Today's Laws & Customs:
• Passover Torah Readings
Click here for a summary of the Passover Torah readings.
• Prayer for Dew ('Tal')
The month of Nissan marks the ends of the "season of rains" in the Holy Land. Beginning with the Mussaf prayer of the 1st day of Passover, we omit the passage in our prayers praising G-d's greatness as a provider of rain (Mashiv haruach umorid hageshem), substituting it with the words Morid hatal ("Who brings down dew").
Link: Winter
• Begin Omer Count Tonight
"And you shall count for yourselves from the morrow of the Shabbat, from the day on which you bring the Omer offering, seven complete weeks they shall be; until the morrow of the seventh week, you shall count fifty days..." (Leviticus 23:15)
The "morrow of the Shabbat" referred to in this verse is the 16th of Nissan--the 2nd day of Passover, which begins tonight at nightfall. On this day, the "Omer Offering"--which included matzahs baked from the new crop of barley harvested that very day--was brought in the Holy Temple. (No grain from new harvest was allowed to be eaten before the Omer offering was brought.) Thus 16th of Nissan also commences the 49-day "Counting of the Omer", which 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 is Shavuot, the festival celebrating the Giving of the Torah at Sinai.Tonight we count: "Today is one day to the Omer."
Tonight's Sefirah: Chessed sheb'Chessed -- "Kindness in Kindness"
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
See also: "Sefirah" Mourning Practices
• 2nd Seder Tonight
Outside of the Holy Land, biblical festivals are observed for an extra day. So in addition to the Passover Seder conducted last night for the 1st day of Passover, a second Seder is conducted tonight, when the 2nd day of Passover begins (on the Jewish Calendar, the day begins at nightfall of the previous evening).
Links:
www.Passover.net includes a Seder guide, text of the Haggadah, in-depth studies, and more
The Seder Wizard is a step-by-step guide to conducting the Seder
Today in Jewish History:
• "Covenant Between the Parts" (1743 BCE)
On the 15th of Nissan of the year 2018 from creation (1743 BCE) G-d forged a special covenant with Abraham in which the destiny of the Jewish people was foretold: the Holy Land was bequeathed to them as their eternal heritage, but first they would have to experience galut--exile and persecution. "And He said to Abram: 'Know surely that your descendents shall be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and they will be enslaved to them, and they will afflict them four hundred years... and afterwards they shall come out with great wealth.' And when the sun went down and it was dark, behold, a smoking furnace and a burning torch which passed between those pieces... On that day G-d made a covenant with Abram, saying: 'To your seed I have given these land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates'" (Genesis 15:13-18).
Links:
The Covenant Between the Parts
Great Wealth
Sparks
• Abraham Battles Four Kings (1738 BCE?)
When Lot was taken captive by the four kings who conquered the "five cities of the plain" (Sodom, Gomorra, Admah, Zevoim and Zoar), Abraham, aided only by a small band of loyal servants, went to battle to rescue his nephew; "the night divided for them, for him and his servants, and they defeated them, pursuing them to Hovah, which is to the left of Damascus... And he recovered all the property; also his kinsman, Lot, and his property were recovered, and also the women and the people" (Genesis 14:15-16).
Link: Abraham's battle
• Angels Visit Abraham (1714 BCE)
On the 3rd day following his circumcision at age 99 (see "Today in Jewish History" for Nissan 13) three angels visited Abraham: Rephael healed him, and Michael informed Abraham and Sarah that, in exactly one year, a son will be born to them. (The third angel, Gabriel, proceeded to Sodom to destroy the wicked city).
Link:
More on Angels
• Isaac Born (1713 BCE)
"G-d remembered Sarah as He had said; and G-d did to Sarah as He had spoken. And Sarah conceived, and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which G-d had spoken to him... Abraham was a hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born to him. And Sarah declared: 'G-d has made laughter for me, so that all that hear will laugh ('yitzchak') with me'" (Genesis 21:1-6).
Links:
The Resemblance
Learning to Laugh
• Jacob Wrestles with Esau's Angel (1556 BCE)
"And Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until the break of dawn. When he saw that he could not prevail against him, he touched the socket of his hip, and the socket of Jacob's hip became dislocated as he wrestled with him. And he (the angel) said, 'Let me go, for dawn is breaking,' but he (Jacob) said, 'I will not let you go unless you have blessed me.' So he said to him, 'What is your name?' and he said, 'Jacob.' And he said, 'Your name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel; for you have contended with G-d and with men, and have prevailed'" (Genesis 32:25-29). It was the eve of Nissan 15.
The next morning, Jacob confronted Esau in the flesh. Esau, who had come with a band of armed men with the intention to kill his brother, "ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him; and they wept". Esau invited Jacob to join him in his mountain kingdom of Se'ir, but Jacob replied, "Please, let my lord go on ahead before his servant; and I will lead on slowly, according to the pace of the cattle that goes before me and the children, until I come to my lord to Se'ir" -- a promise yet to be fulfilled (ibid., 33:4-14).
Links:
Wrestling with Angels
Facing Reality
Why Does Esau Hate Jacob?
• Moses at Burning Bush (1314 BCE)
On the 15th of Nissan of the year 2447 from creation (1314 BCE) -- exactly one year before the Exodus -- Moses was shepherding the flocks of his father-in-law, Jethro, at the foot of Mount Sinai, when G-d appeared to him in a "thornbush that burned with fire, but was not consumed" and instructed him to return to Egypt, come before Pharaoh, and demand in the name of G-d: "Let My people go, so that they may serve Me." For seven days and seven nights Moses argued with G-d, pleading that he is the wrong person for the job, before accepting the mission to redeem the people of Israel and bring them to Sinai.
Links:
Moses at the Burning Bush
I Am
• The Exodus (1313 BCE)
At the stroke of midnight of Nissan 15 of the year 2448 from creation (1313 BCE), 210 years after Jacob settled in Egypt and 430 years after the "Covenant Between the Parts," G-d visited the last of the ten plagues on the Egyptians, killing all their firstborn. Earlier that evening, the Children of Israel conducted the first "seder" of history, eating the roasted meat of the Passover offering with matzot and bitter herbs, and sprinkling the blood of the sacrifice on their doorposts as a sign that G-d will "pass over" their homes when inflicting the plague upon the Egyptians. Pharaoh's resistance to free them was broken, and he virtually chased his former slaves out of the land. Several million souls--600,000 adult males, plus the woman and children, and a large "mixed multitude" of non-Hebrews who joined them -- left Egypt on that day, and began the 50-day trek to Sinai and their birth as G-d's chosen people.
Links: 19 Flavors of Freedom; Exploring Passover
• Queen Vashti Executed (366 BCE)
On the seventh day of his royal feast (see Jewish history for 9 Nissan), King Achashverosh demanded that the Queen Vashti appear unclothed to display her beauty before all the attending guests. When Vashti refused this obscene request, the king had her executed.
Her ignominious death on Shabbat was divine retribution for her penchant to force Jewish girls to work on Shabbat, and paved the way for Esther to become queen and save the Jewish nation from Haman's plot.
Links:
The Death Verdict
Mordechai and Esther
• Daniel in Lions' Den (372 BCE)
Daniel was cast into a den of hungry lions by Darius I of Persia for violating a royal edict that no man may pray to any god save the king for 30 days. Miraculously, the lions did not touch him, and he emerged from the den unscathed (Daniel 6:5-29).
Links: Monotheism in Rostov; more on Mesirat Nefesh (self sacrifice)
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Shemini, 7th Portion Leviticus 11:33-11:47 with Rashi
• Chapter 11
33But any earthenware vessel, into whose interior any of them falls, whatever is inside it shall become unclean, and you shall break [the vessel] itself. לגוְכָל כְּלִי חֶרֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר יִפֹּל מֵהֶם אֶל תּוֹכוֹ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹכוֹ יִטְמָא וְאֹתוֹ תִשְׁבֹּרוּ:
into whose interior: An earthenware vessel becomes unclean only through [the defiling item entering] its inner space [even if it does not touch the vessel wall. If it touches the outer wall, however, the vessel does not become unclean]. — [Chul. 24b] אל תוכו: אין כלי חרס מיטמא אלא מאוירו:
whatever is inside it becomes unclean: The vessel in turn defiles whatever is in its inner space (other editions: in its interior). כל אשר בתוכו יטמא: הכלי חוזר ומטמא מה שבאוירו:
and you shall break [the vessel] itself: This teaches us that it [an earthenware vessel] cannot be purified in a mikvah. [Consequently, if you wish to use it, you must break it so that it cannot be used for its original use.]- [Torath Kohanim 11:132] ואתו תשבורו: למד שאין לו טהרה במקוה:
34Of any food that is [usually] eaten, upon which water comes will become unclean, and any beverage that is [usually] drunk, which is in any vessel, shall become unclean. לדמִכָּל הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל אֲשֶׁר יָבוֹא עָלָיו מַיִם יִטְמָא וְכָל מַשְׁקֶה אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁתֶה בְּכָל כְּלִי יִטְמָא:
Of any food that is [usually] eaten: This refers back to the preceding verse, [as if to say]: whatever is inside it shall become unclean… of any food that is [usually] eaten, upon which water comes-if it is inside an unclean earthenware vessel-will become unclean. Likewise, any liquid that is [usually] drunk, in any vessel, meaning that it is in the inner space of an unclean earthenware vessel, will become unclean. From here we learn many things. We learn that food becomes predisposed and prepared to contract uncleanness only if water had, at one time, come upon it. And once water has come upon it, the food can contract uncleanness forever, even if it is dry. Wine, oil, and whatever is called a beverage (מַשְׁקֶה) predisposes seeds to receive uncleanness, just as water [does] (Torath Kohanim 11:135). [The liquids that fall under the category of מַשְׁקֶה are: water, dew, oil, wine, milk, blood, and bee-honey.] For our verse [here] is to be expounded as follows: “upon which water comes will become unclean, or any beverage that is [usually] drunk, which is in any vessel, it shall become unclean.” [I.e.] the food [will become unclean]. Our rabbis also learned from this verse that an item with a secondary degree of uncleanness does not defile vessels, for we learned (Shab. 138b): One might think that all vessels would become defiled [when they enter] the inner space of an [unclean] earthenware vessel; Scripture, therefore, says (verses 3334): כֹּל אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹכוֹ יִטְמָא [lit., “anything inside it becomes unclean]… מִכָּל הָאֹכֶל [lit., of any food]”; i.e., food and liquid are defiled by the inner space of an [unclean] earthenware vessel, but [other] vessels do not become defiled by the inner space of an [unclean] earthenware vessel. Because a שֶׁרֶץ is a primary source of uncleanness (אָב הַטֻּמְאָה), and the vessel that becomes defiled by it is a secondary source of uncleanness (וְלָד הַטֻּמְאָה). Consequently, it does not in turn defile [other] vessels contained within it. We also learned [from this verse] that if a שֶׁרֶץ fell into the inner space of an [earthenware] oven that contained bread, and the שֶׁרֶץ did not touch the bread, the oven becomes [defiled with] first degree [uncleanness], while the bread is [defiled with] second degree [uncleanness. In this case,] we do not say that the oven is perceived as though it were “filled with uncleanness,” so that the bread contained within becomes [defiled as well with] first degree [uncleanness], for if we were to say so, no vessel would be excluded from becoming defiled by the inner space of an earthenware vessel since uncleanness itself has directly touched the surface of this second vessel (Shab. 138b). We also learned [from this verse] about the contact of water [with food]-that this predisposes seeds [to receive uncleanness] only if the water wetted the seeds after they had been detached from the earth. For, if one were to say that they become predisposed [to contract uncleanness] while still attached [to the ground], there is [no food produce] upon which no water has come [at one time or another]. In that case, why would [Scripture] tell us: “upon which water comes”? [It must therefore mean: after it has been detached from the earth] (Torath Kohanim 11:150). We also learned [from this verse] that [unclean] food will defile other items only if the food has a [minimum] volume equal to a [hen’s] egg, as it is said, “[Any food] that is [usually] eaten,” meaning: [the amount of] food that can be eaten at one time. And our Sages estimated that the pharynx cannot hold more than [the volume of] a hen’s egg" (Yoma 80a). מכל האכל אשר יאכל: מוסב על מקרא העליון, כל אשר בתוכו יטמא, מכל האוכל אשר יאכל אשר יבא עליו מים והוא בתוך כלי חרס הטמא, יטמא. וכן כל משקה אשר ישתה בכל כלי, והוא בתוך כלי חרס הטמא, יטמא. למדנו מכאן דברים הרבה למדנו שאין אוכל מוכשר ומתוקן לקבל טומאה עד שיבאו עליו מים פעם אחת, ומשבאו עליו מים פעם אחת מקבל טומאה לעולם ואפילו נגוב. והיין והשמן וכל הנקרא משקה מכשיר זרעים לטומאה כמים. שכך יש לדרוש המקרא אשר יבא עליו מים או כל משקה אשר ישתה בכל כלי יטמא האוכל. ועוד למדו רבותינו מכאן, שאין ולד הטומאה מטמא כלים, שכך שנינו יכול יהיו כל הכלים מיטמאין מאויר כלי חרס, תלמוד לומר כל אשר בתוכו יטמא מכל האוכל, אוכל מיטמא מאויר כלי חרס, ואין כל הכלים מיטמאין מאויר כלי חרס, לפי שהשרץ אב הטומאה והכלי, שנטמא ממנו, ולד הטומאה, לפיכך אינו חוזר ומטמא כלים שבתוכו. ולמדנו עוד, שהשרץ שנפל לאויר תנור והפת בתוכו, ולא נגע השרץ בפת, התנור ראשון והפת שנייה. ולא נאמר רואין את התנור כאלו מלא טומאה ותהא הפת תחלה, שאם אתה אומר כן לא נתמעטו כל הכלים מלהטמא מאויר כלי חרס, שהרי טומאה עצמה נגעה בהן מגבן. ולמדנו עוד על ביאת מים, שאינה מכשרת זרעים אלא אם כן נפלו עליהן משנתלשו, שאם אתה אומר מקבלין הכשר במחובר, אין לך שלא באו עליו מים, ומהו אומר אשר יבוא עליו מים, משנתלשו. ולמדנו עוד שאין אוכל מטמא אחרים אלא אם כן יש בו כביצה, שנאמר אשר יאכל, אוכל הנאכל בבת אחת, ושיערו חכמים אין בית הבליעה מחזיק יותר מביצת תרנגולת:
35And anything upon which any of their carcasses of these [animals] fall, will become unclean. [Thus,] an oven or stove shall be demolished; they are unclean, and, they shall be unclean for you. להוְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִפֹּל מִנִּבְלָתָם | עָלָיו יִטְמָא תַּנּוּר וְכִירַיִם יֻתָּץ טְמֵאִים הֵם וּטְמֵאִים יִהְיוּ לָכֶם:
oven or stove: They are movable objects, made of earthenware, and they have a hollow inside [i.e., an inner space]; and one places the pot over the opening of the cavity. Both have their openings on the top [rather than on the side. See Shab. 38b.] תנור וכירים: כלים המטלטלין הם, והם של חרס ויש להן תוך, ושופת את הקדרה על נקב החלל ושניהם פיהם למעלה:
shall be demolished: Because an earthenware vessel cannot be purified by immersion [in a mikvah]. יתץ: שאין לכלי חרס טהרה בטבילה:
and they shall be unclean for you: Lest you say, “I am commanded to demolish them,” Scripture says, “they shall be unclean for you” [meaning that] if you wish to keep them in their unclean state, you are permitted [to do so]. — [Torath Kohanim 11:142] וטמאים יהיו לכם: שלא תאמר מצווה אני לנותצם, תלמוד לומר וטמאים יהיו לכם, אם רצה לקיימן בטומאתן רשאי:
36But a spring or a cistern, a gathering of water remains clean. However, one who touches their carcass shall become unclean. לואַךְ מַעְיָן וּבוֹר מִקְוֵה מַיִם יִהְיֶה טָהוֹר וְנֹגֵעַ בְּנִבְלָתָם יִטְמָא:
But a spring or a cistern, a gathering of water: which are attached to the ground, do not contract uncleanness. We also learn from the phrase יִהְיֶה טָהוֹר [lit., “he will be clean”] that anyone who immerses in these [collections of water] “will become clean” from his uncleanness. — [see Pes. 16a] אך מעין ובור מקוה מים: המחוברים לקרקע, אין מקבלין טומאה. ועוד יש לך ללמוד יהיה טהור הטובל בהם מטומאתו:
However, one who touches their carcass shall become unclean: If someone touches the uncleanness [of their carcasses] even while he is inside a spring or a cistern, he becomes unclean. Lest you say, [It can be derived from a] kal vachomer : “If [these collections of water] purify defiled [people] from their uncleanness, how much more so should they prevent a clean [person standing inside them] from becoming defiled!” Therefore, [Scripture] says, “ one who touches their carcass shall become unclean.” - [Torath Kohanim 11:146] ונוגע בנבלתם יטמא: אפילו הוא בתוך מעין ובור ונוגע בנבלתם יטמא, שלא תאמר קל וחומר אם מטהר את הטמאים מטומאתם, קל וחומר שיציל את הטהור מליטמא, לכך נאמר ונוגע בנבלתם יטמא:
37And if of their carcass falls upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, it remains clean. לזוְכִי יִפֹּל מִנִּבְלָתָם עַל כָּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ אֲשֶׁר יִזָּרֵעַ טָהוֹר הוּא:
a sowing seed which is to be sown: [This refers to] the sowing of [various] kinds of seeds (זֵרוּעַ). [The word] זֵרוּעַ [lit., “something which is planted,”] is a noun, as in the verse, “and let them give us some pulse (הַזֵּרֹעִים) ” (Dan. 1:12). זרע זרוע: זריעה של מיני זרעונין. זרוע שם דבר הוא, כמו (דניאל א יב) ויתנו לנו מן הזרועים:
it remains clean: Scripture teaches you that it is not predisposed and prepared to be regarded as “food [fit] to receive uncleanness” until water has come upon it. טהור הוא: למדך הכתוב שלא הוכשר ונתקן לקרות אוכל לקבל טומאה, עד שיבואו עליו מים:
38But if water is put upon seeds, and any of their carcass falls on them, they are unclean for you. לחוְכִי יֻתַּן מַיִם עַל זֶרַע וְנָפַל מִנִּבְלָתָם עָלָיו טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם:
But if water is put upon seeds: after they have been detached [from the ground]. For if you say that [produce] attached [to the ground] can become predisposed [to receive uncleanness], then there would be no seed that would remain unprepared [to receive uncleanness, since all plants are watered]. — [Chul. 118b] וכי יתן מים על זרע: לאחר שנתלש, שאם תאמר יש הכשר במחובר, אין לך זרע שלא הוכשר:
water…upon seeds: [The law applies] both to water and to other beverages, whether they fell on the seed or the seed fell into them. All this is expounded on in Torath Kohanim (11:151, 152). מים על זרע: בין מים בין שאר משקין, בין נפלו הם על הזרע, בין הזרע נפל לתוכן, הכל נדרש בתורת כהנים:
and any of their carcass falls on them: even if they have dried, for the Torah was particular only it should be regarded as “food,” then as soon as it has become predisposed to contract uncleanness once [by becoming wet], this predisposition can never be removed from it. ונפל מנבלתם עליו: אף משנגב מן המים, שלא הקפידה תורה אלא להיות עליו שם אוכל, ומשירד עליו הכשר קבלת טומאה פעם אחת, שוב אינו נעקר הימנו:
39If an animal that you [normally] eat, dies, one who touches its carcass shall be unclean until evening. לטוְכִי יָמוּת מִן הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר הִיא לָכֶם לְאָכְלָה הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּנִבְלָתָהּ יִטְמָא עַד הָעָרֶב:
[one who touches] its carcass: [but] not its bones or its sinews, nor its horns, hooves or hide [unless they are attached to the carcass]. — [Torath Kohanim 11:159] בנבלתה: ולא בעצמות וגידים ולא בקרנים וטלפים ולא בעור:
40And one who eats of its carcass shall immerse his garments, and he shall be unclean until evening. And one who carries its carcass shall immerse his garments, and he shall be unclean until evening. מוְהָאֹכֵל מִנִּבְלָתָהּ יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָמֵא עַד הָעָרֶב וְהַנֹּשֵׂא אֶת נִבְלָתָהּ יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָמֵא עַד הָעָרֶב:
And one who carries its carcass: טֻמְאַת מַשָּׂא [uncleanness resulting from lifting up an unclean item, even without touching it, e.g., by lifting it up with a stick,] is more stringent than טֻמְאַת מַגָּע [uncleanness resulting from touching an unclean item], for one who lifts [a carcass, in addition to becoming unclean himself, also] defiles his garments, but one who [merely] touches it does not defile his garments, for regarding him it does not say, “he shall immerse his garments.” והנשא את נבלתה: חמורה טומאת משא מטומאת מגע, שהנושא מטמא בגדים, והנוגע אין בגדיו טמאין, שלא נאמר בו יכבס בגדיו:
And one who eats of its carcass: One might think that his eating renders him unclean. However, when [Scripture] says, regarding the carcass of a clean bird, “He shall not eat carrion or one stricken by a fatal disease or injury, to be defiled through it” (Lev. 22:8), [the seemingly superfluous word] בָהּ [“through it,” is explained as follows]: One defiles his garments “through it,” [i.e.,] through eating it, but the carcass of an animal does not defile if one eats it without lifting it up. For example, if someone else forced it down his pharynx. If so, why does it say, “And one who eats [of its carcass]”? To specify the [minimum] volume [needed to render someone unclean] through his touching or lifting up [an unclean carcass], namely, the volume that one [normally] eats [at a time], namely, the size of an olive," [half the volume of a hen’s egg] (Torath Kohanim 11:16). [One should note that, for food to defile other items, it must have a minimum volume possibly edible at one time, namely, equal to that of a hen’s egg. See Rashi on Lev. 11:34]. והאכל מנבלתה: יכול תטמאנו אכילתו, כשהוא אומר בנבלת עוף טהור (ויקרא כב ח) נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל לטמאה בה, אותה מטמאה בגדים באכילתה, ואין נבלת בהמה מטמאה בגדים באכילתה בלא משא, כגון אם תחבה לו חבירו בבית הבליעה, אם כן מה תלמוד לומר האוכל, ליתן שיעור לנושא ולנוגע כדי אכילה והוא כזית:
and he shall be unclean until evening: Even though he has already immersed himself, he requires sunset [in order to be completely clean]. וטמא עד הערב: אף על פי שטבל צריך הערב שמש:
41And any creeping creature that creeps on the ground is an abomination; it shall not be eaten. מאוְכָל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ שֶׁקֶץ הוּא לֹא יֵאָכֵל:
that creeps on the ground: This comes to exclude mites founds in chickpeas and in beans, and the pea-beetles found in lentils, since they did not creep on the ground but within the food [which was already detached from the ground]. However, when they exit into the air and creep, they become prohibited [because they fall into the category of שֶׁרֶץ, those that “creep on the ground”]. — [Torath Kohanim 11:161] השרץ על הארץ: להוציא את היתושין שבכליסין ושבפולין ואת הזיזין שבעדשים, שהרי לא שרצו על הארץ אלא בתוך האוכל, אבל משיצאו לאויר ושרצו הרי נאסרו:
it shall not be eaten: [This phrase comes] to render guilty someone who feeds a person [with the flesh of a creeping animal] just as if he would have eaten it [himself] (Torath Kohanim 11:162). A שֶׁרֶץ means a low, short-legged creature, which appears [in its motion] only as if slithering and moving. לא יאכל: לחייב על המאכיל כאוכל. ואין קרוי שרץ אלא דבר נמוך קצר רגלים, שאינו נראה אלא כרוחש ונד:
42Any [creature] that goes on its belly, and any [creature] that walks on four [legs] to any [creature] that has many legs, among all creeping creatures that creep on the ground, you shall not eat, for they are an abomination. מבכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ עַל גָּחוֹן וְכֹל | הוֹלֵךְ עַל אַרְבַּע עַד כָּל מַרְבֵּה רַגְלַיִם לְכָל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ לֹא תֹאכְלוּם כִּי שֶׁקֶץ הֵם:
that goes on its belly: This is the snake (Torath Kohanim 11:163). The word גָּחוֹן denotes “bending low” [and it is used to describe the snake] because it moves while bent a prostrated posture, prostrated on its belly. הולך על גחון: זה נחש, ולשון גחון שחייה, שהולך שח ונופל על מעיו:
Any [creature] that goes: [This comes] to include earthworms and what resembles those that resemble them [i.e., that have tiny legs, but nevertheless slither like a worm on their bellies]. — [Torath Kohanim 11:163] כל הולך: להביא השלשולין ואת הדומה לדומה:
that walks on four [legs]: This [refers to] a scorpion. — [Torath Kohanim 11:163] הולך על ארבע: זה עקרב:
any [creature]: [This word comes] to include the beetle, called escarbot in French, and what resembles those that resemble them. — [Torath Kohanim 11:163] כל: להביא את החפושית אישקרבו"ט בלע"ז [חיפושית] ואת הדומה לדומה:
any [creature] that has many legs: This is the centipede, a creature with legs from its head to its tail, on either side, called centipede [in French]. — [Torath Kohanim 11:163] מרבה רגלים: זה נדל שרץ שיש לו רגלים מראשו ועד זנבו לכאן ולכאן, וקורין ציינפיי"ש [נדל]:
43You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping creature that creeps, and you shall not defile yourselves with them, that you should become unclean through them. מגאַל תְּשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּכָל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ וְלֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ בָּהֶם וְנִטְמֵתֶם בָּם:
You shall not make [yourselves] abominable: By eating them, for it says: נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם, “your souls” [lit., “Do not make your souls abominable”], and merely touching [an unclean item] does not cause “abomination of the soul” [whereas eating it does. See Me’ilah 16b, Rashi there]; similarly, “and you shall not defile yourselves” [means] by eating them. אל תשקצו: באכילתן, שהרי כתיב נפשותיכם, ואין שיקוץ נפש במגע, וכן ולא תטמאו באכילתן:
that you should become unclean through them: [God says:] “If you defile yourselves through these [creatures] on earth, I too will defile you in the world to come and in the heavenly academy.” - [Yoma 39a] ונטמתם בם: אם אתם מטמאין בהם בארץ אף אני מטמא אתכם בעולם הבא ובישיבת מעלה:
44For I am the Lord your God, and you shall sanctify yourselves and be holy, because I am holy, and you shall not defile yourselves through any creeping creature that crawls on the ground. מדכִּי אֲנִי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וְהִתְקַדִּשְׁתֶּם וִהְיִיתֶם קְדשִׁים כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אָנִי וְלֹא תְטַמְּאוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּכָל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ:
For I am the Lord your God: Just as I am holy, for I am the Lord your God, so too, you shall make yourselves holy, [i.e.,] sanctify yourselves below [on earth]. — [Torath Kohanim 11:168] כי אני ה' אלהיכם: כשם שאני קדוש שאני ה' אלהיכם, כך והתקדשתם קדשו עצמכם למטה:
and be holy: before Me, for I will make you holy above and in the world to come. — [Yoma 39a] והייתם קדשים: לפי שאני אקדש אתכם למעלה ובעולם הבא:
and you shall not defile yourselves: [This prohibition is written to make a transgressor guilty of] transgressing many negative commandments. And for [the transgression of] each negative commandment, [the perpetrator receives] lashes. This is what [the Sages said in the Talmud (Mak. 16): “If one eats a פּוּטִיתָא [a small unclean aquatic creature], one receives four series of lashes [i.e., four separate series of lashes for the four negative commandments transgressed by eating that one creature]; if one eats an ant, one receives five series of lashes; if one eats a hornet, [he receives] six series of lashes” (Mak. 16b). ולא תטמאו וגו': לעבור עליהם בלאוין הרבה. וכל לאו מלקות, וזהו שאמרו בתלמוד [מכות טז] אכל פוטיתא לוקה ארבע, נמלה לוקה חמש, צרעה לוקה שש:
45For I am the Lord Who has brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God. Thus, you shall be holy, because I am holy. מהכִּי | אֲנִי יְהֹוָה הַמַּעֲלֶה אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לִהְיֹת לָכֶם לֵאלֹהִים וִהְיִיתֶם קְדשִׁים כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אָנִי:
For I am the Lord Who has brought you up: On the condition that you accept My commandments, I have brought you up [out of Egypt] (Torath Kohanim 11:170). Another explanation of “For I am the Lord Who has brought you up” : Everywhere [Scripture] says, “Who has brought [you] out(הוֹצֵאתִי) [of the land of Egypt],” while here it says, “Who has brought [you] up (הַמַּעֲלֶה).” [What is the meaning of the unusual expression here of bringing up?] the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: [God says,] “If I had brought up Israel from Egypt only so that they would not defile themselves with creeping creatures like the other nations, it would have been sufficient for them, and this is an exaltation for them.” This, then, explains [the use of] the expression הַמַּעֲלֶה - [B.M. 61b] כי אני ה' המעלה אתכם: על מנת שתקבלו מצותי העליתי אתכם. דבר אחר כי אני ה' המעלה אתכם, בכולן כתיב והוצאתי, וכאן כתיב המעלה, תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל אלמלי לא העליתי את ישראל ממצרים אלא בשביל שאין מטמאין בשרצים כשאר אומות, דיים, ומעליותא היא גבייהו, זהו לשון מעלה:
46This is the law regarding animals, birds, all living creatures that move in water and all creatures that creep on the ground, מוזֹאת תּוֹרַת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָעוֹף וְכֹל נֶפֶשׁ הַחַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת בַּמָּיִם וּלְכָל נֶפֶשׁ הַשֹּׁרֶצֶת עַל הָאָרֶץ:
47to distinguish between the unclean and the clean, and between the animal that may be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten. מזלְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הַטָּמֵא וּבֵין הַטָּהֹר וּבֵין הַחַיָּה הַנֶּאֱכֶלֶת וּבֵין הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֵאָכֵל:
to distinguish: Not only must you learn [these laws concerning prohibited creatures in order to know the laws for the sake of knowing Torah], but also you shall know and recognize [these creatures], and be proficient [in identifying] them. להבדיל: לא בלבד השונה, אלא שתהא יודע ומכיר ובקי בהן:
between the unclean and the clean: But is it necessary [for Scripture] to state [that we should know] the difference between [kosher and non-kosher animals such as] a donkey and a cow, when these [differences] have already been explained? Rather, [what is meant here, is to distinguish] between what is unclean because of you and what is clean because of you, namely between [an animal] whose trachea was slaughtered halfway through [which is considered “unclean” and may not be eaten], and [an animal] who had most of its trachea slaughtered, [rendering the animal “clean” and it may be eaten]. — [Torath Kohanim 11:173:7] בין הטמא ובין הטהר: צריך לומר בין חמור לפרה והלא כבר מפורשים הם, אלא בין טמאה לך לטהורה לך, בין נשחט חציו של קנה לנשחט רובו:
and between the animal that may be eaten: Does [Scripture] have to tell us [that one must be able to distinguish] between a deer and a wild donkey? Are they not already delineated? Rather, [to distinguish] between [an animal] in which signs of a treifah have developed, and it is nevertheless kosher [such as an animal whose injury does not render it treifah], and an animal in which signs of a treifah have developed, and it is not kosher. - [Torath Kohanim 11:173:8] ובין החיה הנאכלת: צריך לומר בין צבי לערוד, והלא כבר מפורשים הם, אלא בין שנולדו בה סימני טרפה כשרה, לנולדו בה סימני טרפה פסולה:
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 77 - 78
• Chapter 77
1. For the Conductor, on the yedutun,1 by Asaph, a psalm.
2. [I raise] my voice to God and cry out; [I raise] my voice to God and He will listen to me.
3. On the day of my distress I sought my Lord. My wound oozes at night and does not abate; my soul refuses to be consoled.
4. I remember God and I moan; I speak and my spirit faints, Selah.
5. You grasped my eyelids; I am broken, I cannot speak.
6. I think of olden days, of ancient years.
7. During the night I recall my music, I meditate with my heart, and my spirit searches:
8. Is it for eternity that my Lord forsakes [me], nevermore to be appeased?
9. Has His kindness ceased forever? Has He sealed the decree for all generations?
10. Has God forgotten mercy? Has He in anger restrained His compassion forever?
11. I said, "It is to ter- rify me that the right hand of the Most High changes.”
12. I remember the deeds of Yah, when I remember Your wonders of long ago.
13. I meditate on all Your works, and speak of Your deeds.
14. O God, Your way is in sanctity; what god is as great as God?
15. You are the God Who works wonders; You make Your might known among the nations.
16. You redeemed Your people with a mighty arm, the children of Jacob and Joseph, Selah.
17. The waters2 saw You, O God, the waters saw You and trembled; even the deep shuddered.
18. The clouds streamed water, the heavens sounded forth, even Your arrows flew about.
19. The sound of Your thunder was in the rolling wind; lightning lit up the world; the earth trembled and quaked.
20. Your way was through the sea, Your path through the mighty waters; and Your footsteps were not known.3
21. You led Your people like a flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron
Chapter 78
This psalm recounts all the miracles that God wrought for Israel, from the exodus of Egypt to David's becoming king over Israel.
1. A maskil1 by Asaph. Listen, my people, to my teaching; incline your ear to the words of my mouth.
2. I will open my mouth with a parable, I will utter riddles of long ago;
3. that which we have heard and know [to be true], and that our fathers have told us.
4. We will not withhold from their children, telling the final generation the praises of the Lord, and His might, and the wonders He has performed.
5. He established a testimony in Jacob, and set down the Torah in Israel, which He commanded our fathers to make known to their children,
6. so that the last generation shall know; children yet to be born will rise and tell their children,
7. and they shall put their hope in God, and not forget the works of the Almighty; and they shall guard His commandments.
8. And they shall not be like their fathers, a wayward and rebellious generation, a generation that did not set its heart straight, and whose spirit was not faithful to God.
9. The children of Ephraim, armed archers, retreated on the day of battle.2
10. They did not keep the covenant of God, and refused to follow His Torah.
11. They forgot His deeds and His wonders that He had shown them.
12. He performed wonders before their fathers, in the land of Egypt, in the field of Zoan.3
13. He split the sea and brought them across; He erected the waters like a wall.
14. He led them with a cloud by day, and all night long with the light of fire.
15. He split rocks in the wilderness, and gave them to drink as if from the abundant depths.
16. And He brought forth flowing waters from the rock, and caused waters to descend like rivers.
17. Yet they again continued to sin against Him, to provoke the Most High in the parched land.
18. And they tested God in their hearts, by requesting food for their craving.
19. They spoke against God; they said, "Can God set a table in the wilderness?
20. True, He hit the rock and waters flowed, streams gushed forth; but can He also give bread? Will He prepare meat for His people?”
21. And so the Lord heard and was enraged; a fire was kindled against Jacob; wrath, too, flared against Israel.
22. For they did not believe in God and did not trust in His salvation,
23. [though] He had commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven.
24. He had rained upon them manna to eat, and given them grain of heaven.
25. Man ate the bread of angels; He sent them [enough] provisions to satiate.
26. He drove the east wind through the heaven, and led the south wind with His might.
27. He rained meat upon them like dust, winged birds like the sand of seas;
28. and He dropped them inside His camp, around His dwellings.
29. And they ate and were very satiated, for He brought them their desire.
30. They were not yet estranged from their craving, their food was still in their mouths,
31. when the wrath of God rose against them and slew their mighty ones, and brought down the chosen of Israel.
32. Despite this, they sinned again, and did not believe in His wonders;
33. so He ended their days in futility, and their years in terror.
34. When He slew them they would seek Him, they would return and pray to God.
35. They remembered that God is their rock, God the Most High, their redeemer.
36. But they beguiled Him with their mouth, and deceived Him with their tongue.
37. Their heart was not steadfast with Him; they were not faithful to His covenant.
38. Yet He is compassionate, pardons iniquity, and does not destroy; time and again He turns away His anger, and does not arouse all His wrath.
39. He remembered that they were but flesh, a spirit that leaves and does not return.
40. How often they provoked Him in the desert, and grieved Him in the wasteland!
41. Again and again they tested God, and sought a sign from the Holy One of Israel.
42. They did not remember His hand, the day He redeemed them from the oppressor;
43. that He set His signs in Egypt, and His wonders in the field of Zoan.
44. He turned their rivers to blood, and made their flowing waters undrinkable.
45. He sent against them a mixture of beasts which devoured them, and frogs that destroyed them.
46. He gave their produce to the grasshopper, and their toil to the locust.
47. He killed their vines with hail, and their sycamores with biting frost.
48. He delivered their animals to the hail, and their livestock to fiery bolts.
49. He sent against them His fierce anger, fury, rage, and affliction; a delegation of messengers of evil.
50. He leveled a path for His anger, and did not spare their soul from death; He delivered their animals to pestilence.
51. He struck every firstborn in Egypt, the first fruit of their strength in the tents of Ham.4
52. He drove His nation like sheep, and guided them like a flock in the desert.
53. He led them in security and they did not fear, for the sea covered their enemies.
54. And He brought them to the boundary of His holy place, this mountain which His right hand acquired.
55. He drove out nations before them, and allotted them an inheritance [measured] by the cord; He settled the tribes of Israel in their tents.
56. Yet they tested and defied God, the Most High, and did not keep His testimonies.
57. They regressed and rebelled like their fathers; they turned around like a deceptive bow.
58. They angered Him with their high altars, and provoked Him with their idols.
59. God heard and was enraged, and He was utterly disgusted with Israel;
60. And He abandoned the Tabernacle of Shilo, the Tent where He had dwelled among men.
61. He put His might into captivity, and His glory into the hand of the oppressor.
62. He delivered His nation to the sword, and was enraged with His inheritance.
63. Fire consumed His young men, and His maidens had no marriage song.
64. His priests fell by the sword, and their widows did not weep.5
65. And the Lord awoke like one who had been asleep, like a warrior shouting [to sober himself] from wine.
66. He beat His enemies into retreat, and dealt them eternal disgrace.
67. He was disgusted with the tent of Joseph, and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim.
68. He chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion which He loves.
69. And He built His Sanctuary [permanent as] the heavens; like the earth, He established it forever.
70. And He chose David His servant, and took him from the sheep corrals.
71. From following the nursing ewes, He brought Him to shepherd His nation Jacob, Israel His inheritance.
72. And he tended them with the integrity of his heart, and led them with the skill of his hands.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 40• Lessons in Tanya
• Friday, Nissan 14, 5775 · April 3, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 40
It has been demonstrated above that Torah studied out of habit, without personal motive yet lacking any intention of lishmah, cannot ascend on high to be absorbed into the Sefirot.The Alter Rebbe now proceeds to explain why this is so.
The difficulty: The Torah and G‑d are altogether one, for the Torah is G‑d’s Will. Thus, the Torah is higher even than the Sefirot, just as G‑d’s Will transcends the Sefirot. Why then does the Torah need one’s kavanah to elevate it to the Sefirot?
ואף דאורייתא וקודשא בריך הוא כולא חד, שהוא ורצונו אחד
Although the Torah and the Holy One, blessed be He, are altogether one, for He and His Will are one, and the Torah represents His Will, nevertheless the Torah will not ascend on high without kavanah.
The reason (presently stated) in brief:
The words of Torah that one speaks are physical, as are all things in this material world. True, they are holy words; the divine life-force within them is not concealed and veiled, as it is in other material beings. Yet, being physical, the words of Torah share with all physical existence a divine life-force that is greatly contracted and limited.
Therefore they cannot ascend to the G‑dly Sefirot unless they are impelled by kavanah, i.e., a spiritual intention generated by love and fear of G‑d, which elevate the words of Torah and cause the Divine Will to be revealed in them.
In the Alter Rebbe’s words:
הרי קודשא בריך הוא איהו ממלא כל עלמין בשוה, ואף על פי כן אין העולמות שוים במעלתם
The Holy One, blessed be He, fills all the worlds alike, yet the worlds are not equal in rank.
והשינוי הוא מהמקבלים בב׳ בחינות
The difference [between one world and another] is due to the recipients [of the divine life force], and is twofold:
האחת: שהעליונים מקבלים הארה יותר גדולה לאין קץ מהתחתונים
(a) The higher [worlds and beings] receive an illumination infinitely greater than [the illumination received by] the lower;
והשנית: שמקבלים בלי לבושים ומסכים רבים כל כך כהתחתונים
b) The higher ones receive [this illumination] without as many garments and veils as the lower ones.
ועולם הזה הוא עולם השפל בב׳ בחינות
This world is the lowest of worlds in both respects.
כי ההארה שבו מצומצמת מאד, עד קצה האחרון, ולכן הוא חומרי וגשמי
For (a) the illumination [of divine life-force] within it is greatly contracted, to the furthest degree; it is therefore corporeal and material.
וגם זאת היא בלבושים ומסכים רבים
Furthermore, (b) even this [contracted illumination] is clothed in many garments and veils,
עד שנתלבשה בקליפת נוגה, להחיות כל דברים הטהורים שבעולם הזה, ובכללם הוא נפש החיונית המדברת שבאדם
until it is clothed in kelipat nogah, to give life to all clean permitted things of this world, including the animating intelligent soul in man.
As mentioned in earlier chapters, all permitted objects receive their vitality via kelipat nogah, and can therefore serve either a good or an evil purpose.
ולכן כשמדברת דברי תורה ותפלה בלא כוונה
Therefore, when the animating soul speaks words of Torah or prayer withoutkavanah, the concealment characteristic of this world is absent, yet the contraction still applies, as follows:
אף שהן אותיות קדושות, ואין קליפת נוגה שבנפש החיונית מסך מבדיל כלל להסתיר ולכסות על קדושתו יתברך המלובשת בהן
Though these are holy letters and thus, in this case, the kelipat nogah of the animating soul does not constitute a veil of separation, concealing or covering the divine holiness clothed in these letters,
כמו שהיא מסתרת ומכסה על קדושתו יתברך שבנפש החיונית כשמדברת דברים בטלים
as [kelipat nogah] conceals and covers the divine holiness in the animating soul when it utters idle chatter,
ושבנפש החיונית שבשאר בעלי חיים הטהורים
and [the divine holiness] in the animating souls of other ritually clean living creatures, where kelipat nogah likewise conceals the divine life-force,
דאף דלית אתר פנוי מיניה
for although1 “no place is devoid of Him,” and His presence is found in man’s animating soul even when he engages in idle talk, and in the soul of all living creatures —
-מכל מקום איהו סתימו דכל סתימין, ונקרא אל מסתתר
yet, He is the2 “Most Hidden One of all the hidden,” and is called3 “a hidden G‑d,” for He is hidden from his creations.
וגם ההארה והתפשטות החיות ממנו יתברך מסתתרת בלבושים ומסכים רבים ועצומים
Similarly, the illumination and extension of vitality from Him is hidden in many dense garments and veils,
עד שנתלבשה ונסתתרה בלבוש נוגה
and is finally clothed and hidden in the garment of nogah, which completely conceals man’s divine life-force when he engages in idle talk, and the life-force in other animals, as stated.
מה שאין כן באותיות הקדושות של דברי תורה ותפלה
It is different, however, with the holy letters in words of Torah and prayer:
דאדרבה, קליפת נוגה מתהפכת לטוב, ונכללת בקדושה זו, כנ״ל
Here,not only does kelipat nogah not obscure G‑dliness, but on the contrary, kelipat nogah is transformed to good and is absorbed into this holiness, as explained above.4
Thus, the second of the two aforementioned traits that make this world the lowest of worlds — namely, the complete concealment of divine life-force in the garment of kelipat nogah — is absent in words of Torah and prayer. But the first trait, the Alter Rebbe will now state, is present even in these holy words: they are physical, as are all things of this world, so that the contraction of divine life-force that characterizes physical matter in general, applies to these words as well.
מכל מקום, ההארה שבהן מקדושתו יתברך הוא בבחינת צמצום עד קצה האחרון, מאחר שהקול והדבור הוא גשמי
Nevertheless, the illumination from His holiness that [these words] contain is contracted to the furthest degree, since the voice and speech uttering words of Torah and prayer are material.
Therefore, although Torah is one with G‑d, words of Torah will not ascend to the Sefirotwithout kavanah, since the G‑dliness within them is so greatly contracted.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Tikkunei Zohar, Tikkun 57, p. 91b. |
| 2. | Ibid., Introduction. |
| 3. | Yeshayahu 45:15. |
| 4. | Chs. 35, 37, et al. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Friday, Nissan 14, 5775 · April 3, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 94
Fulfilling Verbal Obligations
"That which issues from your lips you shall keep and perform"—Deuteronomy 23:24.
We are commanded to carry through that which we pledge to do [or not to do].
Fulfilling Verbal Obligations
Positive Commandment 94
Translated by Berel Bell
The 94th mitzvah is that we are commanded to fulfill every verbal obligation we have taken upon ourselves, whether an oath, a vow, a korban,1 etc.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "You shall be careful to carry out whatever you say."
Although our Sages have split up this verse and explained each word separately as referring to something different, the general meaning of everything they say is: it is a positive commandment for a person to fulfill every verbal obligation he has taken upon himself, and a prohibition not to do so. This will be explained in our discussion of the prohibitions.3
The Sifri says, "The verse, 'Whatever you say,' constitutes a positive commandment." You find it obvious that the words, "whatever you say" by themselves have no meaning whatsoever. The intention [of the Sifri] is therefore as I explained above — that the plain meaning of the verse is that a person is obligated to carry out his verbal commitments.
This commandment is stated a second time in G‑d's statement,4 "A person must fulfill all he has verbally said."
The details of this mitzvah — i.e. how exactly the person must fulfill his obligation, and how he can be released [from his obligation] when in doubt regarding his statement — are explained in a number of passages in Sh'vuos, Nedarim, the end of Menachos, as well as in Kinim.
FOOTNOTES
1.Literally, a sacrifice. When a person says, "a sacrifice that I won't eat something of yours," he means to say that he considers that person's food to be forbidden for him to eat just as a sacrifice is forbidden to him. This constitutes a vow not to eat that person's food.
2.Deut. 23:24.
3.N157.
4.Num. 30:3.
• 1 Chapter: Shabbos Shabbos - Chapter Three
Shabbos - Chapter Three
Halacha 1
It is permissible to begin the performance of a [forbidden] labor on Friday, even though the labor is completed on its own accord on the Sabbath itself,1 for the prohibition against work applies only on the Sabbath itself. Moreover, when a task is carried out on its own accord on the Sabbath,2 we are permitted to derive benefit from what was completed on the Sabbath.
Halacha 2
What is implied?3 We may open an irrigation channel to a garden on Friday, causing it to continue to fill throughout [the Sabbath] day. We may place [burning] incense under garments, causing them to continue to be made fragrant throughout the entire Sabbath. We may apply salve to an eye or a bandage to a wound, causing them to continue to heal throughout the Sabbath.
We may mix ink with herbs before night and let the mixture soak4 throughout the entire Sabbath. We may place wool into a vat5 or strands of flax into an oven6 so that their [color] continues to change throughout the entire Sabbath.
We may lay out snares for wild beasts, birds, and fish at nightfall so that they continue being captured throughout the entire Sabbath. We may load the beams of an olive press or the round stones of a grape press7 at nightfall so that the liquids will continue to flow throughout the entire Sabbath. Similarly, we may light a candle or a fire [before] evening so that it continues to burn throughout the entire Sabbath.
Halacha 3
A pot may be placed over a fire, or meat may be placed in an oven or over coals [on Friday], so that they continue to cook throughout the Sabbath [with the intent] that they be eaten on the Sabbath.8 With regard to this matter, however, there are certain restrictions that were enacted lest one stir the coals on the Sabbath.
Halacha 4
What is implied? When food has not been cooked to the extent that it is ready to serve,
water has not been boiled,
or food has been cooked to the extent that it is ready to serve,9 but the longer it cooks the better it tastes,10
it may not be left over a fire on the Sabbath11 even though it was placed there before the commencement of the Sabbath, lest one stir the coals to complete the cooking process or to cause it to cook more thoroughly.
Accordingly, it is permissible to leave [food cooking] if one removed the coals one covered the coals in the range12 with ash or with thin chips from the combing of flax,
the coals burned low, for then they are covered with ash, or
the fuel used was straw, stubble, or the feces of a small animal, for then no coals will remain.
[In these instances, it is obvious that] the person has diverted his intention from this food. Hence, a decree was not [enacted forbidding food to be left on the fire] lest he stir the coals.
Halacha 5
When does the above apply? With regard to a range13 whose heat is minimal. With regard to an oven,14 in contrast, even if one removed the coals,15 covered them with ash, or used straw or stubble as fuel,16 we are not allowed to leave food in it or on it. Similarly, one should not put food close to it.17
[This applies to] food that was not cooked to completion or was completely cooked, but will benefit from continued cooking. Since [an oven] is very hot, a person will not divert his attention [from the fire]. Hence, we suspect that he will stir the small fire that remains, even if it is straw or stubble, or even if it is covered.
Halacha 6
Why did [the Sages] forbid leaving food in the oven even if the fire was removed? Because a person can remove only the majority of the coals and their most intense [heat]. It is impossible to remove the entire fire so that not even a spark remains. Since [an oven's] heat is very warm, we suspect that he will stir [the fire] so that the sparks that remain in the oven will burn more.
Halacha 7
A kopach18 is warmer than a range and not as warm as an oven. Therefore, if wood or gefet19 is used as fuel,20 it is considered equivalent to an oven, and we are not permitted to leave food within it, upon it, or next to it if it was not completely cooked, or even if it was completely cooked, but will benefit from continued cooking. This applies even if the fire was removed or covered with ash.
If straw or stubble was used as fuel,21 it is bound by the same rules as a range that was fueled with straw or stubble, and [food] may be left [cooking] on it. What is a range and what is a kopach? A range is a place with an opening for two pots. A kopach is a place with an opening for a single pot.22
Halacha 8
When food has not been cooked at all23 or has been cooked to completion, but will be impaired by further cooking,24 it is permitted to leave it cooking whether on a range, a kopach, or an oven. Similarly, even when food has been cooked, but has not been cooked to completion, or when it has been cooked to completion, but will benefit from further cooking, it may be left on the fire if one placed an uncooked piece of meat25 in it shortly before nightfall, for the whole dish is considered to be entirely uncooked. [This applies] although one has not removed or covered the coals, for he has diverted his attention [from this food] and will not stir the coals.
Halacha 9
[The following rules apply] whenever a person left food [on a fire] in a situation where he was prohibited against doing so: If he transgressed and left [the food cooking intentionally],26 he is prohibited to eat it27 until Saturday night, and must wait until enough time passes for it to have cooked.28 If he forgot [to remove it from the fire on Friday, greater leniency is allowed.] If the food was not completely cooked [before the commencement of the Sabbath], it is forbidden to eat it until Saturday night.29 If it was completely cooked, but further cooking will benefit it,30 it is permitted to be eaten immediately31 on the Sabbath.
Halacha 10
Whenever [food] is permitted to be left on a fire,32 if it was taken from [the fire] on the Sabbath, it is forbidden to return it to its place.33 [Food[34 may be returned only to a range from which the coals have been removed or covered35or to a range or a kopach that was heated with straw or with stubble.36
[This leniency is granted] provided the food was not placed on the ground.37 If it was placed on the ground,38 it may not be returned even to a range whose coals were removed or covered. Similarly, [food] may not be returned to an oven39 or to a kopach that was heated with gefet or wood, despite the fact that one has removed or covered the coals, for they are very hot.
Halacha 11
It is forbidden to insert a ladle into a pot to remove [food] while it is on a fire on the Sabbath, because while doing so, one stirs it.42 [Stirring] is one of the activities necessary for cooking,43 and thus one will be cooking on the Sabbath.
It is permissible to shift a pot from one range to another,44 even when the heat of the first range is not as great as the heat of the second range. One may not, however, take food that was on a range and cover it to maintain its heat,45 or take food that was covered to maintain its heat and place it on a range.46
Halacha 12
A person should not fill a pot with peas or beans or a jug with water and place them in an oven on Friday before nightfall and leave them [to cook]. Even when the above and other foods like them were not cooked at all, they are considered to be food that was not completely cooked, because they do not require a substantial [amount of time to] cook.47 Therefore, the person will continue to pay attention to them, for he intends to partake of them immediately. Accordingly, it is forbidden to leave them in an oven [unless they are completely cooked].48
If one transgressed and left them in an oven, it is forbidden to partake of them until Saturday night. [Even then,] one must also wait the amount of time necessary for them to cook.
Halacha 13
[The following rules apply when] meat was placed in an oven before nightfall and left [to roast49] on the Sabbath: If the meat is from a kid or it is other [tender] flesh,50 it is permitted. [Such meat] requires only the warmth of the fire itself, and if one stirs the coals the meat will char. If the meat is from a goat or an ox, it is forbidden, lest he stir the coals to cause it to cook [faster].51
If, however, one sealed the opening of the oven closed with clay, [roasting even the latter meats] is permitted, for if one opens the oven to stir [the coals], the wind will enter and cause the meat to harden and spoil. The oven will cool [suddenly] and the meat will spoil.52
Halacha 14
Similarly, whenever something would be spoiled by the wind, we do not decree [against its being heated], because someone might open [the oven] and stir [coals]. For this reason, we may place strands of flax into an oven [to bleach] before nightfall, for if one opens the oven, they will spoil.53
Halacha 15
If one placed an entire kid54 into an oven, [the situation] is governed by the laws applying to meat from a goat or an ox, and it is forbidden, lest one stir the coals, unless one seals the oven [closed].
[If the fourteenth of Nisan falls on Friday,] it is, however, permitted to hang the Paschal lamb into an oven directly before nightfall,55 even though it is not sealed closed. The members of the company [gathered to eat the sacrifice] are careful.
Halacha 16
Meat,56 onions, or eggs should not be roasted over an [open] fire,57 unless they can be roasted before nightfall to the point where they are fit to be eaten.58 [If they are roasted to this extent before the commencement of the Sabbath], it is permissible to leave them on the fire on the Sabbath to be roasted further.
[The rationale is] that [increased heat] will impair their taste. Since they are being cooked over a fire, if one stirs [the coals] they will char.
For this reason, we are allowed to leave incense under clothes before nightfall [to perfume them]. For if one stirs the coals, the incense will burn and the clothes will be [damaged by] the smoke.
Halacha 17
From the above, we can conclude that all the prohibitions mentioned in this context were not enacted because [the cooking] was completed on the Sabbath.59 Instead, they are Rabbinic decrees [enacted] lest one stir the coals. Accordingly, wool should not be placed into a vat [to dye] unless it was removed from the fire, lest one stir the coals. Similarly, the vat should be sealed close with clay, lest one stir [the dye] after nightfall.
Halacha 18
We should not place bread in an oven [directly] before nightfall, nor should we place a cake on coals unless [there is time] for the surface attached to the oven or [the side of the cake60] facing the fire to crust.61 [Should this be done,] it is permissible to leave it to continue baking afterwards, for if one stirs [the coals], one will spoil the bread.62
[The following rules apply when one places bread in an oven] before nightfall and there is not sufficient time for its surface to crust before nightfall. If one did so with a deliberate intent to violate [the above ruling], it is forbidden to partake of the bread until Saturday night, after sufficient time for it to bake has passed.63If one did so unknowingly, it is permitted to remove bread64 for the three Sabbath meals.65 When one removes the bread, one should not remove it using a baker's peel as one does during the week.66 Instead, one should use a knife or other similar utensil.
Halacha 19
A person may make a fire from any substance he desires,67 regardless of whether] he kindles it on the ground or in a torch holder. When he lights it before nightfall, he may use its light, or warm himself from it on the Sabbath.68
He must, however, kindle the majority of the fire before nightfall to the extent that the flame rises up on its own accord.69 If he did not kindle the majority of the fire, it is forbidden for him to benefit from it on the Sabbath, lest he stir or move the wood so the flame rises up.70 If he [desires to] burn a single piece of wood, he must kindle the majority of its thickness and the majority of its circumference before nightfall.
Halacha 20
Halacha 21
If a fire was made of reeds or of seeds, it is not necessary for the majority of it to be kindled before the Sabbath. Instead, since it caught fire before [the commencement] of the Sabbath, its use is permitted, for the fire will spread quickly through [these substances], and there is no necessity for one to stir it.
Therefore, if the reeds were bound together or the seeds were placed in palm baskets, the same laws applying to wood apply, and the flames must be powerful enough to rise up on their own accord before [the commencement] of the Sabbath.74
Halacha 22
When a fire is fueled with tar, sulfur, oily substances, wax, straw, or stubble, it is not required that the majority be kindled before the commencement of the Sabbath, because these substances catch fire quickly.75
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 252:1) emphasizes that this leniency applies even when one is certain that the forbidden labor will continue on its own accord on the Sabbath, as mentioned in the examples cited by the Rambam in the following halachah.
Having outlined the general principles governing the Sabbath laws in the first chapter, and the situations when leniency can be permitted because of a danger to life in the second chapter, the Rambam begins his discussion of the Sabbath laws themselves. He starts with an explanation of activities that are begun before the Sabbath actually commences.
[Significantly, although the Mishnah (Shabbat, Chapter 1) starts with a different concept, it also mentions many of the laws quoted by the Rambam towards the beginning of its treatment of the Sabbath laws.]
|
| 2. |
Shabbat 18a explains that these laws reflect a difference of opinion between the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai. The School of Shammai maintains that just as a person is required to have his servants and livestock rest on the Sabbath, so, too, is he required to have his utensils rest. They may not be used for work on the Sabbath. The School of Hillel does not accept this thesis, and their opinion is adopted as halachah. (See Chapter 6, Halachah 16.)
|
| 3. |
The Rambam exemplifies the principle mentioned in the previous halachah, describing forbidden labors that are initiated by a person before the commencement of the Sabbath and continue without additional input from the person on the Sabbath. These examples are taken from the Mishnah (Shabbat 1:5-9) and the explanation of these mishnayot in the Talmud.
|
| 4. |
Note the Rambam's description of the preparation of ink in Hilchot Tefillin 1:4:
|
| 5. |
To dye the wool another color. Note, however, the restrictions on this practice mentioned in Halachah 17.
|
| 6. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 1:5, the Rambam writes that flax would be soaked, mixed with ash, and then heated in an oven to bleach it. (See also Halachah 14.)
|
| 7. |
The process of preparing both olive oil and wine involved crushing the fruit and then pressing heavy weights over the olives or the grapes to extract the remaining liquids.
|
| 8. |
The Rambam is explaining that according to the Torah itself, leaving food over a fire to cook would resemble all the activities mentioned in the previous halachah. For although cooking is a forbidden labor, the cooking would continue without any further activity. Nevertheless, as is explained in the subsequent halachot, our Sages enacted certain restrictions because they were afraid that a person might stir the fire to cause the food to cook faster.
|
| 9. |
The Rambam's view is also shared by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi and other Sephardic authorities and is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 253:1). Rashi (Shabbat 37b) and the Ashkenazic authorities who followed him are more lenient and maintain that when half (or according to others, a third - see Chapter 9, Halachah 5 and notes) of the cooking process has been completed, food may be left on a fire even when its taste is improved by continued cooking. The Ramah (loc. cit.) states that it is customary to follow this view.
|
| 10. |
Even according to the Rambam, if continued cooking will impair the taste of a food or if food was not cooked at all, we are allowed to leave it on a flame, for it is unlikely that the person will continue to stir the flames to make it cook more, as will be explained in Halachah 8.
|
| 11. |
The contemporary Rabbinic authorities explain that these rules also apply to electric and gas ranges. In these instances as well, it is possible that a person may desire to turn the flame up to have the food cook faster or more thoroughly.
|
| 12. |
In contemporary terms, covering a stove top with a blech, a piece of metal, serves this purpose. If this is done, food that has not been cooked thoroughly may be left to continue cooking throughout the Sabbath.
|
| 13. |
We have used a contemporary translation for the word kirah. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 1:3), the Rambam describes a kirah as "a place built into the ground with openings for two pots. The fire is placed under both of them in a single place."
|
| 14. |
Rabbenu Nissim states that the ovens of his time were constructed differently from those of the Talmudic era. Their heat is not as intense, and they are governed by the rules that apply to a range. This leniency is also accepted by the Ramah. Although the construction of ovens has changed further in contemporary times, most authorities continue to accept his ruling with regard to household ovens. (With regard to commercial ovens, there is a difference of opinion.)
|
| 15. |
The reasons why restrictions are mentioned even in such an instance are explained in the following halachah.
|
| 16. |
There are authorities (see Mishnah Berurah 253:22) who maintain that the Rambam would allow food to be left in an oven if it was fueled with straw and stubble and the fire was removed. Although the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 253:1) do not make such a distinction, theMishnah Berurah explains that there is room for leniency.
|
| 17. |
The food may not be placed at any point where the heat is warm enough to scald a child's hand. In terms of modern measure, the Rabbis define this term as 107.8 degrees Farenheit.
|
| 18. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 1:3), the Rambam explains that a kopach is "built over the fire with a place for one pot. Fire is placed below it.... The heat of a kopach is greater than that of a kirah, because in a kirah the fire is dispersed beneath two pots and there is a greater exposure to the air."
|
| 19. |
The residue remaining after olives were pressed (ibid.).
|
| 20. |
These materials are substantial and will supply heat over a lengthy period of time.
|
| 21. |
These materials are not substantial and will be consumed by the flames in a short period. Hence, there is no need to suspect that the person will stir the flames.
|
| 22. |
See also Hilchot Keilim 16:13, 17:4,6,7.
|
| 23. |
Since the food has not been cooked at all, stirring the coals to intensify the fire will not bring much immediate benefit. By the following day, the food will cook sufficiently even without stirring. Hence, there is no need for safeguards (Rashi, Shabbat 18b).
|
| 24. |
In such a situation, the person will not desire to stir the coals to intensify the fire.
|
| 25. |
If, however, one places vegetables in the food that is cooking, this leniency does not apply. Meat takes a long time to cook, while vegetables cook quickly (Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 253). See also the Kessef Mishneh.
|
| 26. |
The Rambam's ruling is based on Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's interpretation of Shabbat 38a. Both the Ra'avad and the Tur (Orach Chayim 253) have different conceptions of that passage and hence raise objections. The Rambam's rulings are accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 253:1). The Ramah and the Ashkenazic authorities who follow prefer the Tur'sinterpretation, although as will be explained, in practice the differences between them concern only food that was not cooked to the point of completion before the commencement of the Sabbath.
|
| 27. |
The Merkevet HaMishneh notes that the Rambam's wording implies that only the person who left the food cooking is forbidden to eat it, but others are permitted. Rabbenu Asher, however, rules that the food is forbidden to be eaten by others as well. His view is accepted by the Magen Avraham 253:11 and the later authorities.
|
| 28. |
The requirement to wait until the food could have cooked on Saturday night was instituted so that the person would derive no benefit from the forbidden act. Therefore, he will have no motivation to do so again.
|
| 29. |
Shabbat (loc. cit.) states that normally there would be no reason to forbid this food from being eaten. It transpired, however, that many people were intentionally leaving food to cook, and if admonished would excuse themselves by claiming that they forgot. Accordingly, the Sages placed restrictions on those who forgot as well, forbidding them to partake of the food until Saturday night. (See the exception to this rule mentioned in the notes on Halachah 18.)
There is a question whether it is necessary to wait until the food has time to cook on Saturday night or not. From the Rambam's wording, it appears that this is unnecessary. Rabbenu Asher, however, rules that it is necessary to wait. His view is accepted by Shulchan Aruch HaRav253:12. (See the Mishnah Berurah 253:32.)
|
| 30. |
Theoretically, according to Rabbenu Asher's interpretation of the passage in Shabbat cited above, such food should be prohibited until Saturday night. Nevertheless, Rabbenu Asher subscribes to the lenient view mentioned in note 9, which states that after food has been half- (or a third-) cooked, it may be left on a fire on the Sabbath even if it will benefit from continued cooking. Hence, in practice, he - and the subsequent Ashkenazic authorities - do not differ with the Rambam on this point.
|
| 31. |
Rav Kapach notes that this word is not included in the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The intent is also difficult to understand.
|
| 32. |
The Ra'avad questions the appropriateness of the Rambam's choice of the word "permitted." TheMaggid Mishneh states that this refers to foods that were totally uncooked, or foods into which an uncooked piece of meat was placed, as stated in Halachah 8. Although they are permitted to be left on a fire, once they are removed it is forbidden to return them. Surely this prohibition applies to foods that have not been cooked completely and, according to the Rambam, are forbidden to be left on a fire. Even the Ashkenazic authorities who allow such foods to be left on a fire, forbid their return if they were removed.
|
| 33. |
Returning food to a cooking surface causes it to cook, and cooking is one of the forbidden labors. Therefore, if the cooking process of a food has not been completed, it may not be returned to a cooking surface even when that surface is covered (Ramah, Orach Chayim 253:2). Even when the food has already been completely cooked, there is a Rabbinic prohibition against cooking it further, as the Rambam writes in Chapter 9, Halachah 3.
Other authorities (Rabbenu Nissim, Sefer HaMaor) mention that it is forbidden to return food to a cooking surface, because of the impression it might create. An observer might think that one is cooking. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 253:15 also mentions the possibility that one may stir the coals.
|
| 34. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 253:2) mentions that the food must still be boiling hot.Shulchan Aruch HaRav 253:18-19 and the Mishnah Berurah 253:54 allow leniency, provided the food has not become cooled totally.
The Magen Avraham 253:20 also mentions that the food may not be returned to a range if it has been transferred from the pot in which it was originally contained.
|
| 35. |
In contemporary situations, placing a piece of metal (a blech) on a stove-top causes the fires to be considered as covered. In such a situation, food may be returned to the blech if:
a) originally, it was placed on the blech in a manner that was permitted;
b) it is completely cooked;
c) one did not divert one's attention from it.
|
| 36. |
According to the Rambam, food is allowed to be returned in these instances because there is no possibility of the food cooking more. Hence, there is no reason to suspect that one will stir the coals. Others explain that the leniency was granted, because this is not the normal manner in which food is cooked. One is liable for the performance of a forbidden labor only when it is performed in an ordinary manner. Hence, in this instance, there is no reason for a Rabbinic decree.
(According to Rabbenu Nissim who maintains that returning food is forbidden because of the impression it creates, the reason for this leniency can be explained as follows: Since one may return the food only when one does not release it from one's hands, the probability that an observer will think that one is cooking is lower.)
|
| 37. |
Based on Shabbat 38b, the Tur emphasizes that one must have removed the food from the range with the intent of returning it. Otherwise, it is considered as if one is placing on the fire anew. TheShulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) quotes the Rambam's view without mentioning this factor. The Ramah quotes the Tur's view. The Be'ur Halachah emphasizes, however, that there is room for leniency in this regard, even according to Ashkenazic authorities.
|
| 38. |
Many contemporary authorities allow one to return a pot to a covered range if one placed it on a table, provided one held the pot at all times. See Mishnah Berurah 253:56.
|
| 39. |
As mentioned in note 14, most contemporary authorities maintain that our household ovens are governed by the laws applying to ranges.
|
| 40. |
The Magen Avraham 253:5 states that this refers to placing - or returning - food near a source of heat on the Sabbath itself (Rabbi Akiva Eiger). One may, however, leave food near a source of heat on Friday so that it will remain warm on the Sabbath.
The Ramah [based on the Tur (Orach Chayim 253:5)] allows one to place food near a source of heat on the Sabbath as long as it was completely cooked previously.
|
| 41. |
This refers to a place which is
|
| 42. |
The Ra'avad protests against the Rambam's statements, for although stirring food is prohibited, here the person is merely removing food and he is not intentionally stirring. The Maggid Mishnehexplains that if the food is not completely cooked, one is not allowed to stir the pot. Hence, removing food is forbidden. If, however, the food is completely cooked, there is no prohibition from the Torah in stirring it. Therefore, there is no Rabbinic prohibition against removing food.
In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo takes a much more stringent position. He accepts the Rambam's ruling without question. Furthermore, he adds that the same decision would apply even when the pot was removed from the fire as long as it is still boiling hot, and this is the ruling he states in his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 318:18). The commentaries (see Shulchan Aruch HaRav 318:30 and the Mishnah Berurah 318:117), however, state that as long as the food has been cooked completely and it has been removed from the fire, one may remove it with a ladle.
|
| 43. |
For by stirring, one speeds the cooking process. See Chapter 9, Halachah 4 and notes.
|
| 44. |
The Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 4:3, quotes Rabbi Yehoshua, "When I attended Rabbi Chiyya, the great, I would take hot water from the lower storey and bring it to the upper storey and put it on the range."
|
| 45. |
One may place food in objects (e.g., pillows or blankets) that preserve its heat for the Sabbath before the Sabbath, but not on the Sabbath itself (Chapter 4, Halachah 3). In the instance at hand, even though the food was being heated on the Sabbath, covering it to preserve its heat is forbidden.
This applies only when one covers the food entirely. If one leaves the top of the pot uncovered, one may cover the bottom to preserve its heat.
|
| 46. |
Even when the food is boiling hot, it is forbidden to put it on a source of heat on the Sabbath.
|
| 47. |
According to the Rambam, the principles mentioned in Law 8 do not apply here, because these entities are different. That halachah pertains to foods that require substantial time to cook - hence, the person cooking will divert his attention and not stir the coals. In contrast, the entities mentioned in this halachah do not require substantial time to cook, and there is the possibility that one will stir the coals.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 254:8) quotes the Rambam's words almost verbatim, and this interpretation is accepted by the later authorities. Nevertheless, Rashi (Shabbat 18b) and many authorities differ in their interpretation of this passage, noting that Beitzah 25b states that these beans must be cooked seven times before they are prepared to eat.
See also the Bayit Chadash (Orach Chayim 254), which juxtaposes the Rambam's position with Rashi's, explaining that the Rambam is talking about an instance when the beans have already been cooked six times. Hence, only a slight amount of further cooking is necessary. Rav Kapach substantiates this interpretation, explaining that beans with a similar name are still eaten in Yemen today. After having been cooked several times, these beans cook very fast.
|
| 48. |
As mentioned above, according to Ashkenazic authorities, it is sufficient that they be half (or a third) cooked.
|
| 49. |
Previously, the Rambam had been speaking of meat that was cooked in a pot or roasted in a pan. This halachah describes meat roasted in an oven over a fire, which cooks faster. Hence, there is reason to suspect that one would stir the coals (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 50. |
Needless to say this leniency applies to fowl. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 254:1.)
|
| 51. |
The ovens of the Talmudic period opened on top. At times, the opening was sealed closed to allow for faster and more effective cooking. According to the Rambam (and the Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.), the above clauses of the halachah deal with meat that is roasted with the oven open. Rabbenu Asher (in his gloss on Shabbat 18b) interprets these laws as applying when the oven is closed, but not sealed. According to his view, if the oven is open, there is always reason to suspect that one will stir the coals. The Tur and the Ramah follow this interpretation.
|
| 52. |
The latter phrase is lacking in the authoritative Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah and appears redundant.
Because opening the oven will cause the meat to spoil, we do not suspect that one will do so to stir the coals.
|
| 53. |
As mentioned in Halachah 2, this law follows the principles of the School of Hillel. In this halachah, the Rambam is clarifying that in contrast to food which is being cooked for the Sabbath, there is no need for a Rabbinic prohibition either.
|
| 54. |
When the body of an animal or fowl is intact, the meat is not exposed to the heat of the fire on both sides. Therefore, its cooking process is slower, and there is reason to suspect that one will stir the coals.
The Ramah (Orach Chayim 254:1) states that the entire body of the animal need not be intact. This law applies even when the head and the internal organs are removed, provided its rib cage remains intact.
|
| 55. |
The Paschal sacrifice is a lamb which must be roasted totally intact. Since this sacrifice could be offered only after midday on the fourteenth of Nisan, and many thousands of lambs were brought, when that date fell on Friday it is possible that a company would not have time to have their sacrifice roasted before nightfall. Nevertheless, since the sacrifice must be eaten by an entire company, we assume that all the members of the company will remind each other. Hence, there is no need for a safeguard (see Rashi, Shabbat 19b).
|
| 56. |
This applies to all meat, even that of a kid or fowl.
|
| 57. |
In contrast to the previous two halachot, this halachah speaks of roasting food over an open fire and not within an oven. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 254:2) explains that in such an instance, a person is primarily concerned that the food cook rapidly and does not care that some becomes charred.
|
| 58. |
This does not mean completely cooked but rather cooked
Rav Moshe Cohen of Lunil questions why the Rambam differentiates between roasting - where he allows food that is partially cooked to continue cooking - and cooking in a pot - where he requires the food to be completely cooked and that further cooking will not benefit it. The Shulchan Aruch(loc. cit.) explains that cooking in a pot requires more time and there is a greater possibility that one will stir the coals. See also the Merkevet HaMishneh.
|
| 59. |
With this statement, the Rambam refers to the principles he had mentioned at the beginning of the chapter. There it was explained that the halachah follows the School of Hillel, which allows us to benefit from forbidden labors that are completed on the Sabbath on their own accord. Nevertheless, there are certain restrictions instituted against leaving food to cook, lest one stir the coals, as explained.
|
| 60. |
The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the interpretation of the Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim, 254.
|
| 61. |
In the Talmudic period, bread was baked by attaching a loaf to the side of the oven. This surface would crust first. Nevertheless, this is sufficient for the bread to be considered to be baked before the commencement of the Sabbath.
It must be emphasized that this ruling represents a reversal of opinion for the Rambam. In his Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 1:10, he rules that the outer surface must crust before the Sabbath. (The latter ruling also conforms to his thesis regarding cooked food: that it must be completely cooked before the commencement of the Sabbath.) It must be emphasized that the version of this halachah found in the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah are in accordance with the ruling in the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 254:5) follows the more lenient ruling.
|
| 62. |
I.e., cause it to burn.
|
| 63. |
This resembles the ruling of Halachah 9 regarding food that was left to cook over a fire.
|
| 64. |
Not only is the person who baked the bread allowed to remove it himself, he may invite others to remove bread as well, as stated in Chapter 22, Halachah 1.
|
| 65. |
Here the ruling is far more lenient than the ruling in Halachah 9 regarding food. The commentaries (Rabbenu Nissim, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 254:8 and the Mishnah Berurah 254:33) explain that the fundamental element of all meals is bread, and if the person does not have bread he will not be able to fulfill the mitzvah of eating three Sabbath meals. From this, one can postulate that if a person has no food other than that which has been left on a fire on the Sabbath, he is allowed to partake of that food so that he will not be required to fast on the Sabbath.
|
| 66. |
Since the removal of bread is forbidden, it should be done in an abnormal manner. The commentaries question whether one is required to remove the bread in an abnormal manner only when it was placed in the oven later than the desired time, or whether this is necessary even when the bread was permitted to be left baking.
From the Maggid Mishneh's notes on Chapter 5, Halachah 19, and from the simple interpretation of Chapter 22, Halachah 1, it would appear that one is always required to remove the bread in an abnormal manner. Nevertheless, Rabbenu Nissim maintains that this stringency applies only when one placed the bread in the oven after the desired time. If one placed the bread inside earlier, there is no necessity to deviate from one's ordinary practice. The Mishnah Berurah 254:36 accepts this ruling when there is no way that one can remove the bread in an abnormal way.
It must be emphasized that the above discussion applies only to the ovens of the Talmudic period. At present, our ovens are constructed in a different manner, and the loaves of bread are not stuck to the sides of the oven. Accordingly, any bread that is required for the Sabbath itself can be removed in an ordinary manner. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 254:9 and the Mishnah Berurah254:42-43.)
|
| 67. |
As is mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachot 5-8, there are certain substances that may not be used as wicks or fuel for a candle on the Sabbath. These restrictions apply only with regard to a candle, for it is a single light. (See Chapter 5, Halachah 7.) In contrast, greater leniency can be shown with regard to a fire. (See Rashi, Shabbat 21a and the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 255:1.)
|
| 68. |
See the Turei Zahav 275:6, which states that even in such a situation, one should not sit very close to the fire, lest one tend to it.
|
| 69. |
I.e., without the assistance of other fuels, blowing with a bellows, or kindling wood (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 1:11).
|
| 70. |
This prohibition continues to apply even if the fire catches afterwards to the extent that there is no need to worry that a person will stir the coals. Since it was lit in a forbidden manner, one is forbidden to benefit from it (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 255:2 and the Mishnah Berurah 255:5).
|
| 71. |
The Chamber of the Hearth was a large structure at one of the side entrances to the Temple Courtyard where the priests would sleep at night. (See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:10-11.)
|
| 72. |
Even if there is not sufficient time for the fire to catch thoroughly.
|
| 73. |
We do not suspect that they will stir the coals. See Halachah 15.
|
| 74. |
The Rambam's rulings follow Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's interpretation of Shabbat 20a. Rabbenu Asher and the Tur (Orach Chayim 255) reverse the two decisions.
|
| 75. |
Hence, there is no reason to suspect that one will stir the fire.
|
Nedarim - Chapter 7
Halacha 1
When two people are forbidden - by vow or by oath - to derive benefit from each other, they are allowed1 to return a lost article to each other, because doing so is a mitzvah.2 In a place where it is customary for the person who returns a lost article to receive a reward, the reward should be given to the Temple treasury.3 For if [the person who returns the lost article] will take the reward, he will be receiving benefit.4 If he does not take it, he will be giving the other person benefit.5
Halacha 2
They are [both] permitted [to make use of] those entities that are owned jointly by the entire Jewish people,6 e.g., the Temple Mount, its chambers, its courtyards, and a well in the midst of a highway.7 They are forbidden [to make use of] those entities that are owned jointly by all the inhabitants of that city,8e.g., its marketplace, its bathhouse, its synagogue, its ark, and its holy texts.
Halacha 3
What can they do so that they will be permitted to use these entities? Each one of them should sign over his portion to the nasi9 or to another person and have him acquire that portion through the medium of another person.10 Thus when either of them enter a bathhouse belonging to all the members of the city or to the synagogue, he is not entering the property of the colleague [from whom he is forbidden to benefit], for each of them has relinquished his share of the place and given it away as a present.
Halacha 4
[The following laws apply when] they are both partners in a courtyard.11If it can be divided,12 they are forbidden to enter it unless it is divided and each person enters his portion. If it cannot be divided,13 each one should enter his house, saying: "I am entering my property."14 Regardless,15 they are both forbidden to place a mill or an oven there or to raise chickens in this courtyard.16
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
Halacha 7
When a person forbids himself from benefiting from one of the nations, he is permitted to buy [an article] from them at more than the market price and sell to them at less than the market price.23 If he forbids them from benefiting from him, if they are willing, it is permitted for him to purchase from them for less than the market price and sell to them at more than the market price.24 We do not issue a decree forbidding him to sell [at less than the market price], lest he purchase [at less than the market price].25 [The rationale is that] he did not take a vow concerning only one individual, in which instance such a decree would be appropriate, but concerning an entire nation and if it is impossible for him to do business with one person, he will do business with another.26 Therefore, if he forbade himself from benefiting from them, he may lend both articles and money to them, but may not borrow either of these from them.27
Halacha 8
If he forbade them from benefiting from him and himself from benefiting from them, he should not do business with them, nor may they do business with him.28 He may not borrow an article from them or lend an article to them, nor borrow money from them or lend money from them.
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
When it is forbidden for a person to benefit a colleague and that colleague has nothing to eat, the person may go to a storekeeper and say: "So-and-so is forbidden to benefit from me and I don't know what to do."38 It is permitted for the storekeeper to go and give [food] to the colleague and take [payment] from that person.39
13 [Similar laws apply]40 if it is necessary to build [that colleague's] house, put up a fence for him, or harvest his field. If the person from whom it was forbidden to benefit approached workers and told them: "So-and-so is forbidden to benefit from me and I don't know what to do,"41 They may then perform these activities, go back to that person, and he may pay them. For he is paying the debt of the colleague and we already explained42 that a person [from whom one is forbidden to benefit] may pay a debt for his colleague.
Halacha 14
If the two43 were traveling on a journey and [the person who is forbidden to benefit from his colleague] does not have anything to eat, [that colleague] may give [food] to another person as a present and [the person who is forbidden] is then permitted to partake of it.44 If there is no one else with them, [the person whose property is forbidden] should put [food] on a stone and say: "This [food] is considered ownerless for everyone who desires it."45 The other person may then take it and eat.46
Halacha 15
If, [however,] he gives a colleague a present [of a feast] and tells him: "This feast is given to you as a present. Let so-and-so who is forbidden to benefit from me come and eat with us," this is forbidden.47 Moreover, even if he gave the present without saying anything, but afterwards48 said: "Do you want so-and-so to come and eat with us?" it is forbidden if it appears that initially, he gave the present solely so that ultimately so-and-so could eat with them. For example, it is a large feast and he wants his father, his teacher, or the like to partake of the feast. For [the size of] the feast indicates that he did not intend to give it to him. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 16
Any present that, were it to be consecrated [by the recipient], the consecration would not be effective, is not considered as a present.49
Whenever a person gives a colleague a present with the stipulation that he transfer it to another person, that other person acquires ownership at the time the first [recipient] transfers it to him.50 If the first recipient does not transfer it to that other person, neither the first, nor the second [recipient] acquires it.51
Halacha 17
[The following principle applies when a person's son-in-law is forbidden to benefit from him and he desires to give his daughter money so that she can benefit from it and spend it as she desires.52 He should give her a present and say: "This money53 is given to you as a present on the condition that your husband has no authority over it.54 Instead, it shall be used for what you put in your mouth, what you cloth yourself, and the like."55 Even if he said: "...on the condition that your husband has no authority over it. Instead, it shall be used for whatever you want to do with it,"56 the husband does not acquire it and she may do what she desires with it.
If, however, he gave her a present and told her. "...on the condition that your husband has no authority over it," but did not specify the purpose for which the present was being given or even did not say that it was intended for whatever she desires, the husband acquires it to derive benefit from it.57 This would be forbidden, because he is forbidden to benefit from his father-in-law.58
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
And since they are allowed, they are obligated.
|
| 2. |
For he is not returning it as a favor to him, but instead, in fulfillment of the Torah's command [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 4:2).
|
| 3. |
Or, in the present age, to charity. This is preferable to destroying it.
|
| 4. |
I.e., he will be returning it for the sake of the reward and not for the sake of the mitzvah (ibid.).
|
| 5. |
For ordinarily the person would pay a reward for the return of the lost article.
|
| 6. |
Technically, the other person has a share in these places, for they are owned communally. Nevertheless, since each person's individual share is so small, these places are considered as if they are ownerless and not as communal property (see ibid. 5:4).
|
| 7. |
I.e.., a well built for the pilgrims' journey to Jerusalem from Babylon for the pilgrimage festivals (ibid.).
|
| 8. |
For in this instance, each person's share is greater and more distinct.
The Ramban and the Ran object to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that this ruling does not apply with regard to an entity like a synagogue that cannot be divided. In such an instance, it is considered as a communal entity and the person who took the vow is allowed to make use of it. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 224:1) quotes both views. See the Lechem Mishneh and theTurei Zahav 224:1 who elaborate in support of the Rambam's position.
|
| 9. |
The leader of the Jewish people. He is mentioned, because it is very unlikely that he will forbid a member of the people from using his property (Nedarim 48a).
|
| 10. |
I.e., the person acquiring the portion need not know about his acquisition. We follow the principle that a person can acquire property without his knowledge if it is to his benefit to do so (see Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 4:2).
|
| 11. |
In the Talmudic era, it was common that several houses would open up to a courtyard that was the combined property of the homeowners. In this halachah, we are speaking of an instance where two of those homeowners took vows forbidding them to benefit from each other.
|
| 12. |
See Hilchot Shechenim 2:1 which states that if after the division of a courtyard, each of the homeowners will receive a plot of land four cubits by four cubits as his individual property, the courtyard should be divided if one of the neighbors requests that this be done.
|
| 13. |
I.e., if it were to be divided, the homeowners would not receive a portion of land that size.
|
| 14. |
Rabbenu Nissim explains this ruling based on the principle of bereirah, i.e., retroactively, it becomes apparent that when he enters the courtyard, he is entering property that was designated as his. We are forced to accept this definition (even though generally, the principle of bereirah is not followed in questions of Scriptural Law), for there is no alternative in this instance. The person has a right to the courtyard and he cannot be forbidden from using his own property. See Siftei Cohen 226:4, Turei Zahav 226:1.
|
| 15. |
Whether it cannot be divided or whether it can be divided, but was not divided yet.
|
| 16. |
Bava Batra 57b relates that partners in a courtyard have the right to prevent each other from performing such activities. Although most partners do not exercise this right, in this instance, by failing to exercise the right, one is providing benefit to the other person (Rabbenu Nissim).
|
| 17. |
I.e., a courtyard to small for the owners to divide.
|
| 18. |
His vow imposes unnecessary hardship on the other person who has a legitimate right to the property. Hence, we compel him to sell his share of the courtyard rather than put his colleague in a situation where he might transgress.
|
| 19. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 226:2) states that the person who took the vow is forbidden to enter the courtyard. The rationale is that the Rambam's understanding is accepted, except that an additional stringency is applied, lest the person remain in the courtyard for other purposes besides entering and departing his home (Siftei Cohen 226:10).
|
| 20. |
We do not force him to sell his portion of the courtyard because he is causing difficulty only to himself and he is willing to abide by his prohibition (Radbaz).
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, citing Nedarim 46a as support for his understanding. He mentions that the Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 5:2) appears to support the Rambam's interpretation, but states that we should abide by the principle that whenever there is a difference of opinion between the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, the perspective of the Babylonian Talmud should be followed. See the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh who try to reconcile the differences in the positions of the two Talmuds. As mentioned, the Shulchan Aruch follows the Rambam's understanding, but is even more stringent.
|
| 21. |
This is speaking about a courtyard that is too small to require division (Radbaz).
|
| 22. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 226:1) states that this applies only when the other owner of the courtyard needs that person. Otherwise, he is forbidden to enter.
|
| 23. |
For thus he is suffering a loss every time he deals with them.
|
| 24. |
For they are suffering a loss every time they deal with him.
|
| 25. |
As a decree was made with regard to an individual. See Chapter 6, Halachah 16.
|
| 26. |
I.e., with regard to one individual, there is room for stringency, but this stringency is not required with regard to an entire nation, for there is (Radbaz).
|
| 27. |
I.e., we do not make a decree like we do with regard to an individual (Siftei Cohen 227:7).
|
| 28. |
For one of them, either they or he will be benefiting from the sale.
|
| 29. |
For this is a benefit that he is receiving.
|
| 30. |
For when a sage releases a vow, it is as if it never existed. Hence, it is as if he were never forbidden to approach the sage. See Chapter 4, Halachah 13, and notes.
|
| 31. |
Leket refers to crops that drop from a reaper's hand in the field. He is forbidden to pick them up again, but instead must leave them for the poor (Leviticus 19:10). Shichechah refers to crops or bundles forgotten in the field by accident. The harvesters may not return and collect, but must instead leave them for the poor (Deuteronomy 24:19). Pe'ah refers to a corner of the field which must be left unharvested, so that it could be harvested by the poor (Leviticus 19:9). See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim chs. 1,4, and 5 where these mitzvot are discussed.
|
| 32. |
In the third year of the six-year agricultural, instead of taking the second tithe to be eaten in Jerusalem in a state of holiness, it is given to the poor (Deuteronomy 14:28; Hilchot Matanot Aniyim ch. 6). The person who took the vow is allowed to benefit from these crops, because the owner of the field is not considered as giving him anything of his own. Instead, he is fulfilling a mitzvah.
|
| 33. |
Nedarim 83-84a explains this distinction. When the tithe for the poor is distributed in the granaries, it may be taken by a poor person without asking. The owner does not have the right to decided to whom he will give it. If, however, he has already brought produce from the tithe for the poor home, he has the right to choose to whom to give it.
|
| 34. |
I.e., the tithes that must be given to the Levites and terumah which must be given to the priests.
|
| 35. |
Since he is obligated to give these presents to the priests and Levites, he has no choice in the matter and must make these gifts. Generally, a person is allowed to decide which Levite and which priest, he desires to give these gifts to. In this instance, however, since he forbade all priests from benefiting from his property, there is no one to whom he can give it. Hence his right to decide is taken from him and any priest or Levite can come and take the portions.
|
| 36. |
Since the terumah and tithes may be given to others, there is no reason to take away the person's right to distribute them as he desires, for that right is of financial value (Nedarim 84b).
|
| 37. |
E.g., those mentioned in the previous halachah. See Siftei Cohen 227:9 and Turei Zahav 227:3 who rule that this concept also applies with regard to charity.
|
| 38. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:8) is even more lenient and states that he may say: "Anyone who sustains so-and-so will not suffer a loss," for he is still merely intimating that one should support him. He may not say: "Whoever hears my voice should sustain so-and-so," for that it a direct command. Nor may he tell one person: "If you sustain so-and-so, you will not suffer a loss," for then it appears as if he is appointing him as an agent for this purpose.
|
| 39. |
Since the person did not charge the storekeeper with providing the colleague with food, he is not responsible for the account [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 221:8)]. If he, nevertheless, chooses to pay it, he is not considered to have given benefit to that colleague.
|
| 40. |
The Kessef Mishneh states that the two instances are not entirely analogous, for the first involves providing the person with food necessary for his livelihood, while the second involves the performance of a task that is important, but not vital for him. Perhaps this is the reason why in the preceding halachah, the Rambam stated: "The person may go to a storekeeper," i.e., he is permitted as an initial and preferred option. In this halachah, by contrast, he states: "If the person... approached workers," i.e., the Rambam is describing a law that applies after the fact, but not initially.
|
| 41. |
The Radbaz explains that although the previous law was mentioned, it is also necessary to state this law, because it is uncommon for workers to extend credit on money do them. This is, by contrast, a common practice for storekeepers.
|
| 42. |
Chapter 6, Halachah 4.
|
| 43. |
I.e., a person who took a vow not to benefit from a person and that person.
|
| 44. |
Giving a present is not permitted in the situations described in the previous halachot, because there are other alternatives. Hence it is considered as too great a leniency. In this situation, there is no other alternative and therefore it is permitted. See Siftei Cohen 221:52.
|
| 45. |
Generally, according to Rabbinic Law, there must be three people present when an object is declared ownerless. In this instance, however, since there is no other alternative, we do not require anything more than required by Scriptural Law (Siftei Cohen 221:53).
|
| 46. |
For then he is not partaking of the property of the person from whom he is forbidden to benefit, but from ownerless property.
|
| 47. |
For he is obviously making this gift solely so that the other person may partake of it. If it is a large feast, it is obvious that a person is not preparing it for the sake of giving it to a colleague. Nedarim48b gives as an example, an instance where a person's father was forbidden to benefit from him. When he made a wedding feast for his son, he tried to employ this tactic to enable his father to attend.
|
| 48. |
The Kessef Mishneh states that there are opinions that maintain that this law applies only when the statements were made immediately after giving the feast. The wording chosen by the Rambam, however, indicates that the law applies even if he makes the statements later. The interpretation of the Kessef Mishneh is borne out by the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 5:5).
|
| 49. |
I.e., the giver tells the recipient: "I did not give you the present so that you could consecrate it."
Nedarim, loc. cit., states this principle in continuation of the above story. After the son gave the wedding feast to a colleague so that his father could attend, that colleague consecrated it. When the giver, protested saying that he had not given it to him for that purpose, the recipient complained that he was not going to serve as a medium to allow the first person to break his vow. When the Sages were asked to rule about this situation, they stated the principle mentioned by the Rambam here.
|
| 50. |
I.e., we do not say that since the first recipient is going to give to the second, the second acquires it when it is acquired by the first. This is not a situation where the first recipient is acting as an agent for the second. Instead, he acquires it first on his own behalf and then transfers it to the other person.
|
| 51. |
The first does not acquire it, because it was given to him only on condition that it be transferred to the second. Since that condition was not fulfilled, his own acquisition is not binding (see Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 3:6). The second person does not acquire it, because ownership was never transferred to him.
|
| 52. |
Ordinarily, whatever a woman acquires immediately is given to her husband's jurisdiction. While she remains the legal owner, he has the legal right to control it and use the profits as he sees fit. In this instance, this would be forbidden for the son-in-law is prohibited against benefiting from his father-in-law, as the Rambam states in the conclusion of the halachah.
|
| 53. |
If he gives her the food itself, it is not necessary to make any stipulations (Radbaz, Siftei Cohen222:1).
|
| 54. |
Tosafot Yom Tov (Nedarim 11:8) states that from Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 3:13, it appears that the inclusion of this part of the statement is not an absolute necessity. As long as he specifies that the present is being given for a specific purpose alone, the husband does not acquire rights to it. Rav Yosef Caro does not accept this option, however, in his Kessef Mishneh and quotes the Rambam's wording from this halachah in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 222:1; see Siftei Cohen 222:2).
|
| 55. |
Since the father has designated the money for a specific purpose, it may be used only for that and thus the son never acquires a right to it. The rationale is closely related to the concept of a vow. Just as a vow can determine how property may be used even after it leaves the domain of the person who took the vow, so, too, the father can determine how his property may be used even after it leaves his domain.
This ruling teaches that even though it is to the husband's benefit that his wife eats or is clothed - indeed, he is responsible to provide for these needs of hers - the husband is not considered to have benefited from this present (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Nedarim 11:8).
|
| 56. |
In this instance, even though the specific purpose for which the present was given was not stated at the outset, when the woman decides what she desires to do with the present, retroactively, it is as if it was given for that purpose alone.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this point, noting that although the law stated in the first clause is accepted by all authorities, the one stated in this clause is the subject of a difference of opinion between the Sages Rav and Shmuel in Nedarim 88b. The Rambam's ruling follows the opinion of Shmuel although generally, with regard to matters involving the Torah's prohibitions, the halachah follows that of Rav. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh state that other Rishonim also follow Shmuel's perspective and give logical support for it. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 222:1) quotes both views without stating which should be followed.
|
| 57. |
See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 3:13. The rationale is that the giver does not have the prerogative of negating the rights given the husband by the Rabbis.
|
| 58. |
Nevertheless, the present is binding. The husband should purchase something that brings income with the money. That article belongs to his wife. He should give the proceeds to charity, since he is not allowed to benefit from them (Radbaz)
|
Nedarim - Chapter 8
Halacha 1
When a person takes a vow or an oath and at the time of the vow or the oath specifies a stipulation for which he is making the vow, it is as if he made the vow or the oath dependent on that matter. If the stipulation for which he took the oath is not fulfilled, he is permitted [to act is if the oath had never been taken].1
Halacha 2
What is implied? If he took an oath or vow saying: "I will not marry this-and-this woman whose father is evil" or "I will not enter this house, because there is a harmful dog within it," if they died or the father repented, he may [do so]. This is comparable to someone who says "I will not marry so-and-so..." or "...not enter this house unless the harmful factor is removed."2 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
[A different rationale applies] when one takes a vow or an oath: "I will not marry so-and-so who is ugly," and it is discovered that she is beautiful,3 "...who is dark-skinned," and it is discovered that she is light-skinned, "...who is short," and it is discovered that she is tall, or "I am taking a vow that my wife shall not benefit from me, because she took my wallet and beat my son," and it was discovered that she did not take it or beat him. He is permitted, because the vow was taken in error. It is included among the category of inadvertent vows that are permitted.4 This does not resemble an instance where the vow was made dependent on a stipulation and that stipulation was not kept.5 For the reason for which the vow was taken never applied. Instead, it was an error [of perception].
Halacha 4
Moreover,6 even if a person saw from a distance that people were partaking of his figs and he said [concerning] them: "They are like a sacrifice for you,"7 but when he came close to them and looked [at them], he saw that they were his father and his brothers, they are permitted [to partake of them]. Even though he did not explicitly state the reason why he took a vow [forbidding] them, it is as if he did. For it is obvious that he forbade his produce to them only because he thought they were people at large.8 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 5
When a person took a vow or an oath and then a factor came up that was not in his mind at the time he took the oath or the vow, he is forbidden [in the matter] until he requests a sage to release his vow.
What is implied? A person forbade himself from benefiting from so-and-so or from entering this-and-this place and that person became the city scribe9 or a synagogue was made at that place.10 Even though he said "If I knew that this person would become the scribe or that in this place a synagogue would be made, I would not have taken the vow or the oath," he is forbidden to benefit [from the person] or enter the place until he has his vow released, as we explained.11 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 6
Whenever a portion of a vow is nullified, the entire vow is nullified.12 This law also applies with regard to oaths.
What is implied? A person saw from a distance that people were partaking of his figs and he said [concerning] them: "They are like a sacrifice for you," but when he came close to them and looked [at them], he saw that they were his father and people at large. Since his father is permitted [to partake of them],13they are all permitted.14 Even if he said: "So-and-so and so-and-so are forbidden and my father is permitted, they are all permitted.15
If, however, when he reached them he said: "If I would have known that my father is with you, I would have said: 'You are all forbidden [to partake of my produce], except my father,' they are all forbidden except his father. For he revealed his intent was not to release a portion of his vow,16 but to make a vow as he did, but to make a stipulation concerning his father.17
Halacha 7
Similar [laws apply] when one says: "Wine is like a sacrifice18 for me, because wine is bad for digestion," but he was told: "Aged wine is good for digestion." If he said: "Had I known, I would not have taken the vow" or even: "Had I known, I would have said: 'Fresh wine is forbidden, but aged wine is permitted,' he is permitted [to drink] both fresh wine and aged wine.19 If, however, he said: "Had I known, I would have said: 'All wine is forbidden for me except aged wine,' he is permitted [to drink] only aged wine.20Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 8
Whenever a person takes a vow or an oath, we consider the motivating factor for the oath or the vow and extrapolate from it what the person's intent was. We follow his intent, not the literal meaning of his words.21
What is implied? He was carrying a load of wool or of linen and was perspiring, causing a foul odor. If he took an oath or a vow that he would never have wool or linen upon him again, he is permitted to wear woolen or linen clothes and cover himself with them. He is only forbidden to carry them on his back like a burden.
If he was wearing woolen clothing and became aggravated because of these garments and took an oath or a vow that he would never have wool upon him again, he is forbidden to wear [woolen clothes], but is permitted to carry wool and to cover himself with woolen spreads. For he intended only [to forbid] woolen clothes. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 9
[Similar laws apply if] people were asking him to marry his relative,22 but he refused and they pressured him, so he took a vow or an oath that she could not benefit from him forever. Alternatively, a person divorced his wife and took an oath that she would never benefit from him. These women are permitted to derive [ordinary] benefit from him. His intent was that only [to prevent himself from] marrying them.
Halacha 10
Similarly, if a person called to his friend, [inviting him] to eat at his [home] and he took an oath or a vow not to enter his home or even drink cold water of his, he is permitted to enter his home and drink his water. His intent was only that he would not eat and drink with him at that feast.23 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 11
When a person takes a vow or an oath, telling a colleague: "I will never enter your house" or "...buy your field," and [that colleague] dies or sells [the property] to someone else, [the person who took the vow] is permitted to enter the house or purchase the field from the heir or from the purchaser.24 His intent [when establishing the prohibition] was only for the time they belonged to [the original owner].25
If, by contrast, he said: "I will never enter this house" or "I will never purchase this field," even if [the original owner] dies or sells [the property] to someone else, [the person who took the vow] is forbidden.26
Halacha 12
[The following laws apply when a person] asks a colleague: "Lend me your cow," he answers him: "She is not free," and [the first person] takes an oath or a vow,27 saying: "I will never plow my field with it." If he is accustomed to plowing his field himself, he is forbidden to plow [his field with that cow], but any other person is permitted to plow [his field] with it.28 If he is not accustomed to plowing his field himself, both he and everyone else is forbidden to plow [his field] with it.29Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 13
When a person takes an oath or a vow that he will marry a woman, purchase a house,30 depart with a caravan, or set out to sea, we do not obligate him to marry, make the purchase, or set out immediately. Instead, he may wait until he finds something appropriate for himself.
An incident occurred concerning a woman who took a vow that she would marry anyone who asked her to marry him. Men who were not appropriate for her jumped at the opportunity. Our Sages ruled that her intent was [to marry] anyone from among those appropriate for her who asked her. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 14
When a person administers a vow to a colleague or takes an oath telling him to come and take a kor of wheat or two barrels of wine for his son, [the colleague] can release the vow without asking a sage to do so. [He need only] say: "Your intent was only to honor me.31 It is a greater token of respect for me not to take [the gift].32 I already received the honor that you desired to give me through your vow."
Similarly, if one took an oath or a vow: "You may not derive any benefit from me until you give my son a kor of wheat and two barrels of wine, he can release the vow without asking a sage to do so. [He need only] say: "It is as if I received them and they reached my hand." Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
He need not seek the release of the oath (Radbaz). This law applies with regard to vows as well.
|
| 2. |
Even though the father dies or repents after the vow was taken, with his death or repentance, the vow is nullified, because the conditions under which it was taken no longer apply.
|
| 3. |
If, however, she was ugly at the time the vow was taken, but was made beautiful, the vow takes effect [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 232:6)].
|
| 4. |
See Chapter 4, Halachah 1, which states that such vows are not binding.
|
| 5. |
As described in the first two halachot.
|
| 6. |
I.e., the previous halachah describes an instance where one explicitly stated the condition under which he took the vow. This halachah, by contrast, describes a situation where the condition is not stated, but is self-apparent.
|
| 7. |
Which would cause them to be forbidden to eat the figs.
|
| 8. |
And thus the vow was taken in error.
|
| 9. |
And everyone in the city needs the scribe to compose legal documents for him. Hence, he no longer desires to be forbidden to benefit from him.
|
| 10. |
And everyone desires to be able to enter the local synagogue.
|
| 11. |
Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:5, 12. As stated there, the vow was not made initially in error, for at the outset, he did not desire that the person become the scribe. Hence, the oath takes effect.
The Ra'avad suggests that the statement from Halachah 3: "This does not resemble an instance where the vow was made dependent on a stipulation and that stipulation was not kept" should be included here, for this is a different category of vows than those mentioned in the previous halachot.
|
| 12. |
The Jerusalem Talmud, Nedarim 1:1 derives this from the exegesis of Numbers 30:3: "He shall do all that he utters from his mouth." Implied is that everything that he utters must be fulfilled or the vow does not take effect. Rabbenu Nissim gives a logical explanation for this concept. At the outset, his intent was that the vow would be kept in its entirety. If a factor arose that prevented that from taking place, it is as if the vow was taken in error.
|
| 13. |
As explained in Halachah 4.
|
| 14. |
Because the prohibition against them was mentioned in the same vow.
|
| 15. |
Because the vow was taken against all of the persons together. Hence, it cannot be nullified only in part.
|
| 16. |
For even when qualifying his statement, he still says that all of the individuals are forbidden, indicating that he did not desire to retract his original statement (Kessef Mishneh). In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 232:8), Rav Yosef Caro appears to follow a slightly different rationale.
|
| 17. |
I.e., that the prohibition would not include his father.
|
| 18. |
I.e., forbidden.
|
| 19. |
The portion of the vow involving aged wine is nullified, because it was taken in error. And accordingly, the portion involving fresh wine is also nullified, based on the principle stated in the previous halachah.
|
| 20. |
For he did not seek to nullify his former vow, merely to qualify it, as stated in the conclusion of the previous halachah.
|
| 21. |
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 218:1) emphasizes that this applies when a person takes a vow on his own initiative. If, however, he takes a vow in response to wording chosen by a colleague, we follow the meaning of that wording.
|
| 22. |
For it is desirable that a person marry his relatives (see Yevamot 62b).
|
| 23. |
The Radbaz states that he is even permitted to enter his home at the time of the feast.
|
| 24. |
For it is no longer the colleague's house or field (Siftei Cohen 216:10).
|
| 25. |
As emphasized by the fact that he said: "Your house" and "Your field."
|
| 26. |
For in this instance, the vow was not associated with the owner of the property, but with the property itself. Compare to Chapter 5, Halachot 4-5.
|
| 27. |
As an expression of resentment for the owner's refusal (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 28. |
Since he is accustomed to plowing his field himself, we assume that his vow applied only to his own actions.
|
| 29. |
Since he is not accustomed to plowing his field himself, we interpret his vow as meaning that he would never have another person plow the field with it.
|
| 30. |
Although the standard published text of Bava Kama 80a mentions purchasing a house or marrying a woman in Eretz Yisrael, the commentaries [nor the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 219:1)] see no reason why the Holy Land is different from other places in this regard.
|
| 31. |
By giving me a present in public.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 332:20) states that the person who administered the vow need not explicitly agree to this interpretation. Even if he remains silent, we accept it. The Siftei Cohen332:46 states that if the person specifically says that he administered the vow so that he would receive honor by having the other person receive a gift from him, his word is accepted and a sage must be approached to have the vow released.
|
| 32. |
For people seeing that I demur will respect me more.
|
Nedarim - Chapter 9
Halacha 1
With regard to vows, we follow the intent of the words people use at that place, in that language, and at that time when the vow or oath was taken.1
What is implied? A person took a vow or an oath not [to partake of] cooked food. If it was customary in that place in that language and at that time to call roasted meat and boiled meat2 also cooked food, he is forbidden to partake of all types of cooked food. If they were accustomed to use the term cooked food only to refer to meat cooked with water and spices, he is permitted [to partake of] roasted meat or boiled meat. Similarly, with regard to smoked food or food cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias. We follow the terminology used by the people of that city.
Halacha 2
[The following rules apply if a person] took a vow or an oath not to partake of salted foods. If it is customary to call all salted foods "salted food," he is forbidden to partake of all of them.3 If it is customary to use the term "salted food" to refer only to salted fish, he is only forbidden to partake of salted fish.
Halacha 3
[The following rules apply if a person] took a vow or an oath not to partake of pickled foods. If it is customary to call all pickled foods "pickled food," he is forbidden to partake of all of them.4 If it is customary to use the term "pickled food" to refer only to pickled vegetables, he is only forbidden to partake of pickled vegetables. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 4
If some of the people would refer to food with one term and others would not use that term, we do not follow [the practice of] the majority. Instead, it is considered an unresolved question with regard to his vow. And whenever there is an unresolved question with regard to a vow, we rule stringently.5 If one violates the vow, however, he is not worthy of lashes.6
Halacha 5
What is implied? A person takes a vow [not to partake] of oil in a place where both olive oil and sesame seed oil is used. When most people from that place use the term "oil" without any modifier, they mean olive oil. When they refer to sesame seed oil, they call it "sesame seed oil." A minority of the populace, however, also refer to sesame seed oil with the term "oil" without a modifier. [Hence,] he is forbidden to partake of both of them, but is not liable for lashes for [partaking of] sesame seed oil. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 6
Whenever an agent in a given locale would have to question [the principal if that was his intent], it is considered in the category of the substance that was mentioned to the agent when [the term is mentioned] without a modifier.
What is implied? In a place where if a person would send an agent to buy meat without using a modifier to describe the term, the agent would tell him: "I found only fish [being sold],"7 [a person who took a vow not to partake of meat] is forbidden to partake of fish as well.8 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
In all places, a person who takes a vow [not to partake] of meat is forbidden to partake of fowl and of the entrails,9 but is permitted to partake of grasshoppers.10 If it appears that at the time he took the vow, his intent was only to forbid meat from an animal - or meat from an animal and fowl - he is permitted [to partake] of fish even in a place where an agent would question [if fish would be considered as meat].11
Halacha 7
When a person takes a vow against partaking of cooked food, he is permitted to partake of an egg that has not been cooked until it hardens, but has merely been soft-boiled.12 When a person takes a vow [not to partake of food] boiled lightly in a pot,13 he is only forbidden [to partake] of those foods that are boiled in a pot, e.g., groats, dumplings, and the like.14 If he forbade himself from partaking of anything placed in a pot, he is forbidden to partake of all food cooked in a pot.
Halacha 8
A person who vows [not to partake] of fish is permitted to partake of brine and a dip made with fish oil.15 A person who vows [not to partake] of milk is permitted to partake of the whey, i.e., the liquid that is separated from the milk. If he vows [not to partake] of whey, he is permitted to partake of milk. If he vows [not to partake] of cheese, he is forbidden to partake of both salted cheese and unsalted cheese.16
Halacha 9
A person who vows not to partake of grains of wheat is forbidden to partake of wheat kernels whether they are fresh or cooked. If he says: "Neither wheat, nor grains of wheat will I taste,"17 he is forbidden to partake of either flour or bread. "I will not taste wheat," he is forbidden to partake of baked goods, but permitted to chew kernels of wheat. If he states: "I will not partake of grains of wheat," he is permitted to partake of baked goods, but forbidden to chew kernels of wheat. If he says: "Neither wheat, nor grains of wheat will I taste," he is forbidden to partake of baked goods, nor may he chew kernels of wheat. When a person takes a vow forbidding himself from partaking of grain, he is forbidden only [to partake of] the five species.18
Halacha 10
When a person takes a vow [not to partake of] green vegetables, he is permitted to partake of squash.19 If he takes a vow [not to partake of] leek, he is permitted to partake of the poret.20
If a person takes a vow [not to partake of] cabbage, he is forbidden to partake of the water cooked with cabbage, for the water in which food is cooked is considered as the food itself.21 If, however, he vowed not to partake of the water in which a food is cooked, he may partake of the cooked food itself.22
A person who takes a vow [not to partake of] sauce is permitted [to partake of] the spices. [One who takes a vow not to partake] of the spices is permitted [to partake of] the sauce. One who takes a vow [not to partake of] groats23 is forbidden [to partake of] the thick sauce produced by the groats.24
Halacha 11
A person who takes a vow [not to partake of] the produce of the earth is forbidden to partake of all the produce of the earth,25 but is permitted [to partake of] fungi and mushrooms.26 If he says: "Everything that grows upon the earth is [forbidden] to me," he is forbidden to partake of even fungi and mushrooms. [The rationale is that] although they do not derive their nurture from the earth, they grow upon the earth.
Halacha 12
When a person takes a vow forbidding himself from partaking of the produce of a particular year, he is forbidden to partake of all the produce of that year. He is, however, permitted to partake of kid-goats, lambs, milk, eggs, and, chicks.27If, however, he said: "All of the products of a given year are [forbidden] to me," he is forbidden to partake of all of them.28
When a person takes a vow forbidding himself from partaking of the fruits of thekayitz, he is forbidden only to partake of figs.29
Halacha 13
In all of the above - and in analogous instances - follow this general principle: With regard to vows, we follow the intent of the words people use at that place, in that language, and at that time when the vow or oath was taken.30 Based on this principle, one should rule and say: "The person who took the vow is forbidden [to benefit from] these entities and permitted [to benefit from] these entities."
Halacha 14
When a person takes a vow [not to partake of grapes], he is permitted to partake of wine, even fresh wine.31 [If he takes a vow not to partake] of olives, he is permitted to partake of oil. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of dates, he is permitted to partake of date-honey. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of grapes that blossom in the fall,32 he is permitted to partake of vinegar that is produced from them.33
If he takes a vow not to partake] of wine, he is permitted to partake of apple wine. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of oil, he is permitted to partake of sesame seed oil. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of honey,34 he is permitted to partake of date honey. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of vinegar, he is permitted to partake of vinegar produced from grapes that blossom in the fall. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of vegetables, he is permitted to partake of vegetables that grow on their own.35 [The rationale for all of these rulings is] that [the names of] all these substances have a modifier36 and [when] the person took the vow, he referred to the substance without a modifier. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 15
When a person takes a vow not to wear clothing, he is permitted [to cover himself] with sackcloth,37 a coarsely woven thick fabric,38 a thick sheet used as a rainshield.39
[When a person takes a vow not to enter] a house, he is forbidden to enter its loft. For the loft is part of the house. [If he] takes a vow [not to enter] a loft, he is permitted [to enter] the home.
[When a person takes a vow not to] use a dargeish,40 he is permitted [to use] a bed. [If he takes a vow not to use] a bed, he is forbidden to use a dargeish, because it is like a small bed.
Halacha 16
Halacha 17
When a person takes a vow not to benefit from the residents of a city and a person comes and lives there for twelve months, it is forbidden for the person who took the vow to benefit from him.43 If he stays for a lesser time, it is permitted.
If he takes a vow from those who dwell in a city, he is forbidden to benefit from anyone who dwells there for 30 days. He is permitted to benefit from one who dwells there for a lesser period.44
Halacha 18
When a person takes a vow [not to benefit] from the water that flows from this-and-this spring, he is forbidden [to benefit] from all the rivers that derive nurture from it. Needless to say, this refers to those that flow directly from it. Although the name [of the body of water] has changed and it is now called "the So-and-So River" or "the So-and-So well," and we do not associate it at all with the name of the spring concerning which a vow was taken, since it is the source for these bodies of water, he is forbidden to benefit from all of them. If, however, a person takes a vow [not to benefit] from this-and-this river or spring, he is only forbidden [to benefit] from those rivers called by that name.
Halacha 19
When a person takes a vow not [to benefit] from sea-farers,45 he is permitted [to benefit] from those who dwell on the land. When he takes a vow not [to benefit] from those who dwell on the land, he is forbidden [to benefit] from sea-farers even though they set out to the Mediterranean Sea. For sea-farers are considered as among those who dwell on land.46
When he takes a vow not [to benefit] from those who see the sun, he is forbidden to benefit from the blind.47 For his intent was those who are seen by the sun. If he takes a vow not [to benefit] from those who are dark-haired, he is forbidden to benefit from men who are bald and grey-haired48 and permitted to benefit from women49 and children.50 If it customary to refer to all people as dark-haired, he is forbidden to benefit from everyone.
Halacha 20
When a person takes a vow not [to benefit] from those who rest on the Sabbath, he is forbidden [to benefit] from Jews and Samaritans.51 One who takes a vow not [to benefit] from those who make pilgrimages to Jerusalem is forbidden to benefit from the Jews and permitted to benefit from Samaritans. For his intent was to include only those for whom it is a mitzvah to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.52
When one takes a vow not [to benefit] from the descendants of Noah, he is permitted to benefit from the Jews.53 For the term "descendants of Noah" is used only to refer to members of other nations.
Halacha 21
When a person takes a vow not [to benefit] from the descendants of Abraham, he is permitted [to benefit] from the descendants of Yishmael and the descendants of Esau.54 He is forbidden to benefit only from the Jews,55 as [indicated by Genesis 21:12]: "Through Isaac, your offspring will be called."56And Isaac told Jacob [ibid. 28:4]: "And I will give you the blessing of Abraham."57
Halacha 22
When a person takes a vow not [to benefit] from uncircumcised individuals, he is forbidden [to benefit] from circumcised gentiles,58 but is permitted [to benefit] from uncircumcised Jews. If he takes a vow not [to benefit] from circumcised individuals, he is forbidden [to benefit] from uncircumcised Jews, but is permitted [to benefit] from circumcised gentiles.
[The rationale is that] the foreskin is identified with the gentiles, as [Jeremiah 9:25] states: "For all the gentiles are uncircumcised. His intent is only to refer to those who are commanded concerning the circumcision and not to those who were not commanded concerning it.
Halacha 23
When a person takes a vow not [to benefit] from the Jewish people, he is forbidden [to benefit] from converts. [When a person takes a vow not to benefit] from converts, he is permitted [to benefit] from natural born Jews. When he takes a vow [not to benefit] from Israelites, he is forbidden [to benefit] from priests and Levites.59 [When he vows not to benefit] from the priests and the Levites, he is permitted to benefit from an Israelite. [When he vows not to benefit] from the priests, he is permitted to benefit from the Levites.60 [When he vows not to benefit] from the Levites, he is permitted to benefit from the priests. [When he vows not to benefit] from his sons, he is permitted to benefit from his grandchildren.61In all these and analogous matters, the laws regarding those who take a vow and an oath are the same.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
The Rambam's rationale is that since everything depends on the person's intent, it is logical to assume that the meaning of his statements follows the usage common at that time and place. See also Halachah 13.
One might ask: If so, why in the halachot that follow does the Rambam set out guidelines with regard to vows. The Radbaz (in his gloss to Halachah 13) explains that these guidelines should be followed only in places where there is no clarity regarding the expressions commonly used.
|
| 2. |
I.e., boiled without spices (Rav Avraham MinHaHar).
|
| 3. |
Although the Rambam's ruling runs contrary to the statements of the Mishnah (Nedarim 6:2), the Rambam relies on the principle that the determinant factor in values is the meaning attached to the terms used by people at that time and in that place. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 217:3) follows the Rambam's approach.
|
| 4. |
Although the Rambam's ruling runs contrary to the statements of the Mishnah (Nedarim 6:2), the Rambam relies on the principle that the determinant factor in values is the meaning attached to the terms used by people at that time and in that place. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 217:3) follows the Rambam's approach.
|
| 5. |
Since there is a possibility that a prohibition is involved, we must rule stringently.
|
| 6. |
For corporal punishment is inflicted only when we are certain that a prohibition has been violated.
|
| 7. |
I.e., he is not certain whether the principal's intent when telling him to buy meat was to buy fish or not.
|
| 8. |
For in that locale, it is possible that it is referred to as "meat."
|
| 9. |
For they are generally referred to as meat.
|
| 10. |
For they are not. In the present age, this principle also applies to fish. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah217:8) goes further and states that even fowl is not usually implied by the term "meat."
|
| 11. |
The commentaries have noted that the Rambam's ruling is not entirely identical with that of his source (Nedarim 54a). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 8:1), the Rambam explains this difficulty, stating that the meanings of terms used today are different than the meanings used for the same terms in the Talmudic period.
|
| 12. |
See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 6:1).
|
| 13. |
This is the implication of the Hebrew term used by the Rambam [Bayit Chadash (Yoreh De'ah217)].
|
| 14. |
E.g., porridge (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.). See also Hilchot Berachot3:4 which discusses these terms.
|
| 15. |
See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 6:3).
|
| 16. |
In the Talmudic and Rabbinic era, most hard cheeses were salted to preserve them.
|
| 17. |
The term chittim is plural, implying many kernels of grain. Chitah is singular, referring not to a single kernel, but rather to a single entity made from wheat flour (Rabbenu Nissim, as cited by theKessef Mishneh).
|
| 18. |
I.e., wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt. Other grains, e.g., rice and millet, are not included.
|
| 19. |
For in Talmudic terminology, the term green vegetable refers to vegetables that are eaten raw and squash must be cooked.
|
| 20. |
These two species of vegetables are similar, but not identical. Therefore, the Rambam feels it necessary to make this clarification. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 5:7), he uses the same Arabic term to define the two species but explains that the latter is more commonly grown in Eretz Yisrael.
|
| 21. |
For through the cooking process, it takes on the flavor of the food (see Berachot 39a; Hilchot Berachot 8:4). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 5:8), the Rambam maintains that this is the meaning of the first clause of that mishnah. Rashi and others, while accepting this principle, interpret that clause differently.
|
| 22. |
For there is obviously a difference between the food and the liquid in which it was cooked.
|
| 23. |
I.e., ground beans (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.).
|
| 24. |
For it has the flavor of the groats.
|
| 25. |
Not only vegetables, but fruit as well [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 217:23)].
|
| 26. |
Our Rabbis explain that the terms refer to species that have little botanical difference between them. The first term refers to those mushrooms which grow on the earth and the second, to those which grow in trees. The rationale is that, as the Rambam states, these fungi do not have roots. Thus they do not derive their nurture from the earth, but from the atmosphere (see Nedarim 55b;Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 7:4).
|
| 27. |
The Hebrew word peirot can also be interpreted as: "benefit accruing from." Thus these entities could be included in the term. Nevertheless, since this is not the popular usage, they are not included.
|
| 28. |
The Siftei Cohen 217:31 explains that this applies only when it is possible for a person to abide by this prohibition. If, however, the vow prevents him from eating enough to maintain his wellbeing, it is nullified.
|
| 29. |
The term kayitz has a specific meaning "fruit harvested by hand," rather than cut from the tree with a knife. Therefore, it refers to the fig harvest alone (Nedarim 61b).
|
| 30. |
As stated in Halachah 1. The Radbaz explains that the only reason the Rambam mentioned all the principles in the above and following halachot is to clarify the guidelines set forth by our Sages. They should be followed only in places where there is no clarity regarding the expressions commonly used.
|
| 31. |
Even though the wine tastes the same as grapes, since it is called by a different name, it is not considered in the same category (Siftei Cohen 216:27). This principle is reflected in all the rulings of this halachah: As long as an entity has a different name, even if its flavor is the same as another entity and even their substance is fundamentally the same, they are considered as different entities with regard to vows.
|
| 32. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 6:6) explains that these grapes are not fit to be eaten and instead, are used to produce vinegar.
|
| 33. |
The substances produced by the fruit are considered as being different from the fruit itself.
|
| 34. |
Although the Torah uses the term honey to refer to date-honey, in common usage, everyone understands the term as referring to bee honey (Siftei Cohen 217:22).
|
| 35. |
The Siftei Cohen 217:15 states that in the present age, people do not make such a distinction when referring to these vegetables.
|
| 36. |
I.e., they are not referred to by the name of the substance as it is used without a modifier.
|
| 37. |
This term refers to a weave from goat's hair (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah,Nedarim 7:3).
|
| 38. |
This translation is taken from the above source.
|
| 39. |
This translation is also taken from the above source. The rationale is that none of these fabrics are considered as garments.
|
| 40. |
A small bed that is placed before a larger bed to use as a stepstool for the larger bed (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Nedarim 7:4).
|
| 41. |
The area 2000 cubits around the city. See Hilchot Shabbat 27:1-2.
In other contexts, this area - and indeed, even further removed places - are considered as part of a city. With regard to vows, this is not the case, for we follow the terminology people commonly used (Siftei Cohen 217:35).
|
| 42. |
This term refers to homes that are located within 70 cubits of each other on the perimeter of the city. As long as they are within that distance of another home, they are considered as part of the city itself (Hilchot Shabbat 28:1; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Nedarim, loc. cit.).
Nedarim 56b derives these concepts from the exegesis of Biblical verses. Joshua 5:13 states: "And while Joshua was in Jericho" and describes an event that took place while the Jews were camp on the outer reaches of the city. And when speaking about measuring the area 2000 cubits around a city, Numbers 35:5 speaks of measuring "outside the city."
|
| 43. |
Note the parallel to Hilchot Shechenim 6:5 which states that a person who lives in a city for twelve months becomes obligated to pay all the city's levies.
|
| 44. |
See the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 217:32) and the Siftei Cohen 217:37 who emphasizes that if the common terminology used at present is different, the laws are dependent on the current usages.
|
| 45. |
This term refers to people who set out on extended journeys, not on short jaunts.
|
| 46. |
For they do not remain on an ocean journey forever and ultimately, return home.
|
| 47. |
Even though they cannot see the sun.
|
| 48. |
For this term is generally used to refer to men, even if they do not have dark hair.
|
| 49. |
For they are referred to as being "covered-haired" (Rabbeinu Nissim).
|
| 50. |
For they are referred to as being "uncovered-haired" (ibid.).
|
| 51. |
This term refers to the people brought by the Assyrians to settle in Samaria after they exiled the Ten Tribes. At first, they converted and observed the rudiments of Judaism. Afterwards, however, they became like gentiles entirely.
|
| 52. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 3:8), the Rambam explains that the Samaritans despise Jerusalem and make their pilgrimages to Mount Gerizim instead. The Merkevat HaMishnah explains that since the Samaritans are converts, they do not have a right to a portion in Eretz Yisrael. Hence they are not obligated to ascend to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage festivals (see Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 11:15).
|
| 53. |
Although the Jews are also of Noah's descendants, they are not popularly referred to with that term.
|
| 54. |
Although actually, both of these nations descended from Abraham, Yishmael being Abraham's son and Esau, Isaac's.
|
| 55. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 217:40) states that this includes converts.
|
| 56. |
Thus excluding Yishmael and his descendants.
|
| 57. |
Thus excluding Esau and his descendants. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 3:11), the Rambam adds another point. In the covenant God made with Abraham bein habetarim, he was told that his descendants would be "strangers in a foreign land" and only Jacob's descendants - not those of Esau or Yishmael - were subjected to this decree.
|
| 58. |
This includes both gentiles who circumcise themselves for health reasons and those - like the Arabs - who circumcise themselves for religious reasons. The rationale is that the majority of gentiles and uncircumcised and the person made his statements with the intent of referring to the majority. See the Commentary of Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura to Nedarim, loc. cit.
|
| 59. |
For when the term Israelite is used, it refers to the entire Jewish people as a collective. As Yoma66a states: "Are not the priests part of Your nation Israel?"
|
| 60. |
Even though in the Torah, the priests are identified as Levites at times (Deuteronomy 17:9, et al), we follow the wording used by people at large (Radbaz).
|
| 61. |
Although Yevamot 62b states that grandchildren are considered as children, that is not the meaning employed by people at large (Radbaz).
|
• Friday, Nissan 14, 5775 · 03 April 2015
"Today's Day"
B'dikat chametz after Maariv.
Torah lessons: Chumash: Acharei Mot, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 72-76.
Tanya: On the other hand (p. 209)...known to the initiated. (p. 209).
With regard to selling the chametz it is the custom in the Rebbe's family not to designate the rabbi as an agent (empowered to sell the chametz to the non-Jew) but to sell the chametz outright to the rabbi with an areiv kablan, a third party guarantor.
My father would personally supervise the baking of the sh'mura matza on erev Pesach afternoon. He, too, would recite the hallel, but he would interrupt - even in the middle of a chapter - to give instructions regarding the kneading, baking and so forth.
Daily Thought:
The Freedom Connection
We are limited by the very fact that we have human form. There is no freedom in following our whim, or even our most reasoned decisions. As a prisoner cannot undo his own shackles, so we remain enslaved to our own limited selves.
And so Moses was told, “When you take the people out from Egypt, you shall all serve G‑d on this mountain.”
What makes us free? Simple deeds done each day, as agents of the One who is absolutely free.[Tanya, Chapter 47.]
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment