] my strength, to You I will sing, for God is my stronghold, the God of my kindness.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 46• Lessons in Tanya
• Wednesday, Iyar 10, 5775 · April 29, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 46
והנה ככל הדברים האלה, וככל החזיון הזה, וגדול יתר מאד בכפלי כפליים לאין קץ, עשה לנו אלקינו
In a manner corresponding in every detail to the said figure and image of the love shown by the mighty king to this most lowly individual, but to a much greater degree, doubled and redoubled infinitely more than in the parable, has our G‑d dealt with us.
כי לגדולתו אין חקר
For His greatness is beyond comprehension,
Just as G‑d is infinitely greater than any physical king, so too does his kingdom extend over an infinitely greater territory, so to speak.
ואיהו ממלא כל עלמין וסובב כל עלמין
and He pervades all worlds and encompasses i.e., transcends all worlds;
ונודע מזהר הקדוש והאר״י ז״ל ריבוי ההיכלות והעולמות עד אין מספר, ובכל עולם והיכל, ריבוא רבבות מלאכים לאין קץ ותכלית
and from the holy Zohar, as also from our Master, Rabbi Isaac Luria of blessed memory, it is known of the multitude of Heichalot — these being the specific levels within each spiritual world — and worlds which are infinite, and of the myriads of myriads of angels found in each world and Heichal, countless and without end.
וכמו שכתוב בגמרא: כתיב, היש מספר לגדודיו, וכתיב, אלף אלפין ישמשוניה, וריבו רבבן קדמוהי גו׳
So does the Gemara note:1 “It is written:2 ‘Is there any numbering His regiments of angels?’ Yet it is also written:3 ‘A thousand thousands minister unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stand before Him....’”
The second verse indicates that there is indeed a finite number of angels, albeit a very great number, while the rhetorical question in the first verse implies that the number is truly infinite.
ומשני: אלף אלפין וכו׳ מספר גדוד אחד, אבל לגדודיו אין מספר
The Gemara answers: “‘A thousand thousands...’ is the quota of one regiment, but His regiments are innumerable.” The second verse, then, speaks of the number of angels within one regiment, while the first verse alludes to the number of regiments, which is truly infinite.
וכולם קמיה כלא ממש חשיבי, ובטלים במציאות ממש, כביטול דבור אחד ממש לגבי מהות הנפש המדברת ועצמותה, בעוד שהיה דיבורה עדיין במחשבתה, או ברצון וחמדת הלב, כנ״ל באריכות
Yet, before Him, all of them are accounted as nothing at all and are nullified in their very existence, just as one word is truly nullified in relation to the essence and being of the articulate soul, the soul possessing the power of speech, while the speech of the soul was still present in [the soul’s] faculty of thought, or in the will and desire of the heart, as has been explained above at length.
In chs. 20 and 21 the Alter Rebbe explained at length how a single utterance is as absolutely nothing when compared to the infinite capacity of the articulate soul. This is so even when the word has already been uttered and has thereby become a distinct entity. Even more so, in the case when the person’s speech is in potentia in the person’s thought or heart’s desire (which are the sources of speech, since a person thinks before he speaks, and speaks about things that he desires). In such an instance, the single word is totally nullified in its source and is not at all perceptible as an entity separate from it.
So too with Divine speech that creates and animates angels, the various worlds, and all creatures. Divine speech is always absolutely united with its source, and is therefore always in a state of total nullification to it.
וכולם שואלים: איה מקום כבודו, ועונים: מלא כל הארץ כבודו, הם ישראל עמו
All these [angels] ask: “Where is the place of His glory?” And they answer:4“The whole physical earth is full of His glory”; that is — i.e., How is this world “full of His glory?” — because of His people, Israel.
כי הניח הקב״ה את העליונים ואת התחתונים
For the Holy One, blessed be He, forsook the higher and lower creatures that are not the ultimate purpose of His creation,
ולא בחר בכולם, כי אם בישראל עמו, והוציאם ממצרים, ערות הארץ, מקום הזוהמא והטומאה
choosing none of them but Israel His people, whom He brought out of Egypt5 — “the obscenity of the earth,” the place of filth and impurity —
Like the lowly and disgraceful individual who was raised from the dunghill by the king in person, the Children of Israel were brought forth out of Egypt by the King Himself:
ולא על ידי מלאך ולא על ידי כו׳, אלא הקב״ה בכבודו ובעצמו ירד לשם
“not6 through an angel which is a created being whose abode is in the World of Beriah, Yetzirah or Asiyah, nor through a messenger from the level of the World of Atzilut, but the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself in His glory” descended there.
כמו שכתוב: וארד להצילו וגו׳
as it is written:7 “And I descended to save him from the hand of the Egyptians,”
Just as the king in the parable, after raising the individual from the dungheap, takes him into his palace and shares with him the closest companionship, in a like manner did G‑d treat His people.
כדי לקרבם אליו בקירוב ויחוד אמיתי, בהתקשרות הנפש ממש
in order to bring them near to Him in true closeness and unity, with a real attachment of soul — so that the Jew’s soul will be truly bound up with the Almighty,
This is also so regarding the Torah, concerning which G‑d says: “I have written and given My ’soul‘*” to the Jewish people, by giving them the Torah. Thus, not only is the Jew’s soul truly bound up with G‑d, but G‑d’s “soul”, too, is united with the Jew.
בבחינת נשיקין פה לפה, לדבר דבר ה׳, זו הלכה
on the level of “kisses” of mouth to mouth, so that the Jew’s mouth be united with the “mouth” and speech of G‑d, by uttering “the word of G‑d, namely, the Halachah,”
When a Jew speaks and studies the words of the Torah his speech is united with Supernal speech in a manner of “kisses” of mouth to mouth. This unity, however, is external in comparison with the deeper and more inward “union of spirit and spirit,” as explained in the previous chapter. This deeper level of unity is also attained through Torah study:
ואתדבקות רוחא ברוחא, היא השגת התורה, וידיעת רצונו וחכמתו
and the fusion of “spirit” of man with “spirit” of G‑d, namely, the comprehension of the Torah and the knowledge of His Will and wisdom,
When Torah is studied with comprehension, the person knows both G‑d’s Will and wisdom. Knowing the halachah, the law that determines that an object is (say) either kosher or non-kosher, constitutes the knowledge of G‑d’s Will, while comprehending the reason for thehalachah relates to G‑d’s wisdom.
דכולא חד ממש
which are truly one; G‑d’s Will and wisdom are truly one with Him. Hence, through Torah study, Jews become united with G‑d in a manner of “union of spirit and spirit”;
וגם בבחינת חיבוק
also with a form of “embrace”, for Torah and mitzvot also effect the unity of an “embrace”, similar to a person embracing his friend with his body and arms,
הוא קיום המצות מעשיות ברמ״ח אברים
namely, the fulfillment of the positive precepts with the 248 organs which the human being possesses. Performance of the 248 positive commandments brings about a state of “embrace” wherein G‑d’s 248 “organs” embrace man’s,
דרמ״ח פיקודין הן רמ״ח אברין דמלכא, כנזכר לעיל
for the 248 ordinances are the 248 “organs” of the King, as mentioned earlier,in ch. 23.
Each organ of the body is an appropriate vessel for the particular faculty of the soul that resides therein, such as the eye for the faculty of sight, the ear for the faculty of hearing, and so on. So too, each mitzvah is an appropriate vessel for the specific emanation of the Divine Will that desires the Jew to perform the particular commandment.
ודרך כלל נחלקין לשלש בחינות: ימין ושמאל ואמצע, שהן חסד דין ורחמים
In a general manner, these 248 positive mitzvot are divided into three categories — right, left, and center — namely, Chesed (“kindness”), Din (“stern justice”), andRachamim (“mercy”).
There are mitzvot which are in the category of the “right side” — Chesed; others in the category of the “left side” — Din; still others, in the category of the “center” — Rachamim.These are:
תרין דרועין וגופא וכו׳
the two arms and the body.
Chesed is the right arm; Gevurah, or Din, is the left; and Rachamim represents the body (the center). Just as when a person embraces another he does so with both arms and his body, so too, do the “two arms” and “body” of the mitzvot embrace the Jew who performs them.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Chagigah 13b. |
| 2. | Iyov 25:3. |
| 3. | Daniel 7:10. |
| 4. | Yeshayahu 6:3. |
| 5. | Bereishit 42:9. |
| 6. | Haggadah of Passover. |
| 7. | Shmot 3:8. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Wednesday, Iyar 10, 5775 · April 29, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 150
Eating the Second Tithe while Ritually Impure
"Neither have I consumed of it while impure"—Deuteronomy 26:14.
It is forbidden to consume of the Second Tithe while ritually impure – even in Jerusalem – until the produce is "redeemed" [i.e. it is exchanged for money or other, pure, produce].
This prohibition applies whether the individual eating is impure or if the produce itself is impure.
Tithe while Ritually Impure
Negative Commandment 150
Translated by Berel Bell
The 150th prohibition is that we are forbidden to consume ma'aser sheni in a state of tumah — even in Jerusalem — unless it has been redeemed. This corresponds to the general principle that ma'aser sheni which has become tameh must be redeemed, even in Jerusalem, as explained in tractate Makos.1
The source of this prohibition is the verse,2 "I have not consumed in a state of tumah." The Oral Tradition3 explains [the phrase "in a state of tumah"] — "either when I was tameh and it was tahor, or when I was tahor and it was tameh."
In Gemara Makos it is also explained that ma'aser and bikurim may not be eaten in a state of tumah; and that one who does so is punished by lashes. As mentioned above, lashes are given only when this ma'aser is eaten in a state of tumah, in Jerusalem and was not redeemed.
FOOTNOTES
1.19b.
2.Deut. 26:14.
3.Makos ibid.
Negative Commandment 151
An "Onen" Eating from the Second Tithe
"I have not eaten of it while an onen"—Deuteronomy 26:14.
An onen [the next of kin of a deceased, in the period before thedeceased's burial] may not eat from the Second Tithe—or from any sacrificial offerings.
An "Onen" Eating from the Second Tithe
Negative Commandment 151
Translated by Berel Bell
The 151st prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating ma'aser sheni when in a state of aninus [mourning].1
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,2 "I have not consumed it while I was in aninus."
In the words of the Mishneh,3 "Ma'aser and bikurim must be brought to Jerusalem; require a verbal declaration4; and are forbidden to an onein."
This verse also prohibits an onein from consuming sacrificial offerings, as written in the Torah,5 "After such a thing happened to me; if I had eaten the sin offering today, would it have been right in G‑d's eyes?"
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 8th chapter of Pesachim and the 2nd chapter of Zevachim.
An onein who eats sacrificial offerings or ma'aser sheni is punished by lashes.
FOOTNOTES
1.A person is in a state of aninus on the day when a close relative dies.
2.Deut. ibid.
3.Bikurim 2:2.
4.See P131.
5.Lev. 10:19.
Shabbos - Chapter Twenty Eight
Halacha 1
Whenever there is a home that is outside a city, but seventy and two thirds cubits - i.e., the length of one of the sides of [a square] 5000 square cubits in area1 - or less from the city, it is considered to be part of the city and joined to it. When two thousand cubits are measured in all directions from the city, this house [is considered to be on the extremity of the border2 and] the measurement [begins] from there.3
Halacha 2
If one house is within seventy cubits of a city, another house is within seventy cubits of the first, and a third within seventy cubits of the second [and so on], they are all considered to be one city, although the chain extends for a distance of several days walk. When [the Sabbath limits] are measured, they are measured from the last house, provided this house is a dwelling4 four cubits by four cubits5 or more [in area].
Halacha 3
[The following are considered to be dwellings in the context mentioned above:] a synagogue that has a dwelling for its attendants, a temple of a false deity that has a dwelling for its priests, a storeroom that has a dwelling, a bridge or a grave that has a dwelling,6 a structure four cubits by four cubits that has three walls but no roof, watchtowers,7, a house built [on an island]8 at sea,9 a structure with two walls and a roof,10 a cave with a building at its entrance that is used as a dwelling. All of these are included as part of the city, provided they are located within seventy and a fraction cubits of it.
From this house on the extremity [of the city], we consider it as if a line is extended along the length of the entire city, and we measure two thousand cubits outward from that line.
Halacha 4
The following [structures] are not added [as the furthest extremities of a city's boundaries]: a structure with two walls and no roof - despite the fact that people dwell within it - a bridge, a grave, a synagogue, a temple to false deities, and a storehouse that do not have dwellings; a cistern, a trench, a cave,11 a dovecote, and a house on a ship.12 All of these are not added [to a city's boundaries].
Halacha 5
[The following rule applies when] two towns are located next to each other: If the distance between them is 141 1/3 cubits [or less], so that [the distance between them] is seventy and a fraction [as measured] from one town and seventy and a fraction [as measured] from the other town, they are considered to be a single city. Accordingly, [the inhabitants of] each town can walk throughout the other town and two thousand cubits outside of it.
[The following rules apply when] three villages are located in a triangle: If there are two thousand cubits or less between the village in the middle and both of the villages on the extremities, and there are 282 2/3 cubits [or less] between the villages on the extremities, so that if the middle village were placed on the line between them, there would be 141 1/3 cubits [or less] between it and both13 of them,14 they are all considered to be a single city. When [a Sabbath limit] is measured, it is measured two thousand cubits in all directions from [the single unit created from] these three [villages].
Halacha 6
When a city is rectangular or square, since it has four angles that are equal, we leave it as it is, and measure two thousand cubits in each direction on all four sides.
17
17
If it is circular, we construct an [imaginary] square around it, considering it as the center of that square. We measure two thousand cubits from the sides of that square in all directions. Thus, [the inhabitants] gain [the area] at the corners.
Halacha 7
Similarly, if a city is triangular in shape, or if it has many different sides, we construct a square around it, and afterwards measure two thousand cubits from each side of that square.
When we construct a square around a city, we construct this square according to the compass directions,18 making each of its sides face one of the four directions and extend in a straight line vertically or horizontally.
Halacha 8
When a city is [shaped like a trapezoid,] one side being shorter than the other, we consider both sides to be of the length of the longer side.
[The following rules apply when a city] is L-shaped or crescent-shaped: If there are less than four thousand cubits between the two points on the extremities,19we measure [the Sabbath limit] from [the imaginary line that connects these points].20 When there are more than four thousand cubits between the two points on the extremities, we measure [the Sabbath limit] from [the vertex of] the crescent.21
Halacha 9
[The following rules apply to] a city located at the edge of a river:22 If there is a dock four cubits wide at the river bank, so that one can stand on it and use the river, the river is considered to be part of the city. Thus, [the Sabbath limit of] two thousand cubits is measured from the other bank of the river, because the dock causes the river to be considered part of the city.
If there is no dock, the measurement begins from the edge of the houses,23and [the width of] the river is included in the two thousand cubits.
Halacha 10
[The following laws apply to] the dwellers of huts:24 [The Sabbath limits] should be measured from the entrance to their homes.25 If [in that area] there are three courtyards with two houses26 in each, [the entire area] is established [as a unit].27 A square is constructed around it, and two thousand cubits are measured [from its borders], as all other cities.
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
When does the above apply? When a plumb line descends directly [into the crevice], for then [the slopes of the crevice] cannot be used.33 If, however, the plumb line does not descend directly,34 one should not span [the crevice with the measuring rope], unless the crevice is two thousand cubits or less in depth.
Halacha 13
With regard to a valley with a gradual descent, one should ascend and descend, measuring by approximation.35 If the valley is more than fifty cubits wide and thus cannot be spanned [by the measuring rope], [the measurers] should go to a place where they can span the gap,36 measure the span [there], see the parallels to [the place they are] measuring, and return to their task.
Halacha 14
Halacha 15
[The following rules apply when the measurers] reach a mountain: If the slope of the mountain ascends ten handbreadths within a length of five cubits, [the measurers should] measure the span [above the mountain],42 and return to their [ordinary] measurement.
If its height rises acutely, its slope ascending ten handbreadths within a length of four cubits, [all that is necessary is] to approximate [its length], and then one may proceed further.
If a mountain is so wide that [the measuring rope] cannot span it - i.e. it is more than fifty cubits wide - it should be measured by approximation, small portions at a time. This is the meaning of the expression,43 "In the mountains, they measured by approximation."
Halacha 16
What is implied [by the directive to] measure mountains or valleys that cannot be spanned by approximation? Two people hold a rope four cubits long. The person above should hold the upper end at the level of his feet, while the person below should hold the lower end at the level of his heart.44 The person standing above then descends to the level of the person standing below, who, in turn, descends further to the extent of the rope. [The entire process should be repeated and] continued until the entire area has been measured.
When [the measurers] go to span a mountain or a valley,45 they should not depart from the Sabbath limits, lest passersby see them and say, "The Sabbath limits passed by here."
Halacha 17
We rely only on the measurement by an expert46 who is proficient in the measuring of land. If the Sabbath limits [of a city] had been established and an expert came and measured [them again], increasing them in some places and decreasing them in others, we accept his ruling regarding the limits that he increased.47
Similarly, if two experts came and measured the Sabbath limits, one giving a larger measure and the other giving a smaller measure, we accept the ruling of the one who gives the larger measure,48 provided that the inconsistency is not greater than the difference between the diagonal [and the border of] a city.49
Halacha 18
What is implied? We can say that the reason the latter increased the measure was the following: The first erred and measured the two thousand [cubits] from the corner of the city diagonally.50 Therefore, he reduced its measurement, and the distance between the border of the Sabbath limits and the city will be less than two thousand [cubits]. [By contrast,] the second person [who measured] measured the two thousand [cubits] from the edge of the city [and therefore produced a larger figure]. We do not, however, consider the possibility of the first person's making any greater mistake.
Accordingly, if the latter measure is less than 580 cubits51 more than the original measure, it is accepted. A larger increase, however, is not accepted.
Halacha 19
Even when a servant or a maidservant52 says, "The Sabbath limits reach here,"53 their statements are accepted. An adult's statement is accepted if he says, "We would proceed until this place when I was a child." His testimony is relied on in this instance, 54since our Sages stated that the lenient approach should be accepted in these rulings, and not the more stringent one, because the measure of two thousand cubits is a Rabbinic institution.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Eruvin 5:2) which notes the difference between the figures mentioned here and the precise mathematical terms. See also Tosafot Yom Tov, Eruvin 5:2.
|
| 2. |
See Halachot 6 and 7, which state that a square should be made to include the furthermost extremities of the city, and the Sabbath limits should be measured from there.
|
| 3. |
The Maggid Mishneh notes that the Rambam appears to be saying that the Sabbath limits are measured from the edge of the city. He notes that there are opinions (see Eruvin 5:2) that grant a city a karpef (a seventy and two-thirds cubit extension) even if it is not close to another city. According to those views, the Sabbath limits are calculated seventy and two thirds cubits from the city's boundaries. The Rambam (Commentary on the Mishnah) rejects that view.
The Rambam's opinion is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 398:5). The other view is accepted by the Tur and quoted by the Ramah.
|
| 4. |
The intent is a permanent dwelling. A temporary structure, or a building that does not have facilities for lodging is not sufficient, as explained in the following halachot.
|
| 5. |
The Magen Avraham 398:6 emphasizes that this does not include all structures with a total area of sixteen square cubits. Each side of the building must be at least four cubits. (See a parallel inHilchot Mezuzah 6:2.)
|
| 6. |
Rav David Arameah explains that it was common for a bridge to have a dwelling for a toll collector, and a grave to have a dwelling for a watchman.
|
| 7. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Ma'aser 3:7).
|
| 8. |
The bracketed additions are based on Rashi's commentary (Eruvin 55b).
|
| 9. |
Such a house is useful in unloading cargo from ships (Magen Avraham 398:7).
|
| 10. |
The Ra'avad notes that the question of whether such a structure is acceptable is left unresolved by Eruvin, loc. cit. Accordingly, he rules stringently. The Rambam's position is, however, followed by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 398:6).
|
| 11. |
The commentaries on Eruvin 55b state that the latter three are excluded even if there are people who inhabit them.
|
| 12. |
Because it is not anchored permanently and may depart, it is considered to be a temporary dwelling (Magen Avraham 398:10).
|
| 13. |
See the Chatam Sofer (Orach Chayim, Responsa 94), which emphasizes that each of the exterior villages can be no more than 141 1/3 cubits from the imaginary line leading to the middle village. It is not sufficient that there be a total sum of less than 282 2/3 cubits between the two villages.
|
| 14. |
This phrase and the phrase that precedes it create a difficulty. From the phrase, "there are 282 2/3 cubits [or less] between the villages on the extremities," one would assume that this rule does not apply when the two villages on the extremities are separated by a greater distance. Nevertheless, the phrase "if the middle village were placed on the line between them, there would be 141 1/3 cubits [or less] between it and both of them," appears to imply that even were the distance between the two villages on the extremities to exceed 282 2/3 cubits, as long as the villages on the extremities are not more than 141 1/3 cubits from the place the middle city would take up, it is acceptable.
From the diagram that the Rambam drew to accompany his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin5:3), the former interpretation would appear appropriate. (Similarly, the Ra'avad interprets the Rambam's intent in this manner and, therefore, objects.) Nevertheless, both the Maggid Mishnehand the Radbaz state that the width of the city should be added to the sum of 282 2/3 cubits. TheShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 398:8) quotes the Rambam's wording verbatim. The Ramah, however, clarifies the ruling according to the interpretation of the Maggid Mishneh.
|
| 15. |
This refers to a wall on which there are no dwellings (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 16. |
Rashi (Eruvin 26a) explains that when a wall is erected after an area has been settled, the wall causes the entire village to be considered as if it were four cubits in length. Therefore, we measure from the wall. When, by contrast, the wall was erected before the houses were built, the wall is not halachically significant. Accordingly, the Sabbath limits are measured from the houses. Based on the Rambam's statement's in Halachah 2, it is questionable if he would accept this interpretation.
|
| 17. |
Eruvin 55a and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 398:1) state that even if the sides of such a city are not positioned directly north and south, nothing is added to its size, because it is rectangular or square in shape.
|
| 18. |
This applies even when the total area of the square is increased by constructing it in this fashion.
|
| 19. |
I.e., if the Sabbath limits of the houses on the extremities overlap, the houses are considered to be part of a single entity.
|
| 20. |
This applies regardless of the distance from the vertex of the crescent to the imaginary line connecting its extremities. Even if it is more than two thousand cubits, the entire area is considered to be a single unit (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 21. |
This applies to the house at the vertex. The Rashba considers each of the sides of the crescent to be a separate city. Sefer Ha'Itim considers every house to be an entirely separate entity. TheMagen Avraham 398:2 states that the entire crescent is considered to be a single entity. According to this conception, the only difference between this instance and the previous clause is that one may not walk more than two thousand cubits away from the houses in the open area between them.
Based on the rulings of Rabbenu Asher and the Tur, the Ramah mentions two leniencies: a) Even when the two extremities of the crescent are more than four thousand cubits away from each other, the entire area of the crescent until the points on the either side which are four thousand cubits removed, is, nevertheless, considered to be a single entity.
b) If the space from the vertex of the crescent to the imaginary line connecting the two extremities is less than two thousand cubits, the entire area is considered to be a single entity even though there are more than four thousand cubits between each side.
|
| 22. |
Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi - and subsequently the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 398:9) - interpret this as referring to a river that usually dries up and is filled with water only during the rainy season.
|
| 23. |
The city itself, however, is considered to be a collective entity (Maggid Mishneh). Note Rashi (Eruvin 61a), who follows a different perspective entirely, stating that, because there is no dock, the city is not considered as a permanent location, and every home is judged to be an individual entity.
|
| 24. |
More specifically, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Ma'asrot 3:7), the Rambam defines the Hebrew צריפין as referring to "V-shaped lean-tos made from reeds and wood."
|
| 25. |
These huts are not considered to be permanent dwellings. Hence, their aggregate is not considered to be a unit. Note, however, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 398:10), who states that if a group of such dwellings is surrounded by a wall ten handbreadths high or a trench ten handbreadths deep, they are considered to be a single unit.
|
| 26. |
This refers to permanent structures built of wood and/or stone.
|
| 27. |
The three courtyards, each containing two houses, are sufficient to be classified as a city (Eruvin59a). Since we are classifying the permanent houses as a city, that status is conferred upon the area as a whole, including also the huts.
|
| 28. |
Eruvin 58a interprets Exodus 27:18, "its width fifty by fifty," as an indication that the width of fifty cubits should be measured with a rope of that size.
|
| 29. |
For when the rope is shorter, the measurers may pull it tightly and extend its length (Rashi, Eruvin58a).
|
| 30. |
For when the rope is longer, it may sag and cause the measure to be shortened (Rashi, Eruvin58a).
|
| 31. |
I.e., rather than measure the length of the incline, the entire valley should be measured as a unit of fifty cubits or less.
|
| 32. |
The Maggid Mishneh states that this represents the Rambam's interpretation of the statements of Abbimi (Eruvin 58b). Rabbenu Asher offers a different interpretation of that passage, which is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 399:4).
|
| 33. |
For the incline is too steep.
|
| 34. |
And thus the slopes of the incline can be used for various purposes.
|
| 35. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 5:4). See Halachah 16 for an explanation of the process followed.
|
| 36. |
Provided it is within the Sabbath limits. He should not, however, go beyond the Sabbath limits, lest an observer notice his measurements and mistakenly think that the place is within the Sabbath limits (Eruvin 58b and Halachah 16 above).
|
| 37. |
Tosafot, Eruvin 58a, states that the intent is not actually to pierce the wall, but that one would be required to erect poles extending above the wall and measure from them.
|
| 38. |
The Rambam is referring to a wall whose sides are not straight, and hence the determination of its exact thickness is difficult.
|
| 39. |
I.e., its incline is gentle enough to allow the public to ascend it without difficulty.
|
| 40. |
The Rambam's ruling follows the version of Eruvin 58a that appears in the texts of several earlygeonim. The standard printed text of the Talmud differs. In his gloss, the Ra'avad refers to the version of the standard text.
|
| 41. |
And thus its thickness can be measured easily at either side. It must be measured exactly. The leniency granted in the first clause applies to a wall that ascends gradually, but not gradually enough to make it easily accessible for public use.
|
| 42. |
By erecting a pole equivalent to the height of the mountain on either side (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 399:4).
|
| 43. |
Eruvin 5:4.
|
| 44. |
In this way, the rope will be held horizontally, on more or less an even plane.
|
| 45. |
Which cannot be measured in the normal manner, as mentioned in Halachot 13 and 15. See also Halachah 19.
|
| 46. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 5:5), the Rambam defines this as a person who knows engineering and is proficient in the measurement of land.
|
| 47. |
The Rambam's wording appears to imply that one accepts the opinion of the expert only with regard to the Sabbath limits that he increased, but not with regard to those that he decreased. TheMaggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh note that although the Rambam is quoting the wording of the Mishnah (Eruvin, loc. cit.), the Talmud (Eruvin 59a) explains that the ruling of the expert must be accepted even with regard to those places where he decreased the Sabbath limit. The Kessef Mishneh notes that even in his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam follows this interpretation.
Note, however, Merkevet HaMishneh, which explains the Rambam's ruling here according to its simple interpretation. When the original measurement of a city's Sabbath limits was made by ordinary people, the expert's advice must be adhered to entirely, whether it is more stringent or more lenient. When, however, the original limits were also established by experts, the situation resembles the latter clause of the halachah, and the second expert's opinion is followed only when it is more lenient.
|
| 48. |
Because, as stated in Halachah 19, the more lenient opinion is accepted, since the Sabbath limit of two thousand cubits is a Rabbinic institution.
|
| 49. |
We do not say that the difference between the two figures could only be a minute measure because of imprecision. Instead, we allow the possibility of a major error, as explained in the following halachah.
|
| 50. |
Instead of measuring 2000 cubits on the diagonal, the person should have measured approximately 2800, as explained in Chapter 27, Halachah 2, and notes. Measuring only 2000 cubits on the diagonal causes the entire measure to become reduced.
|
| 51. |
I.e., if the diagonal of a square is 2000, the side will be approximately 1420. The figure stated by the Rambam is not exact, as the commentaries mention in detail.
|
| 52. |
There are two difficulties regarding the statements of a servant or maidservant. First, they are not acceptable witnesses. Also, as a whole, such individuals are known to be less than careful with regard to ritual observance.
|
| 53. |
I.e., the servant's statements were intended to increase the Sabbath limit of a city by saying that the limit originally established was greater than the one observed at present.
|
| 54. |
Generally, a person's testimony is accepted only when he qualifies as a witness at the time he saw an event take place and at the time he gives his testimony. Since a child is not an acceptable witness, testimony of this nature would ordinarily be rejected. In this instance, however, it is accepted. (See Hilchot Edut 14:3 for other examples of instances in which similar testimony is accepted.)
|
Maaser Sheini - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
The second tithe should be eaten1 by its owners within the walls of Jerusalem,2as [Deuteronomy 14:23] states: "And you shall eat before God, your Lord, in the place He chooses to cause His name to dwell."
It must be observed whether the Temple is standing or it is not standing.3Nevertheless, we partake of it only while the Temple is standing,4 for [the verse states]: "the tithe of your grain, your wine, your oil, and the firstborn of your cattle or your sheep." According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught:5 Just as a firstborn is not eaten except while the Temple is standing, so too, the second tithe is not eaten except when the Temple is standing.
Halacha 2
It is pious behavior6 to redeem the second tithe for its full value7 in the same manner as it should be redeemed while the Temple is standing.8 Our Sages, [however,] ruled that, in the present age, if one desires, he may redeem amaneh's9worth of produce for a p'rutah10as an initial and preferable measure,11[for this produce] need not be considered more stringently than consecrated property.12 That p'rutah should be discarded in the Mediterranean Sea.13
Halacha 3
Similarly, if one transferred the holiness of a maneh's worth of produce that is the second tithe for a p'rutah's worth of other produce, the holiness is transferred. He should then burn the produce to which he transferred the holiness so that it will not present an obstacle to others, [following the same procedure] as the redemption of neta rivai'i in the present age, as we explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot.14
Halacha 4
Just as we do not partake of the second tithe in the present era in Jerusalem,15so too, we do not redeem it there,16 nor transfer its holiness,17 or sell it.18 If [produce which is the second tithe] is brought into Jerusalem in the present era, it should not be removed from there.19 Instead, we leave it there until it rots. Similarly, if one transgressed and removed it from there, he should leave it until it rots.
For this reason,20 we do not separate the second tithe in the present era in Jerusalem. Instead, we remove the produce from the city while it is tevel and redeem it. If it was separated there in the present era, it should be left to rot.
Halacha 5
Anyone who eats an olive-sized portion of [produce from] the second tithe or who drinks a revi'it of wine21 [from such produce] outside the walls of Jerusalem22 is liable for lashes, as [Deuteronomy 12:17] states: "In your gates,23 you may not partake of the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil."24
He is liable for lashes for each one individually.25 Therefore if he partakes of the three outside the walls [of Jerusalem], he is liable for three sets of lashes, for it is stated: And you shall eat before God in the place He chooses to cause His name to dwell."
It must be observed whether the Temple is standing or it is not standing.26Nevertheless, we partake of it only while the Temple is standing,27 for [the Torah states]: "And you shall eat before God... the tithe of your grain, your wine, your oil," and "You may not partake of the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil."28 Why does [the Torah] mention them individually instead of saying: "Do not partake of them in your gates?" To make one liable for each one individually.
Halacha 6
According to Scriptural Law, one is not liable for lashes unless he partakes of produce [from the second tithe] after it had entered the walls of Jerusalem [and was removed], as it is written: "You may not partake... in your gates" and "And you shall eat before God." [Implied is that] since the produce enters the place where it should be eaten and then it was eaten outside [that place], one is liable for lashes. If, however, one ate such produce before it entered Jerusalem,29 he should be given stripes for rebellious conduct.30
Halacha 7
[The following rules apply if] a portion of [produce from the second] tithe is inside [Jerusalem] and a portion is outside. One who eats from the portion that has not entered [the city] should be given stripes for rebellious conduct.31 If one eats the portion that entered outside [the city], he is liable for lashes. 32
Halacha 8
We do not redeem the second tithe in Jerusalem unless it became impure,33 as [Deuteronomy 14:24] states: "If the place34 will be distant from you...." [Implied is that such produce] may be redeemed when the place is distant, but not when it is close.
Halacha 9
Once produce from the second tithe - even if it is demai37 - is brought into Jerusalem, it is forbidden to remove it from there, for it has already been taken in by [the city's] barriers. Similar concepts apply with regard to produce purchased with money [from the redemption of] the second tithe, as [implied by] the verse: "And you shall eat before God your Lord."38 If a person transgressed and took [such produce] out of Jerusalem or it was taken out inadvertently, it should be returned and eaten in Jerusalem.
[The concept that produce from the second tithe that was brought into Jerusalem is] taken in by its partitions is a Rabbinic decree. Even produce from [the redemption of] the second tithe whose fifth is not worth a p'rutah which is [observed] by virtue of Rabbinic decree [alone]39is taken in by [the city's] partitions and it is forbidden to remove it.40 Money from [the redemption of] the second tithe, by contrast, may be brought into Jerusalem and then removed.41
Halacha 10
When produce for which the tasks involved in its preparation have been completed42 is taken through Jerusalem and then removed, [its owner] cannot separate tithes from it from other produce which has not been brought into Jerusalem yet.43 Instead, the second tithe from this produce should be [separated,] and returned and eaten in Jerusalem. It cannot be redeemed outside the city. Even if one designates the entire quantity of produce which was removed as the second tithe for produce that was not yet brought [to Jerusalem], it must be returned and eaten in [that city].44 This is a stringency associated with the walls of Jerusalem. Once [produce] is taken in by them, it has been taken in.45
Halacha 11
13When produce for which the tasks involved in its preparation have not been completed, e.g., baskets of grapes that are being taking to the vat46 or baskets of figs that are being taken to dry, is taken through Jerusalem and then removed, it is permitted to redeem the second tithe from them outside Jerusalem.47 Similarly, the second tithe from produce that is demai may be redeemed outside [of Jerusalem] even though the tasks involved in its preparation have been completed and it passed through the city.48
Halacha 12
[The following laws apply when] produce from the second tithe which became impure49 in Jerusalem was redeemed.50 If it became impure through contact with a secondary source of impurity, it is forbidden to remove it.51[Instead,] it should be eaten within [the city]. If it became impure as a result of contact with a primary source of impurity or it became impure outside [the city] even through contact with a secondary source of impurity, it may be redeemed and eaten in any place, even though it was brought into Jerusalem.52
Halacha 13
When does the above53 apply? When it was brought in with the intent that the barriers of [the city] would not take it in. If, however, he did not make such a stipulation, since it entered the city and it is ritually pure according to Scriptural Law, it is taken in by [the city's] barriers and should not be removed.54 For a secondary source of ritual impurity does not impart impurity to another entity according to Scriptural Law.
Halacha 14
It is permitted to partake of chilba from the second tithe while it is in its fresh, for then it is fit to be eaten.55 Similarly, vetch from the second tithe may be eaten while it is fresh.56 If one made a dough from them, it is permitted to take it into Jerusalem and remove it, because vetch is not considered as [ordinary] produce.57 If it became impure in Jerusalem, it may be redeemed and eaten outside [the city].
Halacha 15
When a tree is standing within the walls of Jerusalem and its branches extend outside the wall, produce from the second tithe should not be eaten under [those] branches.58 If, however, produce from the second tithe was brought under its branches, it can no longer be redeemed, because it is considered as if it was brought into Jerusalem.59
Halacha 16
[The following rules apply when] houses positioned at the side of the wall with their entrances within the wall, but the length of the house extends outside the wall. [The portions of the house that] are within the wall are considered as being within the city with regard to all matters. In those which are outside the wall, we may not eat [the produce of the second tithe] and as a stringency, produce from the second tithe should not be redeemed there.60 If the length of the house extends within [the wall] and the entrance is outside, [the portion that are] outside the wall are considered as outside the city.61 We may re redeem [produce from the tithes] there and may not partake of it there. [In the portion that is within the wall], we may not eat [such produce] there62 and as a stringency, we may not redeem it.63 The windows and the breadth of the walls are considered within the city.64
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Similarly, it can be used as a beverage or for anointing oneself, for these are also considered as "eating."
|
| 2. |
As mentioned in the notes to the previous chapter, there are authorities who consider partaking of the second tithe as an independent mitzvah. The Rambam, however, considers it as part of the mitzvah of separating the second tithe.
|
| 3. |
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:15 which states that the holiness of Jerusalem is not nullified even though the Temple is destroyed, for the city's holiness derives from the manifestation of God's presence and that holiness can never be nullified.
|
| 4. |
When the Temple is not standing, the second tithe must be separated, but we do not partake of it. Instead, we redeem it, as stated in the following halachah.
|
| 5. |
Sifri to Deuteronomy 14:23.
|
| 6. |
A commitment to observance that goes beyond the basic requirements of the law.
|
| 7. |
The Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aser Sheni 4:1) relates that the Sages of the Talmud would conduct themselves in this manner.
|
| 8. |
See Chapter 4, Halachah 1, 18.
|
| 9. |
100 silver coins.
|
| 10. |
A copper coin of minimal value. Since when the Temple is standing, after the fact, such an exchange is acceptable, in the present era, it can be accepted as an initial and preferable measure (Radbaz).
|
| 11. |
For, after all, it is being destroyed (Siftei Cohen 331:149).
|
| 12. |
Which can be redeemed in this manner as an initial and preferable measure (Hilchot Arachin8:10).
|
| 13. |
I.e., in a place where it will permanently be lost. If it is being thrown to a river, it must first be ground to dust so that it will never be able to be used [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:133)].
Here the Rambam uses the term yam hagadol, "the Great Sea," which in relation to Eretz Yisraelmeans the Mediterranean Sea. Sometimes, the term yam hamelech, "the Salt Sea, is used. Although in contemporary usage, the term is used in reference to the Dead Sea, the Rambam understands it as referring to the Mediterranean.
|
| 14. |
See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 10:17. Both here and in that source, the Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that a silver coin must be used for these redemptions. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh support the Rambam's position. See also Chapter 2, Halachah 4 and notes.
|
| 15. |
For the Temple is not standing, as stated in Halachah 1. Moreover, we are all ritually impure, and the second tithe may not be eaten in a state of ritual impurity, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 1.
It must be emphasized that with the term Jerusalem, we mean the city limits in the era of the Second Temple. The fact that an area is included in the contemporary metropolis of Jerusalem is not at all significant.
|
| 16. |
For money.
The Kessef Mishneh states that if produce from the second tithe becomes ritually impure, it can be redeemed as indicated by Halachah 8. The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 331) [based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aser Sheni 3:6)] writes that we can water produce that has been detached so that it will become susceptible to ritual impurity. When it becomes ritually impure, it can be redeemed. These concepts are quoted by the Shulchan Aruch and Rama (Yoreh De'ah 331:135).
|
| 17. |
For other produce. The rationale is that produce from the second tithe should not be redeemed or exchanged in Jerusalem as stated in Halachah 8.
|
| 18. |
See also Chapter 3, Halachah 17.
|
| 19. |
See Halachah 9.
|
| 20. |
I.e., because it will be condemned to rot.
|
| 21. |
See Hilchot Terumot 10:2.
|
| 22. |
I.e., he partook of the produce after it was taken to Jerusalem and then taken out, as stated in the following halachah.
|
| 23. |
I.e., in cities outside Jerusalem.
|
| 24. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 141-142) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 442-444) include these as three of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 25. |
The Rambam explains the rationale for this in General Principle 9 of his Sefer HaMitzvot, quotingKeritot 4b, and giving the explanation that he offers in this halachah.
|
| 26. |
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:15 which states that the holiness of Jerusalem is not nullified even though the Temple is destroyed, for the city's holiness derives from the manifestation of God's presence and that holiness can never be nullified.
|
| 27. |
When the Temple is not standing, the second tithe must be separated, but we do not partake of it. Instead, we redeem it, as stated in the following halachah.
|
| 28. |
I.e., since the Torah mentions all three types of produce in both the positive and negative commandments, we can assume that the repetition was meant to teach us that one is liable for each type of produce individually. In his Hasagot, the Ramban disagrees and maintains that one who administers three sets of lashes for partaking of these types of produce is liable for striking a fellow Jew unnecessarily.
|
| 29. |
Tosafot (Makkot 19b) explain that the violation of a positive commandment is involved, for we are commanded to redeem the produce from the second tithe that is not brought to Jerusalem.
|
| 30. |
A punishment ordained by the Rabbis for breaking Rabbinic commandments or negative commandments that result from a positive commandment.
|
| 31. |
I.e., one might think that he would be liable, because a portion of the produce was brought into the city. Hence, it is necessary to state that he is not. See Hilchot Bikkurim 3:2, for it is the source of this law.
|
| 32. |
I.e., one might think that he would not be liable, because the entire quantity of produce was not brought into the city. Hence, it is necessary to state that he is.
|
| 33. |
Even though produce from the second tithe that is pure should not be redeemed in Jerusalem, as stated in Halachah 4, if it becomes impure, it should be redeemed, for otherwise, it will be worthless, for it may not be eaten in that state.
Pesachim 36b derives this concept as follows: The mitzvah of redeeming produce from the second tithe is derived from Deuteronomy 14:24: "If you cannot carry it...." Se'as, the term for "carry" used in that verse is also used in connection with food as stated in Genesis 43:34. Hence, the verse can be interpreted as meaning that the produce should be redeemed if it cannot be eaten.
|
| 34. |
Jerusalem. The verse speaks about the redemption of the second tithe.
|
| 35. |
And thus he does not even have to walk outside to bring it inside (Kessef Mishneh; Or Sameach). Rashi interprets the passage differently.
|
| 36. |
The converse is also true. If he was outside and his burden had been brought inside, it cannot be redeemed (Makkot 19b).
|
| 37. |
Produce which is demai may be taken in and out of Jerusalem (Halachah 11). Once the second tithe has been separated from it, however, it may not be taken out of Jerusalem after it has been brought in. This represents a reversal of the Rambam's opinion from that stated in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 3:6).
|
| 38. |
The law is not derived from this verse, for as the Rambam stated previously, the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin. Instead, the verse is an asmachta, a support from the Torah for a Rabbinic law. Significantly, to this writer's knowledge, our Rabbis have not identified a previous Rabbinic source where this verse is cited as a prooftext.
[This alludes to a question frequently raised: Did the Rambam have sources from the Sages of the Talmud that were lost or were interpretations such as this his original work?]
|
| 39. |
When a person redeems produce from the second tithe that belongs to him, it is necessary to add a fifth, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 1. Here, however, we are speaking about a situation where that fifth is not worth a p'rutah. Thus the redemption of such produce is not feasible. And since its redemption is not feasible, according to Scriptural Law, such produce need not be treated as produce from the second tithe (Meiri to Bava Metzia 53b). Nevertheless, our Rabbis were stringent and required that the fifth be separated even in such a situation.
|
| 40. |
I.e., although two Rabbinic decrees are involved, we still rule stringently.
|
| 41. |
For our Sages imposed their decree with regard to produce alone.
|
| 42. |
And from which the second tithe has not been separated.
|
| 43. |
I.e., in this regard, we consider it as if the second tithe had already been separated. Hence, since it passed through Jerusalem, it must be eaten there [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].
|
| 44. |
I.e., it cannot be redeemed for money.
|
| 45. |
I.e., there is no alternative but to partake of the produce in the holy city.
|
| 46. |
To be squeezed for wine [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].
|
| 47. |
Since there was no obligation to tithe them at the time they passed through Jerusalem, they are not considered to have been taken in by the city's barriers.
|
| 48. |
Since the obligation to separate the second tithe from demai was instituted only because of a doubt, our Rabbis did not apply this stringency. See Halachah 9.
|
| 49. |
And hence cannot be eaten.
|
| 50. |
See Halachah 4.
|
| 51. |
I.e., the decree imposed by our Sages must be upheld because this impurity is merely Rabbinic in origin and thus the holiness of the produce was not defiled [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.):9].
|
| 52. |
For when it was brought into Jerusalem, it was not fit to be eaten and thus did not possess a measure of holiness (ibid.).
|
| 53. |
That produce that became impure due to conduct with a secondary source of impurity outside of Jerusalem can be redeemed or removed from the city after it was brought in. If, however, produce became impure through contact with a primary source of impurity, one's intent is not significant. A person may remove it from Jerusalem even if he did not have the intent originally.
|
| 54. |
Instead, it should be redeemed and eaten in Jerusalem.
|
| 55. |
After it has dried out, by contrast, it is not fit to be eaten. For that reason, it is forbidden to let it dry out [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.) 2:3; see also Hilchot Terumah 2:8]. This explanation nullifies the Ra'avad's objections to the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 56. |
Vetch refers to a species of beans generally used as cattle fodder. While they are fresh, however, they are fit for human consumption with difficulty (see ibid.:4; see also Hilchot Terumah 2:2;Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 1:9).
|
| 57. |
Since they are not fit for ordinary human consumption, the restrictions that usually apply to produce from the second tithe were not placed upon a dough made from them. Indeed, the laws governing vetch are more lenient than those governing chilba, for chilba is frequently eaten by humans while fresh. Vetch, by contrast, is eaten only when ordinary food is not available.
The Ra'avad understands the Rambam as ruling that the restrictions are relaxed only with regard to dough made from vetch, but not with regard to vetch itself. If the actual beans were taken outside the city, they must be returned. The commentaries accept this understanding.
|
| 58. |
I.e., in this context, one is considered to be outside the city.
|
| 59. |
Note the parallel in Hilchot Rotzeach 8:11; see also Hilchot Ma'aser 4:16.
|
| 60. |
I.e., in this context, it is considered as part of the city, because of the entrance.
|
| 61. |
For neither the entrance to the home, nor this position of it is in the city.
|
| 62. |
Because the entrance is the primary determinant.
|
| 63. |
For in actual fact, one is within the city's walls.
|
| 64. |
The commentaries note the concurrence between this ruling and that of Hilchot Beit HaBechirah6:9, but the apparent contradiction between it and that of Hilchot Shemitah VeYoval 12:12. They conclude that there is no one general principle governing the situation and each set of laws has its own rules.
|
Maaser Sheini - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
A person who partakes of produce from the second tithe in a state of ritual impurity is liable for lashes,1 as [implied by Deuteronomy 26:14]: "I did not consume it in a state of impurity." [This applies] whether the produce is impure and the person partaking of it is pure or the produce is pure and the person partaking of it is impure, provided he partakes of it in Jerusalem before it is redeemed.2 For one is liable for lashes for partaking of such produce in a state of ritual impurity in a place where it is fit to partake of it. If, however, one partakes of it in a state of ritual impurity outside of Jerusalem,3 he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.4
Halacha 2
Once it has become impure,5 it even forbidden to use such produce [as fuel] to kindle a lamp until it is redeemed, as [implied by]: "I did not consume it in a state of impurity."
Halacha 3
We already explained,6 that when produce from the second tithe becomes impure, it should be redeemed and eaten- even in Jerusalem.7 The proceeds [from its redemption] should [be used to purchase food that is] eaten in a state of ritual purity according to the laws governing produce from the second tithe, as will be explained.8 Even if all the produce became impure while it was tevel, one should separate the second tithe in a state of ritual impurity9 and redeem it.
Halacha 4
An uncircumcised person is considered as if he is ritually impure. If he partakes of produce from the second tithe, he is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law as he is liable for lashes for partaking of terumah.10 [This equivalence is established, because] terumah is referred to as "holy,"11 and produce from the second tithe is referred as "holy," for [Leviticus 26:30] describes it as being "holy unto God."
Halacha 5
When a person partakes of produce from the second tithe in a Scripturally defined state of aninut,14 he is liable for lashes15 as [implied by Deuteronomy 26:14]: "I did not consume it in a state of aninut." [This applies,] provided he partakes of it in the place we are commanded to partake of it, [i.e.,] in Jerusalem.16 If, however, he partook of such produce outside Jerusalem17in a state of aninut or partook of it in Jerusalem in a Rabbinically defined state ofaninut, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.18
Halacha 6
Who is an onain? One is mourning for one of the relatives for whom he is obligated to mourn19 on the day of their death is an onain according to Scriptural law. At night, he is an onain according to Rabbinic decree. [This is derived from Leviticus 10:19]: "If I would partake of a sin offering today, would it find favor in the eyes of God?"20 [Implied is that the day is forbidden,21 but the night is permitted.22
If the deceased remains [unburied] for several days and is not buried until afterwards, [his relatives are] onanim according to Rabbinic decree throughout the days from the day of death until the day of the burial. [The status of] the day of burial is not extended until [the following] night.23
Halacha 7
[This restriction does not apply] to the second tithe alone, [but also] to all sacrificial foods. If one partakes of them in a Scriptural state of aninut, he is liable for lashes. In a Rabbinic state of aninut, he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.24
Halacha 8
Produce from the second tithe, nor produce purchased with money from the second time, nor money from the redemption of the second tithe should not be given to a common person, because we operate under the assumption that he is impure.25
It is permitted to partake of produce from the second tithe that was separated from demai in a state of aninut26 and it may be given to a common person,27provided he eats [an equivalent amount of produce] in place of them.28
Produce from the second tithe should not be entrusted [to a colleague for safekeeping], not even to a chavair,29 lest he die and the produce continue in the possession of his son, who is a common person. One may, however, entrust produce from the second tithe separated from demai to a common person.
Halacha 9
It is forbidden to cause the loss of even a small amount of produce from the second tithe30 on the journey [to Jerusalem].31 Instead, one must transport it in its entirety or the proceeds [from its redemption] to Jerusalem. It is, however, permitted, to cause the loss of a small amount of produce from the second tithe separate from demai on the journey.
What is meant by a small portion? Less than the size of a dried fig,32 whether it is eaten whole or sliced. We may not, however, cause the loss of a portion the size of a dried fig.33
When a person separates a portion less than the size of a dried fig from produce from the second tithe separated from demai, he may give it to a common person34provided he eats [a comparable portion in Jerusalem] in exchange for it. At the outset, he should not set it aside to be lost, for produce should not be set aside to be lost.
Halacha 10
The produce of the second tithe may be used to eat and to drink, as [implied byDeuteronomy 14:23]: "And you shall eat before God, your Lord."35 Smearing oneself is considered as drinking.36
It is forbidden to use [this produce] for any of one's other needs,37 to purchase utensils, clothes, or servants, as [ibid. 26:14] states: "I did not give from it to a corpse," i.e., I did not use it [to purchase] an object that does not maintain the body.38 If a person uses this produce for other purposes, even for a mitzvah, e.g., he uses it to purchase a coffin and shrouds for an abandoned corpse,39 he must eat other food in place of it,40 according to the laws governing the second tithe.
Halacha 11
[With regard to produce from the second] tithe: One should eat produce that is normally eaten,41 drink what is normally drunk, and smear on oneself what is normally smeared. He should not smear wine or vinegar, but he may smear oil.42 He should not squeeze fruit to extract its juice with the exception of olives and grapes.43 We do not mix spices with oil, 44 but do so with wine.45
We do not require a person to eat bread that has become moldy or oil that has become rancid. Instead, as soon as it has become spoiled to the point that it is not fit for human consumption, its holiness has departed from it.46
Halacha 12
Whatever parts of produce from terumah that non-priests are permitted to eat47may also be eaten from produce of the second tithe like ordinary produce.48When [grape] dregs from the second tithe were placed in water,49 the first [quantity of drink produce] is forbidden like the produce from the second tithe.50The second is permitted, like ordinary produce.51 [If the produce of the second tithe was] from demai, even the first quantity is permitted.52
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
When a dough made with flour from the second tithe was baked55 and improved, the improvement is accredited to the second tithe.56 This is the general principle: Whenever the improvement57 is obvious, if the volume of the produce is increased, the improvement is judged proportionately. If the volume of the produce is not increased, the improvement is accredited to the second tithe alone. Whenever the improvement is not obvious, the improvement is attributed to the second tithe alone even when the volume is not increased.
Halacha 15
What is meant by the phrase "the improvement is judged proportionately"? Honey and spices worth a zuz fall into wine from the second tithe that is worth three [zuz], increasing its volume and improving its flavor.58 The combined worth is now five zuz, we consider the worth [for the tithes] as four and a fourth.59 Similar rules apply with regard to other substances.
Halacha 16
Halacha 17
The second tithe is considered the property of the Most High, as [Leviticus 27:30] states: "It is God's." Therefore it cannot be acquired [when given] as a present,62 unless one gives a colleague tevel and he separates the second tithe from it.
Halacha 18
What is meant by the prohibition against taking it as security? One should not enter [the debtor's] home66 and take produce from the second tithe of his as security. If one transgressed and took such produce as security, it is expropriated from him.
What is meant by the prohibition against giving it as surety? One should not tell a colleague: "Take this produce from the second tithe. Keep it in your possession and lend me money because of it."67
What is meant by the prohibition against exchanging it? A person should not tell a colleague: "Here is wine from the second tithe for you and give me oil from the second tithe."68 He may, however, tell a colleague: "Here is wine from [the second tithe] for you, but I don't have oil." If his colleague desires to give him oil, it is permitted, because he did not exchange it with him.69 He merely notified him that he lacked it. Thus if that person desired to give him, he may.
Halacha 19
We do not use produce from the second tithe as a weight for anything, even for golden dinarim.70 [This is forbidden] even to [weigh coins] onto which the holiness from other produce will be transferred.71 [This is] a decree,72 [enacted] lest he balance his scales on this basis and the produce be lacking in weight.73Thus if he uses them to weigh coins upon which to transfer the holiness of other produce from the second tithe, he will be redeeming such produce for less than its worth.
Halacha 20
When brothers divide produce from the second tithe [left them in an estate], they should not weigh them against each other.74 Similarly, coins [upon which the holiness of] the second tithe [has been transferred] should not be weighed against each other. [Such coins] should not be sold, nor exchanged, nor given as surety. One may not give them to a moneychanger to use to create an impression.75 One may not lend them to boost his image.76 It is, however, permitted to lend them so that they will not rust.
Halacha 21
We may not use [this money] to repay loans. They may not be used as wedding gifts,77 nor may they be used to repay favors.78 They may not be used to pay for charity levied upon him in the synagogue.79 One may, however, send them [as gifts] for charitable purposes.80 One must, however, [notify the recipient].81
Halacha 22
Halacha 23
In Jerusalem, a person may ask a colleague to smear oil from the second tithe upon him even though the oil also becomes smeared on the colleague's hand. This is not considered as a wage for smearing it upon him.84
Halacha 24
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 150) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 609) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 2. |
For after the produce has been redeemed, it is ordinary produce.
|
| 3. |
With regard to partaking of such produce outside of Jerusalem in a state of ritual purity, see the previous chapter.
|
| 4. |
For the prohibition is only Rabbinic in origin. This applies even if the produce had already been brought into Jerusalem and was then removed.
|
| 5. |
I.e., even though it has become impure. Before it becomes impure, it is forbidden to use it for purposes other than human consumption, as stated in Halachah 10.
|
| 6. |
Chapter 2, Halachah 8.
|
| 7. |
Where it is otherwise forbidden to redeem produce from the second tithe.
|
| 8. |
See Halachot 10-11.
|
| 9. |
I.e., we do not say that since it became impure before the second tithe was separate and thus the mitzvah associated with that produce could never be fulfilled, the mitzvah does not take effect.
|
| 10. |
See Hilchot Terumah 7:10; see also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:9; Hilchot Chagigah 2:1.
|
| 11. | |
| 12. |
And thus performs the act necessary to emerge from ritual impurity.
|
| 13. |
A person who purified himself must wait until nightfall before partaking of terumah. This stringency does not apply with regard to partaking of produce from the second tithe.
|
| 14. |
See the following halachah.
|
| 15. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 151) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 608) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The Rambam explains why he considers this a negative commandment in General Principle 8 ofSefer HaMitzvot, saying that whenever the Torah requires us to declare that we did not perform a specific activity, the performance of that activity is forbidden by Scriptural Law. The Ramban does not accept this principle as he states in his Hasagot.
|
| 16. |
The Kessef Mishneh explains that this concept is derived from the prohibition against partaking of the second tithe in a state of ritual impurity which is mentioned in Halachah 1. Since the two prohibitions are mentioned in sequence by the Torah, we can assume that they share the same laws.
|
| 17. |
Even if the produce had passed through Jerusalem previously.
|
| 18. |
For his actions involve either the violation of a positive Scriptural command or a Rabbinic ordinance.
|
| 19. |
A person's mother, father, son, daughter, paternal brother and paternal sister (Hilchot Evel 2:1).
|
| 20. |
Aaron asked this rhetorical question after Moses rebuked him for not partaking of the sin offering on the day of the dedication of the Sanctuary. Aaron was explaining that since his sons had died that day, it would not be appropriate for him to partake of a sin offering that day.
|
| 21. |
For the verse states today.
|
| 22. |
I.e., according to Scriptural Law; it is, however, forbidden by Rabbinic decree as above.
|
| 23. |
I.e., even according to Rabbinic Law, the laws of aninut do not apply.
|
| 24. |
See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:9-10. See Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 151) which explains that the prohibition is included in this Scriptural commandment.
|
| 25. |
And it is forbidden to cause produce from the second tithe to contract ritual impurity.
|
| 26. |
Even in a state of Scriptural aninut.
|
| 27. |
Although it may contract ritual impurity. The produce may not, however, be eaten in a state of ritual impurity until it is redeemed. The amount that may be given to a common person is, however, quite small, as stated in the following halachah.
|
| 28. |
I.e., he must separate an equivalent amount of produce from his possessions and partake of it according to the strictures of the second tithe. He is thus transferring the holiness of the first batch of produce to the second [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 1:2)]. Since the obligation to separate the second tithe from demai is Rabbinic in origin, certain leniencies are allowed.
|
| 29. |
The Ra'avad protests the Rambam's ruling. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that their disagreement stems from two different versions of the Tosefta (Ma'aser Sheni 4:3).
|
| 30. |
This is referring to an instance where we are certain that the second tithe was not separated from the produce beforehand in contrast to the second tithe that was separated from demai.
|
| 31. |
In order to prevent this from happening, the Torah gave the option of redeeming the produce, as will be explained.
|
| 32. |
See Hilchot Shabbat, chs. 8, 9, 18, which mention this measure as significant with regard to food (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 33. |
The Ra'avad is more lenient and maintains that a larger amount, a portion the size of an egg, can be given to a common person. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that the difference in the two opinions depends in a textual difference in their versions of Jerusalem Talmud (Demai2:1), the source for the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 34. |
Here also, the Ra'avad is more lenient and maintains that a larger amount, a portion the size of an egg, can be given to a common person. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that in this instance as well, the difference in the two opinions depends in a textual difference in their versions of the above source.
|
| 35. |
And drinking is included in eating (Yoma 76b). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni2:1), the Rambam also cites Deuteronomy 14:26 which speaks about using the money from the redemption of the produce from the second tithe to purchase meat, oil, and wine.
|
| 36. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam cites the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aser Sheni 2:1) derives the permission to use oil from the second tithe for smearing as follows: It is forbidden to use oil for a corpse. Now what would oil be used for a corpse? To smear on it. Thus we can infer that it is permitted to use oil to smear on a living person. Others note that smearing oneself is frequently equated with drinking. See Hilchot Sh'vitat Esor 1:4-5; Hilchot Terumot 11:1.
|
| 37. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 152; see also General Principle 8) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 610) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 38. |
In his Commentary to the Torah, the Ramban objects to the Rambam's interpretation of this verse, but the Kessef Mishneh justifies it.
|
| 39. |
The literal translation of the Rambam's words is "a corpse [that it is] a mitzvah [to bury]. As explained in Hilchot Evel 3:5, this refers to a corpse that is abandoned on the road without anyone to bury it.
|
| 40. |
I.e., he is not liable for lashes, because he can correct the transgression by purchasing food worth the value of the produce and eating it in place of that produce (Radbaz). This applies if the seller is no longer present or he cannot return the money. If, however, he can return the money, he must, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 16.
|
| 41. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:1), the Rambam explains that this phrase implies an exclusion: Something that is normally eaten must be eaten. We cannot benefit from it in another manner. The examples the Rambam proceeds to give reflect how foods are used for functions other than their primary purpose. See also Hilchot Shemitah 5:2-3.
|
| 42. |
Even though oil is primarily used as food, it is also common to smear it on one's flesh (Radbaz). Wine or vinegar, by contrast, are generally not applied as ointments.
|
| 43. |
For producing juice from other fruits is not considered the ordinary way of befitting from this produce. See also Chapter 9, Halachah 3; Hilchot Terumot 11:3; Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 1:5.
|
| 44. |
For this spoils the oil's taste and thus reduces the amount of people who would partake of it [The Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].
|
| 45. |
For this enhances the wine's taste.
|
| 46. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit., the Rambam explains that this concept is also derived from the phrasing of that Mishnah: "To eat what is normally eaten." Since this food has spoiled, it is not "normally eaten."
|
| 47. |
I.e., parts of the plant that are not usually eaten. See Hilchot Terumah 11:10-13 for examples.
|
| 48. |
I.e., it need not be eaten in Jerusalem, nor in a state of ritual purity.
|
| 49. |
To impart their flavor to the water.
|
| 50. |
For it is considered as if a significant amount of the fruit was imparted to the water.
|
| 51. |
Because it does not contain a significant amount of the fruit.
|
| 52. |
Since there is a doubt whether the produce is really from the second tithe, we do not impose this stringency.
|
| 53. |
That were ordinary produce.
|
| 54. |
As explained in Halachah 15.
|
| 55. |
With ordinary wood [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:1)].
|
| 56. |
I.e., if one seeks to redeem the bread, one must pay its full value, even though as dough it was worth far less. The rationale is that its flavor is enhanced, but not its measure.
|
| 57. |
In the taste of the produce.
The Ra'avad has protested this ruling based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aser Sheni 2:1). Indeed, the ruling is difficult to understanding because it runs contrary to the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah that serves as the source for the Jerusalem Talmud.
To explain: The Mishnah states: "This is the general principle: Whenever the improvement is obvious, the improvement is judged proportionately. Whenever the improvement is not obvious, the improvement is accredited to the second [tithe]."
The Rambam comments: "I.e., the entity that was improved had its weight... and volume increased, it is not [merely] that the effect of the ordinary produce increased the quality of the produce from the second tithe."
The Jerusalem Talmud cites the following difference of opinion between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish in connection with our Mishnah:
Now the general rule is that whenever there is a difference of opinion between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish, the halachah follows Rabbi Yochanan. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishnehunderstand Rabbi Yochanan to be explaining and amplifying the Mishnah, stating that the improvement must be both in flavor and in size, while Reish Lakish maintains that an improvement in flavor is also sufficient.
|
| 58. |
Thus meeting the two requirements mentioned above.
|
| 59. |
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling and states that four zuz minus a fourth should be considered as the second tithe. Some commentaries suggest that there is a printing error and the Rambam also agrees with this ruling. "According to that version, the reckoning is straightforward. The zuz of increase is divided proportionately according to the ratio of the original value of the substances.
The Kessef Mishnehmaintains the present text of the Mishneh Torah and explains as follows: When everything belongs to one person, three ands three quarters zuz are considered as the second tithe as the Ra'avad maintains. When, however, the honey and spices belong to two people, the value of the entire mixture is considered as four and a fourth zuz. One and a fourth is given to the owner of the honey. Thus the owner of the wine has three and three fourths zuzworth which he must eat in accordance with the laws of the second tithe. Note the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:1) which follows these same principles, but describes the situation differently.
|
| 60. |
As stated in Halachah 10.
|
| 61. |
But rather as food, or for smearing that is pleasurable like eating (Radbaz). Note the parallel inHilchot Shemitah 5:11.
|
| 62. |
The Rambam is not saying that it may not be given as a present, because a person may give produce from the second tithe tithe to a colleague. Nevertheless, the recipient does not acquire that produce as his own. Instead, it is as if he is a guest of the giver, partaking of his property. More particularly, it is as if the recipient is partaking of God's property.
|
| 63. |
Indeed, if one attempts to consecrate a woman with such produce, the consecration is not effective, for the money used to consecrate a woman must belong to the husband (Hilchot Ishut5:4,6).
|
| 64. |
See the following halachah for examples of all these prohibitions.
|
| 65. |
For an exchange is equivalent to a sale [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 1:1)].
|
| 66. |
See Hilchot Loveh UMalveh 3:7 which describes when a creditor can enter the debtor's home to collect security.
|
| 67. |
In contrast to the previous instance, this is referring to security willingly given by the debtor to the creditor.
|
| 68. |
I.e., the exchange is forbidden even if he receives produce from the second tithe in return. The Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 1:1)] states that such an exchange is forbidden even in Jerusalem where the produce would be eaten.
|
| 69. |
For the recipient of the wine is under no obligation to provide the giver with oil or anything else.
|
| 70. |
For this is deprecating to the holiness of the second tithe [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 1:1)].
|
| 71. |
I.e., one knows the weight of the produce and one uses it in order to weigh the golden coins onto which the holiness from other produce from the second tithe will be transferred.
|
| 72. |
I.e., one might think that this is permitted for after all, he is using the produce from the second tithe for a mitzvah, to enable him to transfer the holiness of other produce.
|
| 73. |
I.e., the produce may dry out, be eaten by mice, or spoil, and thus weigh less than the owner thought (Rav Yosef Corcus).
|
| 74. |
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that this is permitted. The Kessef Mishnehstates that the passage which the Ra'avad uses as a source can be explained differently. Nevertheless, he questions the rationale for the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 75. |
I.e., to stack them on his table so that he will appear to have an active business.
|
| 76. |
One gives the loan only for appearance sake - to create an impression that he is wealthy - and the borrower returns it immediately.
|
| 77. |
It was customary for a person's friends to give him money as wedding gift and for him to repay the favor when the friends married. See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah, ch. 7, for a detailed explanation. This is forbidden, because the present is considered as a loan.
|
| 78. |
I.e., a person invited a colleague for a meal with the expectation that the colleague return the favor (P'nei Moshe, the Jerusalem Talmud, Demai 3:1). Produce from the second tithe cannot be used for such meals, for it is like an exchange.
|
| 79. |
For he will be paying an obligation levied upon him with funds belonging to God (ibid.).
|
| 80. |
As long is the donor is not obligated to make these payments.
|
| 81. |
So that he will use it as required for money from the second tithes.
|
| 82. |
That would be forbidden because it would be equivalent to using the produce from the second tithe to pay his debt.
|
| 83. |
Hinting at such an arrangement without specifically mentioning it.
|
| 84. |
This is permitted, because the oil smeared on his hand is not financially significant [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:2)]. Nevertheless, a non-priest is not to put oil which is terumah on his hand to smear it on a priest. The difference between the two situations is that there is no prohibition against having a colleague use oil from the second tithe, while a non-priest is not allowed to benefit from terumah.
|
| 85. |
Halachah 17.
|
| 86. |
These are the penalties one would be required to pay for taking a person's individual property. The thief is, however, required to return the principal. See Hilchot Geneivah 2:1.
|
| 87. |
The consecration is effective. Since the person has the right to partake of the produce, that right has monetary value and hence may be consecrated. See Chapter 7, Halachah 19, with regard to dedicating the second tithes for the purchase of sacrifices.
|
| 88. |
I.e., not necessarily the owner, for anyone can redeem consecrated property. The owner, however, must add a fifth (see Hilchot Arachin 7:2-4). Similarly, when a person redeems produce from the second tithe that belongs to him, he must add a fifth, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 1. See Radbaz.
|
Maaser Sheini - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
A person who desires to redeem produce from the second tithe should1 redeem it according to its worth2 and say: "These coins3 take the place of this produce" or "The holiness of this produce is transferred to these coins."
If he did not make such an explicit statement, but merely set aside the coins equivalent to [the value of] the produce, it is sufficient. He need not make an explicit statement.4
The produce then is considered ordinary produce and the coins must be taken to Jerusalem and spent there,5 as [Deuteronomy 14:23] states: "When the journey will be too great for you, because you cannot transport it...."
Halacha 2
Similarly, if a person desires to transfer the holiness of produce from the second tithe to other produce, he should bring the other produce6 to Jerusalem and eat it there. He should not transfer the holiness of produce from one species to produce from another species,7 nor from high quality produce from one species to lower quality produce even if it is of the same species. If, however, he transferred the holiness of produce in these instances, the transfer is effective.
Halacha 3
A person who redeems produce from the second tithe should recite a blessing:8"[Blessed are You...] who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the redemption of the second tithe." If he transferred the holiness to other produce or he transferred the holiness of money to produce,9 he should recite the blessing: "...concerning the transfer of the holiness of the second tithe."10 A person who redeems or transfers the holiness of demai need not11 recite a blessing.12
Halacha 4
When one redeems produce from the second tithe, he should not redeem it as the second tithe, but rather as ordinary produce. He should say: "How much is this ordinary produce worth." [This applies] even if everyone knows that the produce is from the second tithe, so that it will not be disgraced.13
Halacha 5
The holiness of coins [used to redeem produce from] the second tithe should not be transferred to other coins.14 [This applies] whether both sets of coins were silver or both were brass, the first set was silver and the second brass, or the first set was brass and the second silver. If one transgressed and transferred the holiness, the transfer is effective.15
Halacha 6
[Outside of Jerusalem,] the holiness of money of the second tithe should not be transferred to produce. If such a transfer was made, the produce should be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there.16 [Similarly, the holiness of money from the second tithe] should not be transferred to living domesticated animals, beasts, or fowl. If one [attempted to] make such a transfer, the holiness of the second tithe is not transferred. [This is a decree,]17 lest one raise them in herds. If one transferred the [holiness of such funds] to animals that were slaughtered, they are considered as produce. They must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there and the money is considered as ordinary funds.18
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
The produce from the second tithe may only be redeemed23 for silver, as [implied by Deuteronomy 14:25]: "And you shall bundle the silver." Similarly, if a person redeems the silver for himself and adds a fifth,24 that fifth must be silver like the principal.25
One should not use uncoined silver for the redemption [of the second tithe]. Instead, one must use silver imprinted with an image or with writing.26 If one [attempted to] redeem [produce from the second tithe] with silver bullion or the like - this is referred as an asimon - his actions are of no consequence. We may not redeem [produce from the second tithe] with [a coin less valuable] than ap'rutah,27 because this is considered as redeeming with an asimon.
Halacha 10
We may not redeem [produce from the second tithe] with a coin that is not legal tender in that place and at that time,28 as [implied by ibid.:26]: "And you shall exchange the silver for anything your heart desires." [Implied is that the silver] must be fit for exchange.29 A coin minted by kings of an earlier era30 may be used for redemption if it is still circulated as currency.
Halacha 11
We may not redeem [produce from the second tithe] with coins that are not in one's possession,31 as [implied by] the verse: "And you shall bundle the silver in your hand."32 If a person's pouch fell into a cistern, but it is possible for him to remove it from there, he may use [the coins in] it for redemption,33 for it is [still] in his domain.
Halacha 12
[The following rules apply when] one was traveling on the road, carrying money, and a man of force was approaching him.34 If he could save [his money, even] with difficulty, he can use it to redeem produce of the second tithe in his home.35 If he cannot, and he says: "The holiness of the produce that is in my house is transferred to this money," his statements are of no consequence.
Halacha 13
When a person sets aside money upon which to transfer the holiness of produce from the second tithe, he may [continue to] redeem his produce under the assumption that the money exists in his possession. If he discovers that the money has been lost, he must be concerned about all the produce that he redeemed with that money.36
Halacha 14
When a person located in Tiberias has money in Babylonian coinage in Babylon, he may not transfer the holiness [of the produce of the second tithe] to them.37If, by contrast, [although he is in Tiberias,] he possesses money of Tiberian coinage in Babylon, he may transfer the holiness [of the produce of the second tithe] to them.38 Similarly laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 15
When a person says: "The holiness of produce from the second tithe is transferred to the first sela that I will take out of this wallet," "...on the sela I will receive when I exchange this golden dinar," "...on the pundiyon39 I will receive when I exchange this sela, the transfer is effective.40 The sela that he will take out or receive in exchange is money of the second tithe.
Halacha 16
When a person says: "The holiness of the produce of the second tithe is transferred to the sela in my son's possession, the holiness is not transferred. Perhaps the sela was not in his possession at that time.41
Halacha 17
When a person redeems the produce from the second tithe before he separates it, e.g., he says: "The second tithe of this produce42 is redeemed with this money," his statements are of no consequence and the tithes have not been defined. If, however, he says: "The second tithe from this produce is in its northern portion" or "...in its southern portion43 and its holiness is transferred to this money," the redemption is effective.
Halacha 18
When the produce of the second tithe is redeemed, it should be redeemed for its fair value.44 One may, however, value it at the buying price, i.e., what the storekeeper would pay if he purchased it and not the price he would charge if he sold it.45 Similarly, he may pay money according to the rate that a moneychanger would pay and not according to the rate he would charge.46 If a person transgresses and redeemed [produce] worth a maneh47 with [a coin] worth a p'rutah, the holiness [of the produce] is transferred.48
Halacha 19
[The following laws apply if] a sela was lacking a sixth or less [than its weight].49If it would be accepted [in business dealings even] with difficulty, one may transfer the holiness a sela's worth [of produce of the second tithe] to it without concern.50 If one redeemed [produce] with a sela and it was discovered to be unacceptable,51 he should exchange it.52
Halacha 20
One should not redeem produce from the second tithe by estimation.53 Instead, one should be precise concerning its volume or its weight and give their value. If the value [of the produce] was known,54 he may redeem it in the presence of only one person.55 If its value was not known, e.g., wine that had begun turning into vinegar,56 produce that spoiled, or coins that corroded, he should redeem them according to the appraisal of three merchants.57 [It is acceptable] even if one of them is a gentile or the owner of the produce58 of the second tithe. It is even acceptable to redeem [produce] based on the appraisal of a man and his two wives.59We compel the owner to make the first bid [to redeem the produce].60 This is a stringency applied with regard to produce from the second tithe over consecrated property.61
Halacha 21
We should not transport produce62 from the second tithe from one place to another to redeem it there. When a person transports produce from a place where it is expensive to a place where it is inexpensive should redeem it according to its value in the place he is redeeming it. If it is demai,63 we may redeem it at the inexpensive price, since it was possible to sell it at that price.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Although there is a difference of opinion concerning this manner in the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni4:7), the variance in views applies only after the fact. According to all views, the initial and preferable option is for him to make an explicit statement.
|
| 2. |
See Halachah 18 and Chapter 2, Halachah 2.
|
| 3. |
The coins need not be in front of him when he makes the declaration. As long as they are within his possession, it is acceptable. See Halachot 11-13.
|
| 4. |
For the circumstances clarify the nature of his intent [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 4:7)].
In some printings of the Mishneh Torah, there is a note (which some ascribe to the Ra'avad) that states that for the redemption to be acceptable when he does not make an explicit statement, he must have been involved with the matter beforehand. Rav Yosef Corcus discusses this issue at length, noting that this is indeed the law with regard to the consecration and divorce of a woman (Hilchot Ishut 3:8, Hilchot Gerushin 1:11). He makes two distinctions regarding the situations:
a) in contrast to consecration and divorce, setting aside money for produce from the second tithe is a self-explanatory act; the intent is directly obvious;
b) consecration and divorce must be observed by witnesses. Hence, one must make his intent clear to them. There is no such obligation with regard to the redemption of produce. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 31:136) quotes the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 5. |
To purchase food. See Chapter 7, Halachah 3.
|
| 6. |
The original produce, by contrast, is now considered as ordinary produce and can be eaten anywhere. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the transfer is not effective, for he maintains that the holiness of the produce from the second tithe can only be transferred to money. Nevertheless, as a stringency, he maintains that the second batch of produce must also be taken to Jerusalem. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 7. |
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam on this issue as well and again the commentaries justify the Rambam's position.
|
| 8. |
Before separating the produce.
|
| 9. |
See Halachah 6.
|
| 10. |
In continuation of his comments on the previous halachah, the Ra'avad states that a blessing should not be recited. Since the person is not allowed to transfer the holiness of the produce in this manner, he should not recite a blessing.
|
| 11. |
Indeed, he should not, lest he be taking God's name in vein.
|
| 12. |
Because there is no definite Scriptural obligation incumbent on this produce.
|
| 13. |
Produce from the second tithe is sold for a lower price than ordinary produce, because restrictions apply with regard to its consumption. Hence, if produce from the second tithe is offered for evaluation and its identity is known, people will look at it less favorably. The Kessef Mishneh questions this rationale, noting that once this produce is redeemed, there is no difference between it and ordinary produce and hence, its price should not be reduced. He explains that, nevertheless, since it originally was from the second tithe, it is still viewed less favorably.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling and maintains that such a ploy is not necessary. The commentaries follow the Rambam's view.
|
| 14. |
The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh state that the Rambam derives this from the fact that Demai1:2 states that such a redemption may be made with coins upon which the holiness of the second tithe of demai had been transferred. Implied is that if we are certain that the produce is from the second tithe, no such redemption can be made. See the Rambam's Commentary to that mishnah where he states that the concept is derived from Deuteronomy 14:25 which states: "And you shall exchange it for silver and you shall bundle the silver," i.e., the silver originally used for the redemption must be the silver taken to Jerusalem.
See the conclusion of Chapter 5 and the beginning of Chapter 6 which mentions some exceptions to this general principle.
|
| 15. |
See also Halachah 7 which states that redemption may be made in a pressing situation.
|
| 16. |
I.e., if the produce was purchased intentionally with money of the second tithe. See Chapter 7, Halachot 1, 15.
|
| 17. |
I.e., our Sages rescinded the transfer of the holiness to the animal for the reason stated (Sukkah40b).
|
| 18. |
See Chapter 7, Halachah 16.
|
| 19. |
E.g., the situation described in Chapter 6, Halachah 2. This example is also discussed by the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:6).
|
| 20. |
I.e., one should not leave the brass coins in a state of holiness (ibid.). Among the reasons silver coins are preferred is that they are more prestigious and they do not corrode.
|
| 21. |
Since the separation of the second tithe from demai is merely a Rabbinic stringency, our Sages granted leniency in its application.
|
| 22. |
I.e., its holiness should not be transferred back to coins.
|
| 23. |
The Radbaz distinguishes between pediah, "redemption," which requires coined silver, and chillul, "the transfer of holiness." The latter does not required coinage at all.
|
| 24. |
As required by Chapter 5, Halachah 1.
|
| 25. |
See parallels in Hilchot Terumah 10:15; Hilchot Arachin 7:2.
|
| 26. |
This is also derived from the above prooftext. Vitzarta, translated as "you shall bundle," relates to the word tzurah meaning "form" or "image." Thus the prooftext is implying that one may redeem produce from the second tithe with silver with an imprint [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 1:2); based on Bava Metzia 47b].
|
| 27. |
A p'rutah is a copper coin of minimal value. One may not use a silver coin less valuable than this copper coin. The rationale is that its minimal value causes it to be considered as uncoined silver (Radbaz; Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 28. |
I.e., it has an imprint and was once issued by a government as currency, but is no longer accepted by the present ruling authorities.
|
| 29. |
The Rambam mentions this interpretation of the verse in his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.). The commentaries have not cited a common prior Rabbinic source. See, however, Midrash HaGadol and Midrash Tana'im.
|
| 30. |
But which is no longer being minted at present.
|
| 31. |
E.g., his pouch fell into the sea, in which instance, his coins are no longer accessible to him (Bava Kama 98a).
|
| 32. |
The word "yadecha," translated as "your hand," can also be interpreted as "your domain." That is the intent here, because the money need not actually be in one's hand. As long as they are in one's domain, and they are accessible, it is acceptable, as evident from this and the subsequent halachot.
|
| 33. |
The cost of recovering the coins must, however, be deducted before one uses the money to redeem produce [the Jerualem Talmud (Ma'aser Sheni 1:2)].
|
| 34. |
And he is certain that he will rob him.
|
| 35. |
I.e., the person knows that he will lose his money. Hence, rather than forfeit it without receiving anything for it, he decides that it is preferable for him to use it for something - to redeem his produce. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the Rambam is not stating that, a priori, he may use the money to redeem his produce. Instead, the intent is that after the fact if he redeems the produce with this money, after the fact, the redemption is effective.
|
| 36. |
I.e., he must operate under the premise that the money was lost immediately after he saw it last and all the produce that he sought to redeem from that time onward was thus not redeemed. SeeHilchot Ma'aser 7:4, however, which mentions a similar situation with regard to tithing produce and rules that although the produce must be tithed again, the status of that tithing is only doubtful.
|
| 37. |
I.e., the Rambam's perspective is that in these instances, there are two negative factors: a) the coinage is not legal tender in the place where he is located; b) he does not have the money at hand. Hence, he cannot redeem the produce of the second tithe with it.
|
| 38. |
Because there is only one difficulty, that the person is not located in the same place as the money, the money is not disqualified.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that there is only one significant factor, whether the money is legal tender in the place it is located. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishnehdiscuss the two views at length.
|
| 39. |
All of the italicized terms are coins used in the Talmudic era.
|
| 40. |
In all these instances, the transfer of holiness is effective even though the coin was not singled out at the time when the declaration was made. Nevertheless, the transfer of holiness is not effective retroactively, i.e., we do not say that once the coin is taken, the transfer of holiness takes effect from the time the declaration was made.
The above follows the explanation given by Rav Yosef Corcus who notes that the Rambam (Hilchot Terumot 1:21) does not accept the principle of bereirah with regard to questions of Scriptural Law. The Radbaz explains that this explanation is not necessary, because the Rambam rules that the obligation to separate the second tithe in the present age is Rabbinic in origin.
|
| 41. |
Even if the coin was later discovered in the son's possession, the transfer of holiness is not effective, because we do not know whether it was in his possession at the time the declaration was made (Rashas). One might conclude that if one knows that the coin was in the son's possession at the time of the declaration, the separation is effective.
|
| 42. |
Which he has not yet separated.
|
| 43. |
Making such a statement is equivalent to separating the second tithe. Note the parallels in Hilchot Terumah 3:8.
|
| 44. |
I.e., at the time the Temple was standing; alternatively, in the present age, as an expression of piety (Chapter 2, Halachah 2).
|
| 45. |
I.e., the storekeeper obviously sells the produce for a higher price than the price at which he purchases it.
|
| 46. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 4:2), the Rambam explains that a moneychanger will take 25 me'ah for a sela, but will only give 24. If the produce is worth a sela, the person redeeming it need not pay more than 24.
|
| 47. |
100 large silver pieces.
|
| 48. |
Bava Metzia 57a makes such a statement with regard to consecrated property (see Hilchot Arachin 7:8). The Rambam draws the parallel since the laws governing consecrated property are more stringent than those governing the second tithe.
|
| 49. |
In previous eras, the minting of coins was less precise and it was possible that a coin would weigh slightly less than the standard weight for it. Alternatively, wear and tear could have reduced its weight.
|
| 50. |
This is also a leniency, for in ordinary business dealings one would have to reimburse the other party for the difference in value (Hilchot Mechirah 10:12).
|
| 51. |
I.e., its worth is more than a sixth less than the value of a sela.
|
| 52. |
Transferring the holiness from it to a coin of fair value. There is no difficulty with the original transfer of holiness from the produce to the coin, for - after the fact - as long as a coin is worth ap'rutah, the transfer of holiness to it is effective as stated in the previous halachah.
|
| 53. |
For as stated above, the initial preference is to redeem the produce of the second tithe at its fair market price. That can only be established after its measure is known.
|
| 54. |
I.e., we are speaking about ordinary produce that has a fixed market value.
|
| 55. |
Because in such an instance, it is not necessary to evaluate its worth.
|
| 56. |
Which is still valuable, but is not as valuable as ordinary wine and hence, must be assessed, for once the produce has started to spoil, its value is not a cut-and-dry matter [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah Talmud (Ma'aser Sheni 4:2)].
|
| 57. |
For they will be able to assess the true value of the produce.
|
| 58. |
Two gentiles or two owners, however, are not acceptable [Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aser Sheni4:2)].
|
| 59. |
Sanhedrin 14b relates that Rav Papa's wife help evaluate his produce.
|
| 60. |
Because the owner must add a fifth.
|
| 61. |
The Rambam's ruling is based on his version of the Tosefta, Ma'aser Sheni 3:3. The Ra'avad maintains that the proper version of that source is: "We compel him to make the first bid. If he desires to retract he may. This is the stringency of consecrated property over the second tithes." The Kessef Mishneh notes that this is indeed the version of the Tosefta commonly followed. There is an added difficulty with the Rambam's ruling, because in all instances of consecrated property, he requires the owner to make the first bid. See Hilchot Arachin, ch. 5, in contrast to the statements of Radbaz here.
|
| 62. |
By contrast, money to which the holiness of the second tithe has been transferred may of course be transported.
|
| 63. |
In which instance, leniency is allowed, because the obligation is of Rabbinic origin.
|
| 64. |
The price of produce is a town is always higher than their price in the field, because someone had to undertake the transportation costs. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:1)].
|
| 65. |
I.e., they are included in the price of the produce of the second tithe. The rationale is that until the produce is redeemed, any increase in its value is considered part of the produce. Just like he is obligated to bring the produce to Jerusalem, he is obligated to do anything to facilitate its being brought to Jerusalem, including bringing it to a place where it is redeemed.
|
• Wednesday, Iyar 10, 5775 · 29 April 2015
Iyar 10, 25th day of the omer
Torah lessons: Chumash: Emor, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 55-59.
Tanya: Ch. 47. "In every (p. 247)...been explained earlier. (p.249).
It is our custom to dip the piece of bread (for hamotzi) into salt three times, not to sprinkle the salt on the bread.
At the festive meal on the second day of Shavuot 5621 (1861), the Tzemach Tzedek related as follows: At the festive meal on the second day of Shavuot 5555 (1795) my grandfather (the Alter Rebbe) said:
At the festive meal on the second day of Shavuot 5528 (1768) my saintly master and teacher (the Maggid of Mezritch) said:
"You shall count for yourselves," us'fartem lachem.1 The word us'fartem, - you shall count - has the root of sapirut, - brilliance and brightness. Us'fartem lachem, yourlachem, selves, must be bright.
The Tzemach Tzedek continued his narrative: My grandfather (the Alter Rebbe) then leaned his head on his hands and sang the Niggun (melody) Of Four Stanzas with profound d'veikut.2 Afterward he raised his head and said in a questioning tone, "And with what does one brighten the lachem?" - and without a pause he continued in a tone of response, "with the seven complete weeks (more literally, "...seven...Sabbaths"), that is, through refining one's seven emotion-traits, each trait in turn to be sub-incorporated with all seven.3 The seven attributes themselves are to become 'seven Sabbaths,' Shabbat needing no refinement."4
FOOTNOTES
1. Vayikra 23:15. This is the Torah command to count the days of the omer. The verse concludes "seven complete weeks shall they be." Instead of the common word for weeks, shavuot, the verse uses the word Shabbatot, - Sabbaths. The seven weeks correspond to the seven human emotion powers. See note on Iyar 2.
2. Devotion, communion; see Sh'vat 23 and footnotes.
3. See note on Iyar 2.
4. The effort or avoda of self-refinement and refinement of Creation is primarily appropriate to the weekdays when man is occupied with worldly affairs, "yourlabors." Shabbat, the day of rest, not of labor, is not a time for "refinement." Shabbat is on a higher plane.
Daily Thought:
The River Up
When the Divine Light began its awesome descent—a journey of world to lower world for endless worlds, condensing its unbounded state again and again into finite packages until focused to a fine, crystallized resolution—it did so with purpose: to bring forth a world of continuous ascent.
Since that beginning, not a day has passed that does not transcend its yesterday.
Like a mighty river rushing to reach its ocean, no dam can hold it back, no creature can struggle against its current. If we appear to fall backward, to take a wrong turn, to lose a day in failure—it is only an illusion, for we have no map to know its way. We see from within, but the river knows its path from Above. And to that place Above all is drawn.
We are not masters of that river— not of our ultimate destiny, nor of the stops along the way, not even of the direction of our travel. We did not create the river—its flow creates us. It is the blood and soul of our world, its pulse and its warmth.
Yet of one thing we have been given mastery: Not of the journey, but of our role within it.
How soon will we arrive? How complete? How fulfilled? Will we be the spectators? Or simply the props?
Or will we be the heroes?[Iyar 19, 5712, after the seven day period of mourning for his brother.]
___________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment