Rosh Chodesh Iyar • Omer: Day 15 - Chessed sheb'Tifferet
Today's Laws & Customs:
• Rosh Chodesh Observances
Today is the first of the two Rosh Chodesh ("Head of the Month") days for the month of "Iyar" (when a month has 30 days, both the last day of the month and the first day of the following month serve as the following month's Rosh Chodesh).
Special portions are added to the daily prayers: Hallel (Psalms 113-118) is recited -- in its "partial" form -- following the Shacharit morning prayer, and the Yaaleh V'yavo prayer is added to the Amidah and to Grace After Meals; the additional Musaf prayer is said (when Rosh Chodesh is Shabbat, special additions are made to the Shabbat Musaf). Tachnun (confession of sins) and similar prayers are omitted.
Many have the custom to mark Rosh Chodesh with a festive meal and reduced work activity. The latter custom is prevalent amongst women, who have a special affinity with Rosh Chodesh -- the month being the feminine aspect of the Jewish Calendar.
Links: The 29th Day; The Lunar Files
• Count "Sixteen Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the sixteenth day of the Omer Count. Since, on the Jewish calendar, the day begins at nightfall of the previous evening, we count the omer fortomorrow's date tonight, after nightfall: "Today is sixteen days, which are two weeks and two days, to the Omer." (If you miss the count tonight, you can count the omer all day tomorrow, but without the preceding blessing).
The 49-day "Counting of the Omer" retraces our ancestors' seven-week spiritual journey from the Exodus to Sinai. Each evening we recite a special blessing and count the days and weeks that have passed since the Omer; the 50th day isShavuot, the festival celebrating the Giving of the Torah at Sinai.
Tonight's Sefirah: Gevurah sheb'Tifferet -- "Restraint in Harmony"
The teachings of Kabbalah explain that there are seven "Divine Attributes" --Sefirot -- that G-d assumes through which to relate to our existence: Chessed,Gevurah, Tifferet, Netzach, Hod, Yesod and Malchut ("Love", "Strength", "Beauty", "Victory", "Splendor", "Foundation" and "Sovereignty"). In the human being, created in the "image of G-d," the seven sefirot are mirrored in the seven "emotional attributes" of the human soul: Kindness, Restraint, Harmony, Ambition, Humility, Connection and Receptiveness. Each of the seven attributes contain elements of all seven--i.e., "Kindness in Kindness", "Restraint in Kindness", "Harmony in Kindness", etc.--making for a total of forty-nine traits. The 49-day Omer Count is thus a 49-step process of self-refinement, with each day devoted to the "rectification" and perfection of one the forty-nine "sefirot."
Links:
How to count the Omer
The deeper significance of the Omer Count
Today in Jewish History:
• Passing of R. Chaim Vital (1620)
Nissan 30 is the yahrtzeit (anniversary of the passing) of the famed Kabbalist Rabbi Chaim Vital (1542?-1620), author of the mystical work Eitz Chaim. Rabbi Chaim was the leading disciple of Rabbi Isaac Luria (the "Holy Ari," 1534-1572) and the transcriber of his teachings, which form the "Lurianic" Kabbalah.
Links: About Kabbalah
Daily Quote:
Do not scorn any man, and do not discount any thing. For there is no man who has not his hour, and no thing that has not its place[Ethics of the Fathers, 4:3]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Tazria-Metzora, 1st Portion Leviticus 12:1-13:23 with Rashi
• Chapter 12
1And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: אוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
2Speak to the children of Israel, saying: If a woman conceives and gives birth to a male, she shall be unclean for seven days; as [in] the days of her menstrual flow, she shall be unclean. בדַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר וְטָמְאָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כִּימֵי נִדַּת דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא:
If a woman conceives: Rabbi Simlai said: “Just as in the Creation, man was created after all domestic animals, wild beasts, and birds, so too, the law [concerning the cleanness] of man is stated after the law [concerning the cleanness] of domestic animals, wild beasts, and birds.”- [Vayikra Rabbah 14:1] אשה כי תזריע: אמר ר' שמלאי כשם שיצירתו של אדם אחר כל בהמה חיה ועוף במעשה בראשית, כך תורתו נתפרשה אחר תורת בהמה חיה ועוף:
If [a woman] conceives: Heb. כִּי תַזְרִיעַ. [These words are stated] to include the case of [a woman] who gave birth to a dissolved [fetus, i.e., the fetus had matured, but had subsequently] dissolved [in the womb], resulting in a semen-like mass (זֶרַע akin to תַזְרִיע), its mother has the impurity of birth. — [Niddah 27b] כי תזריע: לרבות שאפילו ילדתו מחוי, שנמחה ונעשה כעין זרע, אמו טמאה לידה:
as [in] the days of her menstrual flow: According to the order of all the uncleanness mentioned in regard to the menstruating woman (נִדָּה), she becomes unclean on account of giving birth. [This is true] even if the womb opens without [any issue of] blood. כימי נדת דותה תטמא: כסדר כל טומאה האמורה בנדה מטמאה בטומאת לידה, ואפילו נפתח הקבר בלא דם:
flow: Heb. דְּוֹתָהּ This expression denotes a substance that flows from her body. Another explanation: It denotes illness (מַדְוֶה) and sickness, for there is not a woman who sees [menstrual] blood without feeling ill, [since] her head and limbs become heavy upon her. דותה: לשון דבר הזב מגופה. לשון אחר לשון מדוה וחולי, שאין אשה רואה דם שלא תחלה ראשה ואבריה כבדין עליה:
3And on the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. גוּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי יִמּוֹל בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ:
4And for thirty three days, she shall remain in the blood of purity; she shall not touch anything holy, nor may she enter the Sanctuary, until the days of her purification have been completed. דוּשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם וּשְׁלשֶׁת יָמִים תֵּשֵׁב בִּדְמֵי טָהֳרָה בְּכָל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע וְאֶל הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא תָבֹא עַד מְלֹאת יְמֵי טָהֳרָהּ:
she shall remain: The word תֵּשֵׁב means only staying [or remaining], like, “And you dwelled (וַתֵּשְׁבוּ) in Kadesh” (Deut. 1:46), “and he dwelt (וַיֵּשֶׁב) in the plain of Mamre” (Gen. 13:18). תשב: אין תשב אלא לשון עכבה, כמו (דברים א מו) ותשבו בקדש, וישב באלוני ממרא (בראשית יג יח):
in the blood of purity: [I. e., during this interim period,] although she may see blood [issued from her], she is ritually clean. — [Torath Kohanim 12:15] בדמי טהרה: אף על פי שרואה דם טהורה. בדמי טהרה לא מפיק ה"א, והוא שם דבר, כמו טוהר. ימי טהרה מפיק ה"א, ימי טוהר שלה:
in the blood of purity: Heb. טָהֳרָה. [This could be mistakenly understood as “in the blood of her purity.” However,] this is not an aspirate “hey,” [as is evidenced by the absence of a dot in the final letter ה]. Therefore, it is an [unqualified] noun, like the word טֹהַר [meaning “purity”]. בכל קדש וגו': לרבות את התרומה, לפי שזו טבולת יום ארוך, שטבלה לסוף שבעה ואין שמשה מעריב לטהרה עד שקיעת החמה של יום ארבעים, שלמחר תביא את כפרת טהרתה:
the days of her purification: Heb. טָהֳרָהּ. [Here,] this is an aspirate “hey,” meaning “the days of her purification.” לא תגע: אזהרה לאוכל, כמו ששנויה ביבמות (עה א):
she shall not touch [anything holy]: [Although the verse says “shall not touch,” this is] a warning against one eating [anything holy] as is taught in Tractate Yev. (75a). :
[she shall not touch] anything holy: This comes to include terumah [being prohibited to this woman, before she is ritually clean (Torath Kohanim 12:16). This woman is considered a טְבוּל יוֹם, i.e., someone who has immerses in a mikvah, but must still wait for that day to elapse in order to become completely clean. Now, how is she considered a טְבוּל יוֹם ? We are talking here about a thirty-three day period. However, she does fall under this category] because she is considered a טְבוּלַת יוֹם אָרֹ [i.e., she must wait a “prolonged day,” insofar as] she immerses after seven [days], but the sunset that she must wait for [in order to become pure is not the sunset of the day of her immersion, but rather, it] is the sunset of the fortieth day [from birth], since it is [only] on the following day that she may bring the atonement [sacrifice] of her purification. [Thus, the whole period is to be considered one prolonged day, in the context of the law regarding her eating anything holy.] :
5And if she gives birth to a female, she shall be unclean for two weeks, like her menstruation [period]. And for sixty six days, she shall remain in the blood of purity. הוְאִם נְקֵבָה תֵלֵד וְטָמְאָה שְׁבֻעַיִם כְּנִדָּתָהּ וְשִׁשִּׁים יוֹם וְשֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תֵּשֵׁב עַל דְּמֵי טָהֳרָה:
6And when the days of her purification have been completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a sheep in its first year as a burnt offering, and a young dove or a turtle dove as a sin offering, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to the kohen. ווּבִמְלֹאת | יְמֵי טָהֳרָהּ לְבֵן אוֹ לְבַת תָּבִיא כֶּבֶשׂ בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ לְעֹלָה וּבֶן יוֹנָה אוֹ תֹר לְחַטָּאת אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד אֶל הַכֹּהֵן:
7And he shall offer it up before the Lord and effect atonement for her, and thus, she will be purified from the source of her blood. This is the law of a woman who gives birth to a male or to a female. זוְהִקְרִיבוֹ לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה וְכִפֶּר עָלֶיהָ וְטָהֲרָה מִמְּקֹר דָּמֶיהָ זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַיֹּלֶדֶת לַזָּכָר אוֹ לַנְּקֵבָה:
And he shall offer it up: Heb. וְהִקְרִיבוֹ. This [singular object comes] to teach you that only one [of these sacrifices, if it has not yet been brought], holds her back from eating anything holy. And which one is it? It is the sin-offering, for it says, “a sin-offering. And [the kohen] shall effect atonement for her, and thus, she will be purified” (verse 8). The one through which her atonement is effected [namely, the sin-offering], is the same one upon which her purification is dependent. — [Torath Kohanim 12:27] והקריבו: למדך שאין מעכבה לאכול בקדשים אלא אחד מהם. ואי זה הוא, זה חטאת, שנאמר וכפר עליה הכהן וטהרה, מי שהוא בא לכפר, בו הטהרה תלוייה:
and she will thus become clean: From here, [we can conclude] that until here [namely, the offering up of her sacrifices, she is called unclean [and may not eat sacrificial flesh or enter the Sanctuary]. - [Yeb. 74b] וטהרה: מכלל שעד כאן קרוייה טמאה:
8And if she cannot afford a sheep, she shall take two turtle doves or two young doves: one as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering. And the kohen shall effect atonement for her, and she shall become clean. חוְאִם לֹא תִמְצָא יָדָהּ דֵּי שֶׂה וְלָקְחָה שְׁתֵּי תֹרִים אוֹ שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה אֶחָד לְעֹלָה וְאֶחָד לְחַטָּאת וְכִפֶּר עָלֶיהָ הַכֹּהֵן וְטָהֵרָה:
One as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering: Scripture places [the burnt-offering] before [the sin-offering] only insofar as how they must be read [in the Torah. This is due to the higher esteem of the burnt-offering, because it is burned in its entirety (Maskil LeDavid).] But the sacrificing of the sin-offering precedes [that of]the burnt-offering. Thus we learned in Zevachim, in the chapter entitled כָּל-הַתָּדִיר (90a). אחד לעלה ואחד לחטאת: לא הקדימה הכתוב אלא למקראה, אבל הקרבת חטאת קודם לעולה, כך שנינו בזבחים בפרק כל התדיר (זבחים צ א):
Chapter 13
1And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: אוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר:
2If a man has a se'eith, a sappachath, or a bahereth on the skin of his flesh, and it forms a lesion of tzara'ath on the skin of his flesh, he shall be brought to Aaron the kohen, or to one of his sons, the kohanim. באָדָם כִּי יִהְיֶה בְעוֹר בְּשָׂרוֹ שְׂאֵת אוֹ סַפַּחַת אוֹ בַהֶרֶת וְהָיָה בְעוֹר בְּשָׂרוֹ לְנֶגַע צָרָעַת וְהוּבָא אֶל אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אוֹ אֶל אַחַד מִבָּנָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים:
se’eith, a sappachath, [or a bahereth]: Heb. The [terms se’eith and bahereth] are the names of two [major] lesions [and the term sappachath refers to categories related to these two major lesions], and one [major lesion, namely, bahereth] is whiter than the other [se’eith].-[Shev. 6b]. שאת או ספחת וגו': שמות נגעים הם ולבנות זו מזו:
bahereth: Heb. בַּהֶרֶת, spot, taye in Old French. This is similar to the verse, “it is [like] bright [clouds] (בָּהִיר) in the skies” (Job 37:21) [i.e., like the spots created by bright clouds in the blue sky]. בהרת: חברבורות טיי"א בלע"ז [כתם] וכן (איוב לז כא) בהיר הוא בשחקים:
[he shall be brought] to Aaron [the kohen, or to one of his sons]: It is a Scriptural decree that the uncleanness of lesions and their cleanness do not come about except by the pronouncement of a kohen. — [Torath Kohanim 13:43] אל אהרן וגו': גזירת הכתוב היא שאין טומאת נגעים וטהרתן אלא על פי כהן:
3The kohen shall look at the lesion on the skin of his flesh, and [if] hair in the lesion has turned white and the appearance of the lesion is deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is a lesion of tzara'ath. When the kohen sees this, he shall pronounce him unclean. גוְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַנֶּגַע בְּעוֹר הַבָּשָׂר וְשֵׂעָר בַּנֶּגַע הָפַךְ | לָבָן וּמַרְאֵה הַנֶּגַע עָמֹק מֵעוֹר בְּשָׂרוֹ נֶגַע צָרַעַת הוּא וְרָאָהוּ הַכֹּהֵן וְטִמֵּא אֹתוֹ:
[if] hair in the lesion has turned white: Heb. וְשֵׂעָר. At first [the hair] was black, and then it turned white in the lesion. The minimum [quantity referred to by the term] שֵׂעָר, hair, is two, [as opposed to שַׂעֲרָה, a hair, as in Jud. 20:16. Thus, there shall be a minimum of two hairs that turn white in the lesion for this law to apply]. — [Torath Kohanim 13:4547] ושער בנגע הפך לבן: מתחלה שחור והפך ללבן בתוך הנגע, ומעוט שער שנים:
[and the appearance of the lesion] is deeper than the skin of his flesh:Anything with a white appearance seems deeper [in contrast to a darker object next to it], just as sunlight appears deeper than a shadow. — [Shev. 6b] עמק מעור בשרו: כל מראה לבן עמוק הוא, כמראה חמה עמוקה מן הצל:
he shall pronounce him unclean: He shall say to him: “You are unclean,” for white hair is a sign of uncleanness by Scriptural decree. וטמא אתו: יאמר לו טמא אתה, ששער לבן סימן טומאה הוא גזירת הכתוב:
4But if it is a white bahereth on the skin of his flesh, and its appearance is not deeper than the skin, and its hair has not turned white, the kohen shall quarantine the [person with the] lesion for seven days. דוְאִם בַּהֶרֶת לְבָנָה הִוא בְּעוֹר בְּשָׂרוֹ וְעָמֹק אֵין מַרְאֶהָ מִן הָעוֹר וּשְׂעָרָה לֹא הָפַךְ לָבָן וְהִסְגִּיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַנֶּגַע שִׁבְעַת יָמִים:
[But if it is a white bahereth…] and its appearance is not deeper: I do not know its meaning [since a white bahereth should always appear deeper than the skin, as above, yet here the verse describes a case where it does not]. ועמק אין מראה: לא ידעתי פירושו:
quarantine: He shall have him confined to one house, and the person shall not be seen [by the kohen] until the end of the week. [Only] then will his signs indicate about him [whether he is clean or unclean]. והסגיר: יסגירנו בבית אחד ולא יראה עד סוף השבוע, ויוכיחו סימנים עליו:
5And on the seventh day, the kohen shall see him. And, behold! the lesion has remained the same in its appearance; the lesion has not spread on the skin. So the kohen shall quarantine him for seven days a second time. הוְרָאָהוּ הַכֹּהֵן בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וְהִנֵּה הַנֶּגַע עָמַד בְּעֵינָיו לֹא פָשָׂה הַנֶּגַע בָּעוֹר וְהִסְגִּירוֹ הַכֹּהֵן שִׁבְעַת יָמִים שֵׁנִית:
in its appearance: In its original appearance and size. בעיניו: במראהו ובשיעורו הראשון:
[The kohen] shall quarantine him… a second time: But if it [the lesion] spread in the first week, he is definitely unclean. - [See Nega’im 3:3] והסגירו שנית: הא אם פשה בשבוע ראשון טמא מוחלט:
6And the kohen shall see him on the seventh day a second time. And, behold! the lesion has become dimmer, and the lesion has not spread on the skin, the kohen shall pronounce him clean. It is a mispachath. He shall immerse his garments and become clean. ווְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן אֹתוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שֵׁנִית וְהִנֵּה כֵּהָה הַנֶּגַע וְלֹא פָשָׂה הַנֶּגַע בָּעוֹר וְטִהֲרוֹ הַכֹּהֵן מִסְפַּחַת הִוא וְכִבֶּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָהֵר:
has become dimmer: [I.e.,] it became dimmer in its appearance. Hence, if it remained the same in its appearance or spread, he is unclean. כהה: הוכהה מראיתו, הא אם עמד במראיתו או פשה טמא:
mispachath: The name of a clean lesion. מספחת: שם נגע טהור:
He shall immerse his garments and become clean: Since he was required to be quarantined, he is considered unclean and requires immersion. וכבס בגדיו וטהר: הואיל ונזקק להסגר נקרא טמא וצריך טבילה:
7However, if the mispachath.spreads on the skin after it has been shown it to the kohen for its purification, it shall be shown to the kohen a second time. זוְאִם פָּשׂה תִפְשֶׂה הַמִּסְפַּחַת בָּעוֹר אַחֲרֵי הֵרָאֹתוֹ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן לְטָהֳרָתוֹ וְנִרְאָה שֵׁנִית אֶל הַכֹּהֵן:
8The kohen shall look [at it]. And, behold! the mispachath has spread on the skin. The kohen shall pronounce him unclean. It is tzara'ath. חוְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה פָּשְׂתָה הַמִּסְפַּחַת בָּעוֹר וְטִמְּאוֹ הַכֹּהֵן צָרַעַת הִוא:
The kohen shall pronounce him unclean: And as soon as [the kohen] has pronounced him unclean, he is then “definitely” [unclean, and when he is healed, he] requires the bird offerings, shaving, and the sacrifice, specified in the section commencing: “This shall be the law of the metzora ” (תּוֹרַת הַמְצֹרָע) זֹאת תִּהֶיה. — [see Lev., Chapter 14; Meg. 8b] וטמאו הכהן: ומשטמאו הרי הוא מוחלט וזקוק לצפרים ולתגלחת ולקרבן האמור בפרשת זאת תהיה:
It is tzara’ath: I.e., this mispachath [is tzara’ath]. צרעת הוא: המספחת הזאת:
tzara’ath: Heb. צָרַעַת. [The term] צָרַעַת is feminine [which is why the verse says צָרַעַת הִוא, using the feminine word for “it”]. [The term] נֶגַע, lesion, however, is masculine [thus in verse 3, for instance, it says צָרַעַת הוּא, using the masculine word for “it,” referring to the נֶגַע rather than to the tzara’ath]. צרעת: לשון נקבה:
9If a man has a lesion of tzara'ath, he shall be brought to the kohen. טנֶגַע צָרַעַת כִּי תִהְיֶה בְּאָדָם וְהוּבָא אֶל הַכֹּהֵן:
10The kohen shall look [at it]. And, behold! there is a white se'eith on the skin, and either it has turned the hair white, or there is healthy, live flesh in the se'eith, יוְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה שְׂאֵת לְבָנָה בָּעוֹר וְהִיא הָפְכָה שֵׂעָר לָבָן וּמִחְיַת בָּשָׂר חַי בַּשְׂאֵת:
healthy flesh: Heb. מִחְיַת, sa(y)nement in Old French, a healing. [It means that] part of the white in the se’eith lesion reverts to appear like [healthy] flesh. This is also a sign of uncleanness. [Hence, a sign of uncleanness is] either white hair without a מִחְיַָה, or a מִחְיַָה, an area of normal flesh, even without white hair. And even though מִחְיַָה is mentioned only in connection with the se’eith, nevertheless, in all [major] manifestations [of the lesion of tzara’ath] and their related categories, it is a sign of uncleanness. — [Torath Kohanim 13:69] ומחית: שינמינ"ט בלע"ז [רפוי], שנהפך מקצת הלובן שבתוך השאת למראה בשר, אף הוא סימן טומאה, שער לבן בלא מחיה, ומחיה בלא שער לבן, ואף על פי שלא נאמרה מחיה אלא בשאת, אף בכל המראות ותולדותיהן הוא סימן טומאה:
11it is old tzara'ath on the skin of his flesh, and the kohen shall pronounce him unclean; he need not quarantine him because he is unclean. יאצָרַעַת נוֹשֶׁנֶת הִוא בְּעוֹר בְּשָׂרוֹ וְטִמְּאוֹ הַכֹּהֵן לֹא יַסְגִּרֶנּוּ כִּי טָמֵא הוּא:
it is an old tzara’ath: It is an old lesion which is under the area of normal skin. This wound appears healthy on the surface, but it is full of fluid underneath, so that one should not say, “Since healthy skin has appeared over [the lesion], I shall pronounce it clean!” צרעת נושנת הוא: מכה ישנה היא תחת המחיה, וחבורה זו נראית בריאה מלמעלה ותחתיה מלאה לחה, שלא תאמר הואיל ועלתה מחיה אטהרנה:
12And if the tzara'ath has spread over the skin, whereby the tzara'ath covers all the skin of the [person with the] lesion, from his head to his feet, wherever the eyes of the kohen can see it, יבוְאִם פָּרוֹחַ תִּפְרַח הַצָּרַעַת בָּעוֹר וְכִסְּתָה הַצָּרַעַת אֵת כָּל עוֹר הַנֶּגַע מֵרֹאשׁוֹ וְעַד רַגְלָיו לְכָל מַרְאֵה עֵינֵי הַכֹּהֵן:
from his head: [I.e., from the head] of the person [down] to his feet. מראשו: של אדם ועד רגליו:
wherever the eyes of the kohen can see it: [This phrase] comes to exclude a kohen whose eyesight has dimmed. [I.e., a kohen with one blind eye or with impaired vision in both eyes may not pronounce the status of lesions.]- [Torath Kohanim 13:83] לכל מראה עיני הכהן: פרט לכהן שחשך מאורו:
13then the kohen shall look [at it]. And, behold! the tzara'ath has covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce [the person with] the lesion clean. He has turned completely white; he is clean. יגוְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה כִסְּתָה הַצָּרַעַת אֶת כָּל בְּשָׂרוֹ וְטִהַר אֶת הַנָּגַע כֻּלּוֹ הָפַךְ לָבָן טָהוֹר הוּא:
14But on the day that live flesh appears in it, he shall become unclean. ידוּבְיוֹם הֵרָאוֹת בּוֹ בָּשָׂר חַי יִטְמָא:
But on the day that live flesh appears in it: If healthy flesh grows on it, [Scripture] has already explained that healthy flesh is a sign of uncleanness. [Therefore, what is this verse telling us here?] However, a case where the lesion was located on one of twenty-four tips of the limbs is not deemed unclean on account of healthy flesh because the lesion cannot be seen all at one glance [once an area of healthy flesh appears within the lesion], since these [limb tips] slope down on either side. [Therefore it is not deemed unclean.] If, however, such a tip of a limb altered [in its form], allowing its slanted facet to appear through fat-for example, when the tip of a limb became fat and broadened, and the healthy flesh (מִחְיַָה) became visible within [the lesion, thereby allowing the lesion to become visible all at one glance], Scripture teaches us [here] that it becomes unclean. — [Torath Kohanim 13:86] וביום הראות בו בשר חי: אם צמחה בו מחיה הרי כבר פירש שהמחיה סימן טומאה, אלא הרי שהיה הנגע באחד מעשרים וארבעה ראשי איברים שאין מטמאין משום מחיה, לפי שאין נראה הנגע כולו כאחד ששופע אילך ואילך, וחזר ראש האבר ונתגלה שפועו ע"י שומן, כגון שהבריא ונעשה רחב ונראית בו המחיה, למדנו הכתוב שתטמא:
But on the day [that live flesh] appears: [The verse could have simply said, “But when live flesh appears.”] What does Scripture teach us [by saying,] “on the day”]? It [comes] to teach that there is a day on which you [the kohen] look [i.e., examine the suspected lesion], and there is a day on which you do not look [i.e., when he may not examine it]. From here [our Rabbis] say that a bridegroom is exempt [from having a lesion examined] throughout all the seven days of the wedding feast, for himself, his garments, and his house. Similarly, during a Festival [people] are exempt [from having a lesion examined] throughout all the days of the Festival. - [Torath Kohanim 13:87] וביום: מה תלמוד לומר, ללמד יש יום שאתה רואה בו ויש יום שאין אתה רואה בו, מכאן אמרו חתן נותנין לו כל שבעת ימי המשתה לו ולכסותו ולביתו, וכן ברגל נותנין לו כל ימי הרגל:
15When the kohen sees the healthy, live flesh, he shall pronounce him unclean. The live flesh is unclean; it is tzara'ath. טווְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַבָּשָׂר הַחַי וְטִמְּאוֹ הַבָּשָׂר הַחַי טָמֵא הוּא צָרַעַת הוּא:
it is tzara’ath: meaning, that flesh. Flesh (בָּשָׂר) is grammatically masculine. [Hence, the wording: צָרַעַת הוּא, rather than צָרַעַת הִיא, as in verse 8.] צרעת הוא: הבשר ההוא. בשר לשון זכר:
16But, if the healthy, live flesh once again turns white, he shall come to the kohen. טזאוֹ כִי יָשׁוּב הַבָּשָׂר הַחַי וְנֶהְפַּךְ לְלָבָן וּבָא אֶל הַכֹּהֵן:
17And the kohen shall look at it. And, behold! the lesion has turned white; the kohen shall pronounce the lesion clean. He is clean. יזוְרָאָהוּ הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה נֶהְפַּךְ הַנֶּגַע לְלָבָן וְטִהַר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַנֶּגַע טָהוֹר הוּא:
18If [a person's] flesh has an inflammation on its skin, and it heals, יחוּבָשָׂר כִּי יִהְיֶה בוֹ בְעֹרוֹ שְׁחִין וְנִרְפָּא:
an inflammation: Heb. שְׁחִין. [This term] denotes heat, that the flesh became heated by the injury caused it by a blow, not by fire. — [Chul. 8a] שחין: לשון חמום, שנתחמם הבשר בלקוי הבא לו מחמת מכה, שלא מחמת האור:
and it heals: The inflammation healed, and in its place, another lesion appeared. [Not that the flesh healed, because, were that the case, there would be no lesion.] ונרפא: השחין העלה ארוכה ובמקומו העלה נגע אחר:
19and on the place of the inflammation there is a white se'eith, or a reddish white bahereth, it shall be shown to the kohen. יטוְהָיָה בִּמְקוֹם הַשְּׁחִין שְׂאֵת לְבָנָה אוֹ בַהֶרֶת לְבָנָה אֲדַמְדָּמֶת וְנִרְאָה אֶל הַכֹּהֵן:
A reddish-white bahereth: [meaning] that the lesion is not solid white, but streaked and blended of two colors, white and red. או בהרת לבנה אדמדמת: שאין הנגע לבן חלק אלא פתוך ומעורב בשתי מראות לובן ואודם:
20The kohen shall look [at it]. And, behold! its appearance is lower than the skin, and its hair has turned white; so the kohen shall pronounce him unclean. It is a lesion of tzara'ath that has erupted on the inflammation. כוְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה מַרְאֶהָ שָׁפָל מִן הָעוֹר וּשְׂעָרָהּ הָפַךְ לָבָן וְטִמְּאוֹ הַכֹּהֵן נֶגַע צָרַעַת הִוא בַּשְּׁחִין פָּרָחָה:
it appearance is lower than the skin: But its substance is not lower. Rather, because of its whiteness, the lesion [only] appears lower and deeper [than the skin], just as sunlight appears deeper than a shadow. - [Torath Kohanim 13:50] מראה שפל: ואין ממשה שפל, אלא מתוך לבנוניתו הוא נראה שפל ועמוק, כמראה חמה עמוקה מן הצל:
21But if the kohen looks at it, and behold! it does not contain white hair, nor does it appear to be lower than the skin, and it is dim, the kohen shall quarantine him for seven days. כאוְאִם | יִרְאֶנָּה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה אֵין בָּהּ שֵׂעָר לָבָן וּשְׁפָלָה אֵינֶנָּה מִן הָעוֹר וְהִיא כֵהָה וְהִסְגִּירוֹ הַכֹּהֵן שִׁבְעַת יָמִים:
22And if it spreads on the skin, the kohen shall pronounce him unclean. It is a lesion. כבוְאִם פָּשׂה תִפְשֶׂה בָּעוֹר וְטִמֵּא הַכֹּהֵן אֹתוֹ נֶגַע הִוא:
It is a lesion: Heb. נֶגַע הִוא. [Here, the pronoun is feminine. Since נֶגַע is masculine, however, it requires the masculine pronoun הוּא. But our verse here uses the feminine הִיא because the word “it” is referring to] this se’eith or this bahereth [both of which are feminine]. נגע הוא: השאת הזאת או הבהרת:
23But if the bahereth remains in its place, not spreading, it is the scar tissue of the inflammation, and the kohen shall pronounce him clean. כגוְאִם תַּחְתֶּיהָ תַּעֲמֹד הַבַּהֶרֶת לֹא פָשָׂתָה צָרֶבֶת הַשְּׁחִין הִוא וְטִהֲרוֹ הַכֹּהֵן:
in its place: Heb. תַּחְתֶּיה, [lit., “under it,” here meaning:] In its place. תחתיה: במקומה:
it is the scar tissue of the inflamation: Heb. צָרֶבֶת הַשְּׁחִין, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders it: רוֹשַׁם שִׁיחִנָא, a residual impression of the inflammation, identifiable on the flesh [i.e., a scar]. Every expression of צָרֶבֶת [in Scripture] denotes the contraction of skin that has become shriveled because of heat. Similarly, the verse, “And all faces [from the south to the north] will be shriveled by it” (Ezek. 21:3), retrire in Old French, to contract. צרבת השחין: כתרגומו רושם שיחנא, אינו אלא רושם החמום הניכר בבשר. כל צרבת לשון רגיעת עור הנרגע מחמת חימום, כמו (יחזקאל כא ג) ונצרבו בה כל פנים, רייטרי"ר בלע"ז [לכווץ]:
it is scar tissue: Heb. צָרֶבֶת, retriyemant in Old French, shriveling. צרבת: ריטריימינ"ט בלע"ז [כיווץ]:
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 145 - 150
• Chapter 145
• Lessons in Tanya
• Sunday, Nissan 30, 5775 · April 19, 2015
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Sunday, Nissan 30, 5775 · April 19, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 126
The Priestly Tithe
"The first of your grain...you shall give to him"—Deuteronomy 18:4.
We are commanded to separate from our harvest Terumah Gedolah [the "great tithe." This tithe is given to the priest.]
This biblical precept only applies in the Land of Israel.
Positive Commandment 129
The Levite's Priestly Tithe
"Speak to the Levites and tell them: When you take from the Children of Israel the tithe that I have given to you from them as your inheritance, then you shall offer up from it a gift for G‑d, a tenth of the tenth"—Numbers 18:26.
The Levites are commanded to separate a tenth from the tithe that they receive from the Israelites, and to give it to the priest. This tithe is called Maaser min Hamaaser or Terumat Maaser.
The Levites are commanded to give this tithe from the choicest of the produce.
• 1 Chapter: Shabbos Shabbos - Chapter Eighteen
• Sunday, Nissan 30, 5775 · 04/19/2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: K'doshim, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 145-150.
Tanya: Even if it (p. 235)...blessed be He. (p. 235).
The following farbrengens should take place in shul: The farbrengen of s'uda shlishit,1of Shabbat m'varchim,2 and of holidays (such as Rosh Chodesh and festive days3 ofanash)4
The farbrengen of melava malka5 should be held in the private homes of anash.
FOOTNOTES
1. The third Shabbat meal.
2. The Shabbat on which the coming month is blessed.
3. Such as Chassidic festivals - Yud-tess Kislev, Yud-beis Tamuz, Yud Kislev, Yud Sh'vat, Yud-Alef Nissan, Hay Tevet, Rosh Chodesh Kislev, etc.
4. Members of the Lubavitch community.
5. "Escorting the Shabbat Queen"; the Saturday night festive meal.
Chumash: Tazria-Metzora, 1st Portion Leviticus 12:1-13:23 with Rashi
• Chapter 12
1And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: אוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
2Speak to the children of Israel, saying: If a woman conceives and gives birth to a male, she shall be unclean for seven days; as [in] the days of her menstrual flow, she shall be unclean. בדַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר וְטָמְאָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כִּימֵי נִדַּת דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא:
If a woman conceives: Rabbi Simlai said: “Just as in the Creation, man was created after all domestic animals, wild beasts, and birds, so too, the law [concerning the cleanness] of man is stated after the law [concerning the cleanness] of domestic animals, wild beasts, and birds.”- [Vayikra Rabbah 14:1] אשה כי תזריע: אמר ר' שמלאי כשם שיצירתו של אדם אחר כל בהמה חיה ועוף במעשה בראשית, כך תורתו נתפרשה אחר תורת בהמה חיה ועוף:
If [a woman] conceives: Heb. כִּי תַזְרִיעַ. [These words are stated] to include the case of [a woman] who gave birth to a dissolved [fetus, i.e., the fetus had matured, but had subsequently] dissolved [in the womb], resulting in a semen-like mass (זֶרַע akin to תַזְרִיע), its mother has the impurity of birth. — [Niddah 27b] כי תזריע: לרבות שאפילו ילדתו מחוי, שנמחה ונעשה כעין זרע, אמו טמאה לידה:
as [in] the days of her menstrual flow: According to the order of all the uncleanness mentioned in regard to the menstruating woman (נִדָּה), she becomes unclean on account of giving birth. [This is true] even if the womb opens without [any issue of] blood. כימי נדת דותה תטמא: כסדר כל טומאה האמורה בנדה מטמאה בטומאת לידה, ואפילו נפתח הקבר בלא דם:
flow: Heb. דְּוֹתָהּ This expression denotes a substance that flows from her body. Another explanation: It denotes illness (מַדְוֶה) and sickness, for there is not a woman who sees [menstrual] blood without feeling ill, [since] her head and limbs become heavy upon her. דותה: לשון דבר הזב מגופה. לשון אחר לשון מדוה וחולי, שאין אשה רואה דם שלא תחלה ראשה ואבריה כבדין עליה:
3And on the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. גוּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי יִמּוֹל בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ:
4And for thirty three days, she shall remain in the blood of purity; she shall not touch anything holy, nor may she enter the Sanctuary, until the days of her purification have been completed. דוּשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם וּשְׁלשֶׁת יָמִים תֵּשֵׁב בִּדְמֵי טָהֳרָה בְּכָל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע וְאֶל הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא תָבֹא עַד מְלֹאת יְמֵי טָהֳרָהּ:
she shall remain: The word תֵּשֵׁב means only staying [or remaining], like, “And you dwelled (וַתֵּשְׁבוּ) in Kadesh” (Deut. 1:46), “and he dwelt (וַיֵּשֶׁב) in the plain of Mamre” (Gen. 13:18). תשב: אין תשב אלא לשון עכבה, כמו (דברים א מו) ותשבו בקדש, וישב באלוני ממרא (בראשית יג יח):
in the blood of purity: [I. e., during this interim period,] although she may see blood [issued from her], she is ritually clean. — [Torath Kohanim 12:15] בדמי טהרה: אף על פי שרואה דם טהורה. בדמי טהרה לא מפיק ה"א, והוא שם דבר, כמו טוהר. ימי טהרה מפיק ה"א, ימי טוהר שלה:
in the blood of purity: Heb. טָהֳרָה. [This could be mistakenly understood as “in the blood of her purity.” However,] this is not an aspirate “hey,” [as is evidenced by the absence of a dot in the final letter ה]. Therefore, it is an [unqualified] noun, like the word טֹהַר [meaning “purity”]. בכל קדש וגו': לרבות את התרומה, לפי שזו טבולת יום ארוך, שטבלה לסוף שבעה ואין שמשה מעריב לטהרה עד שקיעת החמה של יום ארבעים, שלמחר תביא את כפרת טהרתה:
the days of her purification: Heb. טָהֳרָהּ. [Here,] this is an aspirate “hey,” meaning “the days of her purification.” לא תגע: אזהרה לאוכל, כמו ששנויה ביבמות (עה א):
she shall not touch [anything holy]: [Although the verse says “shall not touch,” this is] a warning against one eating [anything holy] as is taught in Tractate Yev. (75a). :
[she shall not touch] anything holy: This comes to include terumah [being prohibited to this woman, before she is ritually clean (Torath Kohanim 12:16). This woman is considered a טְבוּל יוֹם, i.e., someone who has immerses in a mikvah, but must still wait for that day to elapse in order to become completely clean. Now, how is she considered a טְבוּל יוֹם ? We are talking here about a thirty-three day period. However, she does fall under this category] because she is considered a טְבוּלַת יוֹם אָרֹ [i.e., she must wait a “prolonged day,” insofar as] she immerses after seven [days], but the sunset that she must wait for [in order to become pure is not the sunset of the day of her immersion, but rather, it] is the sunset of the fortieth day [from birth], since it is [only] on the following day that she may bring the atonement [sacrifice] of her purification. [Thus, the whole period is to be considered one prolonged day, in the context of the law regarding her eating anything holy.] :
5And if she gives birth to a female, she shall be unclean for two weeks, like her menstruation [period]. And for sixty six days, she shall remain in the blood of purity. הוְאִם נְקֵבָה תֵלֵד וְטָמְאָה שְׁבֻעַיִם כְּנִדָּתָהּ וְשִׁשִּׁים יוֹם וְשֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תֵּשֵׁב עַל דְּמֵי טָהֳרָה:
6And when the days of her purification have been completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a sheep in its first year as a burnt offering, and a young dove or a turtle dove as a sin offering, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to the kohen. ווּבִמְלֹאת | יְמֵי טָהֳרָהּ לְבֵן אוֹ לְבַת תָּבִיא כֶּבֶשׂ בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ לְעֹלָה וּבֶן יוֹנָה אוֹ תֹר לְחַטָּאת אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד אֶל הַכֹּהֵן:
7And he shall offer it up before the Lord and effect atonement for her, and thus, she will be purified from the source of her blood. This is the law of a woman who gives birth to a male or to a female. זוְהִקְרִיבוֹ לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה וְכִפֶּר עָלֶיהָ וְטָהֲרָה מִמְּקֹר דָּמֶיהָ זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַיֹּלֶדֶת לַזָּכָר אוֹ לַנְּקֵבָה:
And he shall offer it up: Heb. וְהִקְרִיבוֹ. This [singular object comes] to teach you that only one [of these sacrifices, if it has not yet been brought], holds her back from eating anything holy. And which one is it? It is the sin-offering, for it says, “a sin-offering. And [the kohen] shall effect atonement for her, and thus, she will be purified” (verse 8). The one through which her atonement is effected [namely, the sin-offering], is the same one upon which her purification is dependent. — [Torath Kohanim 12:27] והקריבו: למדך שאין מעכבה לאכול בקדשים אלא אחד מהם. ואי זה הוא, זה חטאת, שנאמר וכפר עליה הכהן וטהרה, מי שהוא בא לכפר, בו הטהרה תלוייה:
and she will thus become clean: From here, [we can conclude] that until here [namely, the offering up of her sacrifices, she is called unclean [and may not eat sacrificial flesh or enter the Sanctuary]. - [Yeb. 74b] וטהרה: מכלל שעד כאן קרוייה טמאה:
8And if she cannot afford a sheep, she shall take two turtle doves or two young doves: one as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering. And the kohen shall effect atonement for her, and she shall become clean. חוְאִם לֹא תִמְצָא יָדָהּ דֵּי שֶׂה וְלָקְחָה שְׁתֵּי תֹרִים אוֹ שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה אֶחָד לְעֹלָה וְאֶחָד לְחַטָּאת וְכִפֶּר עָלֶיהָ הַכֹּהֵן וְטָהֵרָה:
One as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering: Scripture places [the burnt-offering] before [the sin-offering] only insofar as how they must be read [in the Torah. This is due to the higher esteem of the burnt-offering, because it is burned in its entirety (Maskil LeDavid).] But the sacrificing of the sin-offering precedes [that of]the burnt-offering. Thus we learned in Zevachim, in the chapter entitled כָּל-הַתָּדִיר (90a). אחד לעלה ואחד לחטאת: לא הקדימה הכתוב אלא למקראה, אבל הקרבת חטאת קודם לעולה, כך שנינו בזבחים בפרק כל התדיר (זבחים צ א):
Chapter 13
1And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: אוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר:
2If a man has a se'eith, a sappachath, or a bahereth on the skin of his flesh, and it forms a lesion of tzara'ath on the skin of his flesh, he shall be brought to Aaron the kohen, or to one of his sons, the kohanim. באָדָם כִּי יִהְיֶה בְעוֹר בְּשָׂרוֹ שְׂאֵת אוֹ סַפַּחַת אוֹ בַהֶרֶת וְהָיָה בְעוֹר בְּשָׂרוֹ לְנֶגַע צָרָעַת וְהוּבָא אֶל אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אוֹ אֶל אַחַד מִבָּנָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים:
se’eith, a sappachath, [or a bahereth]: Heb. The [terms se’eith and bahereth] are the names of two [major] lesions [and the term sappachath refers to categories related to these two major lesions], and one [major lesion, namely, bahereth] is whiter than the other [se’eith].-[Shev. 6b]. שאת או ספחת וגו': שמות נגעים הם ולבנות זו מזו:
bahereth: Heb. בַּהֶרֶת, spot, taye in Old French. This is similar to the verse, “it is [like] bright [clouds] (בָּהִיר) in the skies” (Job 37:21) [i.e., like the spots created by bright clouds in the blue sky]. בהרת: חברבורות טיי"א בלע"ז [כתם] וכן (איוב לז כא) בהיר הוא בשחקים:
[he shall be brought] to Aaron [the kohen, or to one of his sons]: It is a Scriptural decree that the uncleanness of lesions and their cleanness do not come about except by the pronouncement of a kohen. — [Torath Kohanim 13:43] אל אהרן וגו': גזירת הכתוב היא שאין טומאת נגעים וטהרתן אלא על פי כהן:
3The kohen shall look at the lesion on the skin of his flesh, and [if] hair in the lesion has turned white and the appearance of the lesion is deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is a lesion of tzara'ath. When the kohen sees this, he shall pronounce him unclean. גוְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַנֶּגַע בְּעוֹר הַבָּשָׂר וְשֵׂעָר בַּנֶּגַע הָפַךְ | לָבָן וּמַרְאֵה הַנֶּגַע עָמֹק מֵעוֹר בְּשָׂרוֹ נֶגַע צָרַעַת הוּא וְרָאָהוּ הַכֹּהֵן וְטִמֵּא אֹתוֹ:
[if] hair in the lesion has turned white: Heb. וְשֵׂעָר. At first [the hair] was black, and then it turned white in the lesion. The minimum [quantity referred to by the term] שֵׂעָר, hair, is two, [as opposed to שַׂעֲרָה, a hair, as in Jud. 20:16. Thus, there shall be a minimum of two hairs that turn white in the lesion for this law to apply]. — [Torath Kohanim 13:4547] ושער בנגע הפך לבן: מתחלה שחור והפך ללבן בתוך הנגע, ומעוט שער שנים:
[and the appearance of the lesion] is deeper than the skin of his flesh:Anything with a white appearance seems deeper [in contrast to a darker object next to it], just as sunlight appears deeper than a shadow. — [Shev. 6b] עמק מעור בשרו: כל מראה לבן עמוק הוא, כמראה חמה עמוקה מן הצל:
he shall pronounce him unclean: He shall say to him: “You are unclean,” for white hair is a sign of uncleanness by Scriptural decree. וטמא אתו: יאמר לו טמא אתה, ששער לבן סימן טומאה הוא גזירת הכתוב:
4But if it is a white bahereth on the skin of his flesh, and its appearance is not deeper than the skin, and its hair has not turned white, the kohen shall quarantine the [person with the] lesion for seven days. דוְאִם בַּהֶרֶת לְבָנָה הִוא בְּעוֹר בְּשָׂרוֹ וְעָמֹק אֵין מַרְאֶהָ מִן הָעוֹר וּשְׂעָרָה לֹא הָפַךְ לָבָן וְהִסְגִּיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַנֶּגַע שִׁבְעַת יָמִים:
[But if it is a white bahereth…] and its appearance is not deeper: I do not know its meaning [since a white bahereth should always appear deeper than the skin, as above, yet here the verse describes a case where it does not]. ועמק אין מראה: לא ידעתי פירושו:
quarantine: He shall have him confined to one house, and the person shall not be seen [by the kohen] until the end of the week. [Only] then will his signs indicate about him [whether he is clean or unclean]. והסגיר: יסגירנו בבית אחד ולא יראה עד סוף השבוע, ויוכיחו סימנים עליו:
5And on the seventh day, the kohen shall see him. And, behold! the lesion has remained the same in its appearance; the lesion has not spread on the skin. So the kohen shall quarantine him for seven days a second time. הוְרָאָהוּ הַכֹּהֵן בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וְהִנֵּה הַנֶּגַע עָמַד בְּעֵינָיו לֹא פָשָׂה הַנֶּגַע בָּעוֹר וְהִסְגִּירוֹ הַכֹּהֵן שִׁבְעַת יָמִים שֵׁנִית:
in its appearance: In its original appearance and size. בעיניו: במראהו ובשיעורו הראשון:
[The kohen] shall quarantine him… a second time: But if it [the lesion] spread in the first week, he is definitely unclean. - [See Nega’im 3:3] והסגירו שנית: הא אם פשה בשבוע ראשון טמא מוחלט:
6And the kohen shall see him on the seventh day a second time. And, behold! the lesion has become dimmer, and the lesion has not spread on the skin, the kohen shall pronounce him clean. It is a mispachath. He shall immerse his garments and become clean. ווְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן אֹתוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שֵׁנִית וְהִנֵּה כֵּהָה הַנֶּגַע וְלֹא פָשָׂה הַנֶּגַע בָּעוֹר וְטִהֲרוֹ הַכֹּהֵן מִסְפַּחַת הִוא וְכִבֶּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָהֵר:
has become dimmer: [I.e.,] it became dimmer in its appearance. Hence, if it remained the same in its appearance or spread, he is unclean. כהה: הוכהה מראיתו, הא אם עמד במראיתו או פשה טמא:
mispachath: The name of a clean lesion. מספחת: שם נגע טהור:
He shall immerse his garments and become clean: Since he was required to be quarantined, he is considered unclean and requires immersion. וכבס בגדיו וטהר: הואיל ונזקק להסגר נקרא טמא וצריך טבילה:
7However, if the mispachath.spreads on the skin after it has been shown it to the kohen for its purification, it shall be shown to the kohen a second time. זוְאִם פָּשׂה תִפְשֶׂה הַמִּסְפַּחַת בָּעוֹר אַחֲרֵי הֵרָאֹתוֹ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן לְטָהֳרָתוֹ וְנִרְאָה שֵׁנִית אֶל הַכֹּהֵן:
8The kohen shall look [at it]. And, behold! the mispachath has spread on the skin. The kohen shall pronounce him unclean. It is tzara'ath. חוְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה פָּשְׂתָה הַמִּסְפַּחַת בָּעוֹר וְטִמְּאוֹ הַכֹּהֵן צָרַעַת הִוא:
The kohen shall pronounce him unclean: And as soon as [the kohen] has pronounced him unclean, he is then “definitely” [unclean, and when he is healed, he] requires the bird offerings, shaving, and the sacrifice, specified in the section commencing: “This shall be the law of the metzora ” (תּוֹרַת הַמְצֹרָע) זֹאת תִּהֶיה. — [see Lev., Chapter 14; Meg. 8b] וטמאו הכהן: ומשטמאו הרי הוא מוחלט וזקוק לצפרים ולתגלחת ולקרבן האמור בפרשת זאת תהיה:
It is tzara’ath: I.e., this mispachath [is tzara’ath]. צרעת הוא: המספחת הזאת:
tzara’ath: Heb. צָרַעַת. [The term] צָרַעַת is feminine [which is why the verse says צָרַעַת הִוא, using the feminine word for “it”]. [The term] נֶגַע, lesion, however, is masculine [thus in verse 3, for instance, it says צָרַעַת הוּא, using the masculine word for “it,” referring to the נֶגַע rather than to the tzara’ath]. צרעת: לשון נקבה:
9If a man has a lesion of tzara'ath, he shall be brought to the kohen. טנֶגַע צָרַעַת כִּי תִהְיֶה בְּאָדָם וְהוּבָא אֶל הַכֹּהֵן:
10The kohen shall look [at it]. And, behold! there is a white se'eith on the skin, and either it has turned the hair white, or there is healthy, live flesh in the se'eith, יוְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה שְׂאֵת לְבָנָה בָּעוֹר וְהִיא הָפְכָה שֵׂעָר לָבָן וּמִחְיַת בָּשָׂר חַי בַּשְׂאֵת:
healthy flesh: Heb. מִחְיַת, sa(y)nement in Old French, a healing. [It means that] part of the white in the se’eith lesion reverts to appear like [healthy] flesh. This is also a sign of uncleanness. [Hence, a sign of uncleanness is] either white hair without a מִחְיַָה, or a מִחְיַָה, an area of normal flesh, even without white hair. And even though מִחְיַָה is mentioned only in connection with the se’eith, nevertheless, in all [major] manifestations [of the lesion of tzara’ath] and their related categories, it is a sign of uncleanness. — [Torath Kohanim 13:69] ומחית: שינמינ"ט בלע"ז [רפוי], שנהפך מקצת הלובן שבתוך השאת למראה בשר, אף הוא סימן טומאה, שער לבן בלא מחיה, ומחיה בלא שער לבן, ואף על פי שלא נאמרה מחיה אלא בשאת, אף בכל המראות ותולדותיהן הוא סימן טומאה:
11it is old tzara'ath on the skin of his flesh, and the kohen shall pronounce him unclean; he need not quarantine him because he is unclean. יאצָרַעַת נוֹשֶׁנֶת הִוא בְּעוֹר בְּשָׂרוֹ וְטִמְּאוֹ הַכֹּהֵן לֹא יַסְגִּרֶנּוּ כִּי טָמֵא הוּא:
it is an old tzara’ath: It is an old lesion which is under the area of normal skin. This wound appears healthy on the surface, but it is full of fluid underneath, so that one should not say, “Since healthy skin has appeared over [the lesion], I shall pronounce it clean!” צרעת נושנת הוא: מכה ישנה היא תחת המחיה, וחבורה זו נראית בריאה מלמעלה ותחתיה מלאה לחה, שלא תאמר הואיל ועלתה מחיה אטהרנה:
12And if the tzara'ath has spread over the skin, whereby the tzara'ath covers all the skin of the [person with the] lesion, from his head to his feet, wherever the eyes of the kohen can see it, יבוְאִם פָּרוֹחַ תִּפְרַח הַצָּרַעַת בָּעוֹר וְכִסְּתָה הַצָּרַעַת אֵת כָּל עוֹר הַנֶּגַע מֵרֹאשׁוֹ וְעַד רַגְלָיו לְכָל מַרְאֵה עֵינֵי הַכֹּהֵן:
from his head: [I.e., from the head] of the person [down] to his feet. מראשו: של אדם ועד רגליו:
wherever the eyes of the kohen can see it: [This phrase] comes to exclude a kohen whose eyesight has dimmed. [I.e., a kohen with one blind eye or with impaired vision in both eyes may not pronounce the status of lesions.]- [Torath Kohanim 13:83] לכל מראה עיני הכהן: פרט לכהן שחשך מאורו:
13then the kohen shall look [at it]. And, behold! the tzara'ath has covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce [the person with] the lesion clean. He has turned completely white; he is clean. יגוְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה כִסְּתָה הַצָּרַעַת אֶת כָּל בְּשָׂרוֹ וְטִהַר אֶת הַנָּגַע כֻּלּוֹ הָפַךְ לָבָן טָהוֹר הוּא:
14But on the day that live flesh appears in it, he shall become unclean. ידוּבְיוֹם הֵרָאוֹת בּוֹ בָּשָׂר חַי יִטְמָא:
But on the day that live flesh appears in it: If healthy flesh grows on it, [Scripture] has already explained that healthy flesh is a sign of uncleanness. [Therefore, what is this verse telling us here?] However, a case where the lesion was located on one of twenty-four tips of the limbs is not deemed unclean on account of healthy flesh because the lesion cannot be seen all at one glance [once an area of healthy flesh appears within the lesion], since these [limb tips] slope down on either side. [Therefore it is not deemed unclean.] If, however, such a tip of a limb altered [in its form], allowing its slanted facet to appear through fat-for example, when the tip of a limb became fat and broadened, and the healthy flesh (מִחְיַָה) became visible within [the lesion, thereby allowing the lesion to become visible all at one glance], Scripture teaches us [here] that it becomes unclean. — [Torath Kohanim 13:86] וביום הראות בו בשר חי: אם צמחה בו מחיה הרי כבר פירש שהמחיה סימן טומאה, אלא הרי שהיה הנגע באחד מעשרים וארבעה ראשי איברים שאין מטמאין משום מחיה, לפי שאין נראה הנגע כולו כאחד ששופע אילך ואילך, וחזר ראש האבר ונתגלה שפועו ע"י שומן, כגון שהבריא ונעשה רחב ונראית בו המחיה, למדנו הכתוב שתטמא:
But on the day [that live flesh] appears: [The verse could have simply said, “But when live flesh appears.”] What does Scripture teach us [by saying,] “on the day”]? It [comes] to teach that there is a day on which you [the kohen] look [i.e., examine the suspected lesion], and there is a day on which you do not look [i.e., when he may not examine it]. From here [our Rabbis] say that a bridegroom is exempt [from having a lesion examined] throughout all the seven days of the wedding feast, for himself, his garments, and his house. Similarly, during a Festival [people] are exempt [from having a lesion examined] throughout all the days of the Festival. - [Torath Kohanim 13:87] וביום: מה תלמוד לומר, ללמד יש יום שאתה רואה בו ויש יום שאין אתה רואה בו, מכאן אמרו חתן נותנין לו כל שבעת ימי המשתה לו ולכסותו ולביתו, וכן ברגל נותנין לו כל ימי הרגל:
15When the kohen sees the healthy, live flesh, he shall pronounce him unclean. The live flesh is unclean; it is tzara'ath. טווְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַבָּשָׂר הַחַי וְטִמְּאוֹ הַבָּשָׂר הַחַי טָמֵא הוּא צָרַעַת הוּא:
it is tzara’ath: meaning, that flesh. Flesh (בָּשָׂר) is grammatically masculine. [Hence, the wording: צָרַעַת הוּא, rather than צָרַעַת הִיא, as in verse 8.] צרעת הוא: הבשר ההוא. בשר לשון זכר:
16But, if the healthy, live flesh once again turns white, he shall come to the kohen. טזאוֹ כִי יָשׁוּב הַבָּשָׂר הַחַי וְנֶהְפַּךְ לְלָבָן וּבָא אֶל הַכֹּהֵן:
17And the kohen shall look at it. And, behold! the lesion has turned white; the kohen shall pronounce the lesion clean. He is clean. יזוְרָאָהוּ הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה נֶהְפַּךְ הַנֶּגַע לְלָבָן וְטִהַר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַנֶּגַע טָהוֹר הוּא:
18If [a person's] flesh has an inflammation on its skin, and it heals, יחוּבָשָׂר כִּי יִהְיֶה בוֹ בְעֹרוֹ שְׁחִין וְנִרְפָּא:
an inflammation: Heb. שְׁחִין. [This term] denotes heat, that the flesh became heated by the injury caused it by a blow, not by fire. — [Chul. 8a] שחין: לשון חמום, שנתחמם הבשר בלקוי הבא לו מחמת מכה, שלא מחמת האור:
and it heals: The inflammation healed, and in its place, another lesion appeared. [Not that the flesh healed, because, were that the case, there would be no lesion.] ונרפא: השחין העלה ארוכה ובמקומו העלה נגע אחר:
19and on the place of the inflammation there is a white se'eith, or a reddish white bahereth, it shall be shown to the kohen. יטוְהָיָה בִּמְקוֹם הַשְּׁחִין שְׂאֵת לְבָנָה אוֹ בַהֶרֶת לְבָנָה אֲדַמְדָּמֶת וְנִרְאָה אֶל הַכֹּהֵן:
A reddish-white bahereth: [meaning] that the lesion is not solid white, but streaked and blended of two colors, white and red. או בהרת לבנה אדמדמת: שאין הנגע לבן חלק אלא פתוך ומעורב בשתי מראות לובן ואודם:
20The kohen shall look [at it]. And, behold! its appearance is lower than the skin, and its hair has turned white; so the kohen shall pronounce him unclean. It is a lesion of tzara'ath that has erupted on the inflammation. כוְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה מַרְאֶהָ שָׁפָל מִן הָעוֹר וּשְׂעָרָהּ הָפַךְ לָבָן וְטִמְּאוֹ הַכֹּהֵן נֶגַע צָרַעַת הִוא בַּשְּׁחִין פָּרָחָה:
it appearance is lower than the skin: But its substance is not lower. Rather, because of its whiteness, the lesion [only] appears lower and deeper [than the skin], just as sunlight appears deeper than a shadow. - [Torath Kohanim 13:50] מראה שפל: ואין ממשה שפל, אלא מתוך לבנוניתו הוא נראה שפל ועמוק, כמראה חמה עמוקה מן הצל:
21But if the kohen looks at it, and behold! it does not contain white hair, nor does it appear to be lower than the skin, and it is dim, the kohen shall quarantine him for seven days. כאוְאִם | יִרְאֶנָּה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה אֵין בָּהּ שֵׂעָר לָבָן וּשְׁפָלָה אֵינֶנָּה מִן הָעוֹר וְהִיא כֵהָה וְהִסְגִּירוֹ הַכֹּהֵן שִׁבְעַת יָמִים:
22And if it spreads on the skin, the kohen shall pronounce him unclean. It is a lesion. כבוְאִם פָּשׂה תִפְשֶׂה בָּעוֹר וְטִמֵּא הַכֹּהֵן אֹתוֹ נֶגַע הִוא:
It is a lesion: Heb. נֶגַע הִוא. [Here, the pronoun is feminine. Since נֶגַע is masculine, however, it requires the masculine pronoun הוּא. But our verse here uses the feminine הִיא because the word “it” is referring to] this se’eith or this bahereth [both of which are feminine]. נגע הוא: השאת הזאת או הבהרת:
23But if the bahereth remains in its place, not spreading, it is the scar tissue of the inflammation, and the kohen shall pronounce him clean. כגוְאִם תַּחְתֶּיהָ תַּעֲמֹד הַבַּהֶרֶת לֹא פָשָׂתָה צָרֶבֶת הַשְּׁחִין הִוא וְטִהֲרוֹ הַכֹּהֵן:
in its place: Heb. תַּחְתֶּיה, [lit., “under it,” here meaning:] In its place. תחתיה: במקומה:
it is the scar tissue of the inflamation: Heb. צָרֶבֶת הַשְּׁחִין, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders it: רוֹשַׁם שִׁיחִנָא, a residual impression of the inflammation, identifiable on the flesh [i.e., a scar]. Every expression of צָרֶבֶת [in Scripture] denotes the contraction of skin that has become shriveled because of heat. Similarly, the verse, “And all faces [from the south to the north] will be shriveled by it” (Ezek. 21:3), retrire in Old French, to contract. צרבת השחין: כתרגומו רושם שיחנא, אינו אלא רושם החמום הניכר בבשר. כל צרבת לשון רגיעת עור הנרגע מחמת חימום, כמו (יחזקאל כא ג) ונצרבו בה כל פנים, רייטרי"ר בלע"ז [לכווץ]:
it is scar tissue: Heb. צָרֶבֶת, retriyemant in Old French, shriveling. צרבת: ריטריימינ"ט בלע"ז [כיווץ]:
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 145 - 150
• Chapter 145
One who recites this psalm three times daily with absolute concentration is guaranteed a portion in the World to Come. Because of its prominence, this psalm was composed in alphabetical sequence.
1. A psalm of praise by David: I will exalt You, my God the King, and bless Your Name forever.
2. Every day I will bless You, and extol Your Name forever.
3. The Lord is great and exceedingly exalted; there is no limit to His greatness.
4. One generation to another will laud Your works, and tell of Your mighty acts.
5. I will speak of the splendor of Your glorious majesty and of Your wondrous deeds.
6. They will proclaim the might of Your awesome acts, and I will recount Your greatness.
7. They will express the remembrance of Your abounding goodness, and sing of Your righteousness.
8. The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and of great kindness.
9. The Lord is good to all, and His mercies extend over all His works.
10. Lord, all Your works will give thanks to You, and Your pious ones will bless You.
11. They will declare the glory of Your kingdom, and tell of Your strength,
12. to make known to men His mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of His kingdom.
13. Your kingship is a kingship over all worlds, and Your dominion is throughout all generations.
14. The Lord supports all who fall, and straightens all who are bent.
15. The eyes of all look expectantly to You, and You give them their food at the proper time.
16. You open Your hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing.
17. The Lord is righteous in all His ways, and benevolent in all His deeds.
18. The Lord is close to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth.
19. He fulfills the desire of those who fear Him, hears their cry and delivers them.
20. The Lord watches over all who love Him, and will destroy all the wicked.
21. My mouth will utter the praise of the Lord, and let all flesh bless His holy Name forever.
Chapter 146
This psalm inspires man to repent and perform good deeds while still alive. Let him not rely on mortals who are unable to help themselves, and who may suddenly pass on. Rather, one should put his trust in God, Who is capable of carrying out all He desires.
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord, O my soul.
2. I will sing to the Lord with my soul; I will chant praises to my God while I yet exist.
3. Do not place your trust in nobles, nor in mortal man who has not the ability to bring deliverance.
4. When his spirit departs, he returns to his earth; on that very day, his plans come to naught.
5. Fortunate is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope rests upon the Lord his God.
6. He makes the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them; He keeps His promise faithfully forever.
7. He renders justice to the oppressed; He gives food to the hungry; the Lord releases those who are bound.
8. The Lord opens the eyes of the blind; the Lord straightens those who are bowed; the Lord loves the righteous.
9. The Lord watches over the strangers; He gives strength to orphan and widow; He thwarts the way of the wicked.
10. The Lord shall reign forever, your God, O Zion, throughout all generations. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 147
This psalm recounts God's greatness, and His kindness and goodness to His creations.
1. Praise the Lord! Sing to our God for He is good; praise befits Him for He is pleasant.
2. The Lord is the rebuilder of Jerusalem; He will gather the banished of Israel.
3. He heals the broken-hearted, and bandages their wounds.
4. He counts the number of the stars; He gives a name to each of them.
5. Great is our Master and abounding in might; His understanding is beyond reckoning.
6. The Lord strengthens the humble; He casts the wicked to the ground.
7. Lift your voices to the Lord in gratitude; sing to our God with the harp.
8. He covers the heaven with clouds; He prepares rain for the earth, and makes grass grow upon the mountains.
9. He gives the animal its food, to the young ravens which cry to Him.
10. He does not desire [those who place their trust in] the strength of the horse, nor does He want those who rely upon the thighs [swiftness] of man.
11. He desires those who fear Him, those who long for His kindness.
12. Praise the Lord, O Jerusalem; Zion, extol your God.
13. For He has strengthened the bolts of your gates; He has blessed your children in your midst.
14. He has made peace within your borders; He satiates you with the finest of wheat.
15. He issues His command to the earth; swiftly does His word run.
16. He dispenses snow like fleece; He scatters frost like ashes.
17. He hurls His ice like morsels; who can withstand His cold?
18. He sends forth His word and melts them; He causes His wind to blow, and the waters flow.
19. He tells His words [Torah] to Jacob, His statutes and ordinances to Israel.
20. He has not done so for other nations, and they do not know [His] ordinances. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 148
The psalmist inspires one to praise God for His creations-above and below-all of which exist by God's might alone.
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise Him in the celestial heights.
2. Praise Him, all His angels; praise Him, all His hosts.
3. Praise Him, sun and moon; praise Him, all the shining stars.
4. Praise Him, hea-ven of heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens.
5. Let them praise the Name of the Lord, for He comman-ded and they were created.
6. He has established them forever, for all time; He issued a decree, and it shall not be transgressed.
7. Praise the Lord from the earth, sea-monsters and all [that dwell in] the depths;
8. fire and hail, snow and vapor, stormy wind carrying out His command;
9. the mountains and all hills, fruit-bearing trees and all cedars;
10. the beasts and all cattle, creeping things and winged fowl;
11. kings of the earth and all nations, rulers and all judges of the land;
12. young men as well as maidens, elders with young lads.
13. Let them praise the Name of the Lord, for His Name is sublime, to Himself; its radiance [alone] is upon earth and heaven.
14. He shall raise the glory of His people, [increase] the praise of all His pious ones, the Children of Israel, the people close to Him. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 149
1. Praise the Lord! Sing to the Lord a new song, [recount] His praise in the assembly of the pious.
2. Israel will rejoice in its Maker; the children of Zion will delight in their King.
3. They will praise His Name with dancing; they will sing to Him with the drum and harp.
4. For the Lord desires His people; He will adorn the humble with salvation.
5. The pious will exult in glory; they will sing upon their beds.
6. The exaltation of God is in their throat, and a double-edged sword in their hand,
7. to bring retribution upon the nations, punishment upon the peoples;
8. to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with iron fetters;
9. to execute upon them the prescribed judgment; it shall be a glory for all His pious ones. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 150
This psalm contains thirteen praises, alluding to the Thirteen Attributes (of Mercy) with which God conducts the world.
1. Praise the Lord! Praise God in His holiness; praise Him in the firmament of His strength.
2. Praise Him for His mighty acts; praise Him according to His abundant greatness.
3. Praise Him with the call of the shofar; praise Him with harp and lyre.
4. Praise Him with timbrel and dance; praise Him with stringed instruments and flute.
5. Praise Him with resounding cymbals; praise Him with clanging cymbals.
6. Let every soul praise the Lord. Praise the Lord!
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 43• Lessons in Tanya
• Sunday, Nissan 30, 5775 · April 19, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 43
The Alter Rebbe now explains that there are also two general levels in the love of God. The higher level is called ahavah rabbah (“great love”). It is a gift from above, granted to an individual after he has attained the level of yirah ila‘ah. This love is so lofty that one cannot hope to achieve it unaided.
The second and lower level of love is attained by contemplating G‑d’s greatness. It is calledahavat olam (“eternal love,” and more literally, “love of the world”), because it emanates from one’s comprehension of the world, i.e., from one’s appreciation of the G‑dly life-force that animates the world.
והנה באהבה יש גם כן שתי מדרגות, אהבה רבה ואהבת עולם. אהבה רבה היא אהבה בתענוגים
Now, in love too there are two grades — ahavah rabbah and ahavat olam. Ahavah rabbah is a love of delight [and ecstasy], a love of G‑d which delights in Him. There is no other desire or goal present, such as the desire to cleave to Him or to expire in one’s yearning for Him. The love itself is comprised purely of delight in Him and cleaving to Him,
והיא שלהבת העולה מאליה
and it is a fiery flame that rises of itself. Man does not create or kindle this love within himself; rather, it comes forth spontaneously,
ובאה מלמעלה בבחינת מתנה למי שהוא שלם ביראה, כנודע על מאמר רז״ל: דרכו של איש לחזר אחר אשה, שאהבה נקראת איש וזכר, כמו שכתוב: זכר חסדו
and it comes from above by way of a gift to him who is perfect in fear, as is known from the saying of the Rabbis, of blessed memory:1 “The way of a man is to search for a woman.” And in spiritual terms: Love is called “man” or “male”, as it is written:2 “He has remembered his lovingkindness.”
The second letter of the verb (זכר) is vocalized with a patach; changing this vowel to akamatz makes it mean “male”. Thus, love is alluded to as “male”,
ואשה יראת ה׳, כנודע
while a woman [symbolizes] “fear of G‑d,” as is known.
The connection between a female and the fear of G‑d is alluded to by the verse that says,3“a G‑d-fearing woman.” This, then, is the spiritual meaning of the statement of the Sages, “The way of a man is to search for a woman”: the level of love (“man”) is revealed from above (“to search for”) where the level of fear (“woman”) is already present and complete.
ובלי קדימת היראה אי אפשר להגיע לאהבה רבה זו, כי אהבה זו היא מבחינת אצילות, דלית תמן קיצו׳ ופירוד, חס ושלום
Without the prerequisite of fear, it is impossible to attain the level of ahavah rabbah, for this love originates from the realm of Atzilut wherein there is no sundering or separateness, G‑d forbid.
In the World of Atzilut nothing exists which is separate from G‑dliness; nothing at that level feels that it exists independently of G‑d, and everything in Atzilut is totally nullified to G‑dliness. Understandably, the love that emanates from such a level cannot light upon one whose fear of G‑d is imperfect, and who still perceives himself as existing independently of Him. Complete self-abnegation is a prerequisite for this level of love.
אך אהבת עולם היא הבאה מהתבונה ודעת בגדולת ה׳, אין סוף ברוך הוא, הממלא כל עלמין וסובב כל עלמין
Ahavat olam, however, the second and lower level of love, is that which comes from the understanding and knowledge of the greatness of G‑d, the blessed Ein Sof,Who fills all worlds, animating them with a permeating mode of vitality, which is limited and tailored to the capacity of each creature, and encompasses all worlds, animating them with a vitality which transcends them, not being limited by the worlds and created beings it animates.
וכולא קמיה כלא ממש חשיב, וכביטול דבור אחד בנפש המשכלת בעודו במחשבתה או בחמדת הלב כנ״ל
and before Whom everything is accounted as nothing at all, like the nullity of one utterance within the intelligent soul while it is still in its thought or in the desire of the heart, as has been explained earlier.4
אשר על ידי התבוננות זו ממילא תתפשט מדת האהבה שבנפש מלבושיה
As a result of such contemplation the attribute of love which is in the soul will as a matter of course divest itself of its garments, which it had previously worn.
This means to say that the individual will cease loving those things he had previously loved (this love having previously led him to vest himself in those things), and all his love will be directed to G‑d alone.
דהיינו: שלא תתלבש בשום דבר הנאה ותענוג גשמי או רוחני, לאהבה אותו, ולא לחפו׳ כלל שום דבר בעולם בלתי ה׳ לבדו, מקור החיים של כל התענוגים
I.e., it will not clothe itself in anything of pleasure or enjoyment whether physical or spiritual, to love it, and will not desire anything whatever in the world other than G‑d alone, the Source of the vitality of all enjoyments,
שכולם בטילים במציאות, וכלא ממש קמיה חשיבי, ואין ערוך ודמיון כלל ביניהם, חס ושלום, כמו שאין ערוך לאין ואפס המוחלט לגבי חיים נצחיים
for they are all nullified in reality and are accounted as nothing at all, compared with Him, there being no manner of comparison or similitude between them, G‑d forbid — between all worldly pleasures and G‑d, the “Source of the vitality” of all pleasures, just as there is no comparison between that which is absolutely naught and nothing — and everlasting life.
Reflecting on this matter will lead the person to desire G‑d alone, and not to desire any worldly pleasures at all, seeking as he will the Source of all pleasures, which is G‑dliness.
וכמו שכתוב: מי לי בשמים, ועמך לא חפצתי באר׳
As it is written,5 “Whom have I in Heaven [to love other than G‑d]?” The verse goes on to say: “And there is nothing upon earth that I desire with You.”
This means to say that anything “with You” — that is subjugated and nullified to G‑d — is not desired as well.
כלה שארי ולבבי, צור לבבי וגו׳, וכמו שכתוב לקמן
The next verse continues: “My flesh and my heart yearn for You, Rock of my heart...,” as the various levels of love a Jew may attain by contemplating G‑d’s greatnesswill be explained later.6
All the above refers to a person who has a love for worldly matters, and divests himself of this love because of his contemplation of G‑d’s greatness. His love will then be felt for G‑d rather than for mundane things.
However, he who by nature is cold and removed from any feelings of love, whether to G‑d or otherwise, cannot simply transfer his love. It is much more difficult for such a person to awaken a feeling of love for G‑d. Nevertheless, the Alter Rebbe goes on to say, even he can arouse within himself a fiery love for G‑d through the above-mentioned contemplation.
וגם מי שאין מדת אהבה שבנפשו מלובשת כלל בשום תענוג גשמי אורוחני, יכול להלהיב נפשו כרשפי אש ושלהבת עזה ולהב העולה השמימה, על ידי התבוננות הנ״ל, כמו שכתוב לקמן
Also he, whose soul’s attribute of love is not vested at all in any physical or spiritual enjoyment, is able to kindle his soul as with burning coals and an intense fire and a flame that soars heavenward, by contemplating the above-mentioned matters, as shall be explained later on.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Kiddushin 2b. |
| 2. | Tehillim 98:3. |
| 3. | Mishlei 31:30. |
| 4. | Chs. 20-21. |
| 5. | Tehillim 73:25-26. |
| 6. | In ch. 44. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Sunday, Nissan 30, 5775 · April 19, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 126
The Priestly Tithe
"The first of your grain...you shall give to him"—Deuteronomy 18:4.
We are commanded to separate from our harvest Terumah Gedolah [the "great tithe." This tithe is given to the priest.]
This biblical precept only applies in the Land of Israel.
Tithe
Positive Commandment 126
Translated by Berel Bell
The 126th mitzvah is that we are commanded to separate terumah gedolah1 [from our crops].
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "You must give him [the Kohen] the first portion of your grain, [wine and oil]."
This Biblical prohibition applies only in Eretz Yisroel.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Terumos.
FOOTNOTES
1.One can fulfill the Biblical command by giving even a tiny amount. By Rabbinic decree, however, one must give approximately 1/50th of the total amount.
2.Deut. 18:4.
Positive Commandment 129
The Levite's Priestly Tithe
"Speak to the Levites and tell them: When you take from the Children of Israel the tithe that I have given to you from them as your inheritance, then you shall offer up from it a gift for G‑d, a tenth of the tenth"—Numbers 18:26.
The Levites are commanded to separate a tenth from the tithe that they receive from the Israelites, and to give it to the priest. This tithe is called Maaser min Hamaaser or Terumat Maaser.
The Levites are commanded to give this tithe from the choicest of the produce.
Tithe
Positive Commandment 129
Translated by Berel Bell
The 129th mitzvah is that the Levites are commanded to give the kohanim ma'aser (one-tenth) from the ma'aser they themselves get from the Israelites.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "Speak to the Levites and say to them: 'When you take from the Israelites the ma'aser that I have given you as your inheritance from them, you must separate from it G‑d's terumah, ma'aser from the ma'aser' "
The Torah explains that this ma'aser, which is called terumas ma'aser, is given to the Kohen. This is seen from the verse,2 "And you must give it as G‑d's terumah to Aharon the Kohen."
The Torah also explains that this ma'aser must be given from the choicest and the best, as the verse3 says, "[You must separate G‑d's terumah] from the choicest as its dedicated portion."
[In the next few paragraphs, the Rambam addresses the prohibition against giving terumas ma'aser from inferior produce. He proves that although this appears to count as a separate prohibition, in actuality it does not.]
The Torah then points out that it is a sin not to take from the choice portion, as the verse4 says, "You do not bear any sin if you separate from the choicest." This is an implied prohibition — saying "you won't get a sin if you separate from the best" as a way of implying that it is a sin if you give from inferior produce.
This statement is therefore considered like a lav haba miklal aseh (a prohibition derived from a positive command), which is not counted as a separate prohibition.5 It is just that since one is commanded to give from the choicest, one automatically learns that the opposite is forbidden.
In the words of the Sifri: "What is the source of the law that one who gives from the inferior [produce] is committing a sin? From the verse, 'You do not bear any sin if you separate from the choicest.' "
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractates Terumos, Ma'aseros, and a number of passages in Demai.
FOOTNOTES
1.Num. 18:26.
2.Ibid. 18:28.
3.Ibid. 18:29.
4.Ibid. 18:32.
5.See Introductory Principle 8.
Shabbos - Chapter Eighteen
Halacha 1
A person who transfers an article from a private domain into the public domain, or from the public domain into the private domain is not liable,1 unless he transfers an amount that will be beneficial [to accomplish a purpose].2 The following are the minimum amounts for which one is liable for transferring:3
Halacha 2
[The minimum measure for which one is liable for transferring] wine is a quarter of a revi'it;7 if it has congealed, a k'zayit. For the milk of a kosher animal, a gulp.8 For non-kosher milk, enough to apply to one eye. For a woman's milk and egg-white, enough to put in an ointment. For oil, enough to anoint the the small toe of a newborn infant.
Halacha 3
[The minimum measure for which one is liable for transferring] straw from grain is a cow's mouthful.14 Straw from beans, a camel's mouthful.15 If, however, one transfers bean straw with the expressed purpose of feeding it to a cow, one is liable for transferring a cow's mouthful.16 Eating that involves difficulty is still considered to be eating. Straws from the ears of grain,17 a lamb's mouthful.18Grass, a kid's mouthful.19
Leaves of garlic and leaves of onion20 when fresh are considered to be human food. Hence, their measure is the size of a dried fig. When they are dry, their measure is a kid's mouthful.
[Should one take out a combination of these substances,] their amounts should not be combined to hold one liable according to the more stringent measure. They should, however, be combined to hold one liable according to the more lenient measure. What is implied? When a person takes out both straw from grain and straw from beans, if the amount he takes out is enough to fill a cow's mouth, he is not liable.21 If it is enough to fill a camel's mouth, he is liable.22 The same applies regarding all similar dimensions of the Sabbath laws.
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
[The minimum measure for which one is liable for transferring] spices is the amount necessary to spice an egg. [Different] spices can be combined [to make up this measure].28
Pepper,29 even the slightest amount. Pine sap,30 even the slightest amount.31 A substance with a pleasant fragrance, even the slightest amount.32 A substance with an unpleasant fragrance, even the slightest amount.33 Perfumes, even the slightest amount. Fine purpled dye,34 even the slightest amount. Rosebuds, even the slightest amount.
Pieces from utensils made from hard metal35 - e.g., bronze or iron - even the slightest amount. [Chips] from the stones of the altar, or from the earth of the altar,36 [pieces] of decayed scrolls or their wrapping cloths,37 even the slightest amount, for [these articles] are [required to be] entombed.38
Halacha 6
A person who transfers seeds of garden plants41 that are not fit for human consumption42 is liable for [transferring] a measure that is almost the size of a dried fig.43 [A person is liable for transferring] two cucumber seeds, two gourd seeds, and five Egyptian bean seeds.44
[A person who] transfers coarse bran [is liable for transferring a quantity] fit to place on the opening of the crucible of a gold refiner.45 [The measure for which a person is liable for transferring] fine bran [depends on his intent]: If [he intends to use the bran as] food [for humans], the measure is the size of a dried fig. As food for animals, a kid's mouthful. For paint, enough to paint a small cloth.
The buds of shrubs46 and carobs that have not yet become sweet, the size of a dried fig. After they become sweet, a mouthful of a kid. In contrast, luf,47mustard, turmos,48and all other foods that are pickled, whether they have become sweet or not, [the measure for which one is liable is] the size of a dried fig.49
Halacha 7
[When a person] transfers seeds50 to eat, [he is liable for transferring] five. [If his intent] is to use them as fuel, they are considered to be wood.51 For counting,52 two, for sowing, two.
[Similarly, the measure for which a person is liable for transferring] hyssop [depends on his intent]. If [his intent] is for human consumption, he is liable for [an amount equal to] the size of a dried fig. For fuel, the measure of wood; for sprinkling,53 the measure acceptable for sprinkling.
Halacha 8
[A person who] transfers nut shells, pomegranate shells, isatis,54 pu'ah,55 and other dyes [is liable for transferring a quantity] that is sufficient to dye a small garment - e.g.,56 the hairnet young girls place on their heads.
Similarly, one who transfers urine that is forty days old,57 Alexandrian niter, soap, cimonia, ashlag,58 and all other cleansing agents [is liable for transferring] the amount necessary to wash a small garment - e.g., the hairnet young girls place on their heads.
A person who transfers herbs that are soaking [is liable for transferring] an amount sufficient to dye a sample for a weaver.
Halacha 9
A person who transfers ink on a quill [is liable for transferring] a measure sufficient to write two letters.59 If, however, a person removes [the dried concentrate used to make] ink or ink in an inkwell, a larger amount is necessary [for him to be liable], i.e., the amount necessary for a person to dip a pen in and write two letters.
If [a person transfers] enough [ink] to write one letter in an inkwell and enough [ink] to write one letter on a quill or enough dry ink to write one letter and enough ink to write one letter on a quill, there is a doubt whether he is liable or not.60
[When a person takes out enough ink to write] two letters and writes them as he is walking, he is liable. Writing them is considered to be placing them down.61[When a person takes out enough ink to write] one letter and writes and then takes out [enough ink to write] a second letter and writes it, he is not liable.62For [the ink for] the first letter is lacking.63
Halacha 10
[A person who transfers] eye paint, whether for medicinal64 or cosmetic purposes, [is liable for transferring an amount sufficient] to paint one eye.65 In places where [a woman] would not apply eye paint to less than two eyes as a cosmetic practice,66 a person who takes out eye paint for cosmetic purposes is not liable unless he takes out a quantity sufficient to paint two eyes.
Halacha 11
[A person who transfers] red clay71 [is liable for transferring an amount] sufficient to make a seal for a letter.72Clay, enough to make the opening of a crucible.73
Manure or fine sand, enough to fertilize a leek. Coarse sand, enough to mix with a full trowel of lime.74 Firm clay,75 enough to make the opening of a goldsmith's crucible. Hair, enough to mix with clay to make the opening of a goldsmith's crucible.76 Lime, enough to apply to a girl's smallest finger.77 Dust or ash, enough to cover the blood of a small bird.78 A pebble, enough for an animal to feel if it was thrown at it79 - i.e., the weight of ten zuzim. A shard, enough to contain a revi'it.
Halacha 12
[A person who transfers] rope [is liable for transferring an amount] sufficient to make a handle for a container. Reeds,80 enough to make a hook to hang a sifter or a sieve.81 Palm leaves, enough to make a handle for an Egyptian basket. Palm bast, enough to use as a stopper for a small pitcher of wine.82Unprocessed wool, enough to make a ball the size of a nut.
Bone, enough to make a spoon. Glass, to sharpen the point of a weaver's needle or to cut two threads at once.83
Halacha 13
[A person] is liable for transferring two hairs from the tail of a horse or of a cow.84 If he transfers one bristle from a pig's [back],85 he is liable. Fibers from a date palm, two. The bark of the date branches, one.86
From cotton, from silk, camel's wool, rabbit's wool, wool from an animal of the sea, or any other fibers that can be spun, enough to spin a thread four handbreadths long.87
When a person transfers cloth, sack, or leather, the same minimum measurements that apply with regard to the laws of ritual purity also apply with regard to transferring [on the Sabbath]: [The size of] a cloth for which one is liable for transferring] is three [fingerbreadths] by three [fingerbreadths];88sackcloth,89 four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths]; leather, five [handbreadths] by five [handbreadths].90
Halacha 14
When a person transfers an animal hide that was not processed at all and is thus soft, the measure [for which he is liable] is enough to wrap a small weight the size of a shekel. When [it is in the first stages of being processed - i.e.,] salt has been applied to it, but not flour and gall-nut juice, the measure [for which one is liable] is enough to make an amulet.91 If flour has been applied to it, but not gall-nut juice, the measure is enough to write a bill of divorce upon it. If it has been processed entirely, its measure is five [handbreadths] by five [handbreadths].
Halacha 15
[A person who transfers] processed parchment92 [is liable for transferring a piece] sufficient for the passage from Shema to uvish'arecha.93 Duchsustos, enough to write a mezuzah on it.
Paper, enough to write on it two letters for a customs officer's receipt. These two letters are larger than the letters we [usually write]. A person who transfers a customs officer's receipt is liable even though he has already shown it to the customs officer and has been exempted because of it,94 for it will serve forever as proof [of his having paid].
Halacha 16
A person who transfers an animal, a wild beast, or a fowl is liable even if it is alive. A living person, by contrast, is not considered to be a burden.97Nevertheless, if he is bound or sick, a person who transfers him is liable.98
A woman may walk her son if he can pick up one foot and place down the other.99
Halacha 17
A person who transfers a living child with a purse hanging around his neck is liable, because of the purse, for the purse is not considered to be subsidiary to the child.100 If, however, one transfers an adult who is wearing clothes and rings on his hands, one is not liable, for everything is considered to be subsidiary to him. If, by contrast, his garments were folded [and held] on his shoulder,101 a person who carries him is liable.
Halacha 18
[A person who transfers] a live locust of the smallest size [is liable].102 If it is dead, [he is liable for transferring an amount] the size of a dried fig.103 [For transferring] "a bird of the vineyards,"104 [one is liable for transferring] even the smallest amount, regardless of whether it is alive or dead, since it is preserved for medicinal105 purposes.106 The same applies in all similar cases.
The minimum measure for which one is liable for transferring [flesh from] a human corpse, [flesh from] the carcass of an animal, or [flesh from] a dead crawling animal107 is the same as the minimum amount of these substances capable of imparting ritual impurity: From a human corpse108 and from an animal carcass,109 the size of an olive. From a crawling animal,110 the size of a lentil.
Halacha 19
If there is exactly an olive-sized portion [of an animal carcass in one place] and a person removes a portion half the size of an olive111 from it, he is liable. [This decision is rendered,] because his actions are effective in reducing [the amount of impure substance to the extent] that the minimum amount that can convey impurity is no longer present.
If, however, he removes a quantity aproximately half the size of an olive from a quantity that is one and a half times the size of an olive, he is not liable.112 The same principles apply with regard to other sources of impurity.
Halacha 20
When does [the abovementioned rule,] that a person is liable only when he transfers the minimum of a standard measure of a substance, apply? When the person transfers the substance without any specific intent.113 If, however, a person transfers a [seed] to sow,114 or a substance for medicinal purposes, to show as an example, or the like,115 he is liable for the slightest amount.
Halacha 21
Should a person who stores a substance to use as seed, or to use for medicinal purposes, or a substance to be shown as a sample, [afterwards,] forget the reason for which he stored the substance,116 and remove it117 without any specific intent,118 he is liable regardless of its size.119 Another person, by contrast, is not liable [if he transfers this article] unless it is of the prescribed measure.120
If after transferring the article [for the intent he originally had], the person throws it into a storeroom, even if it is [set aside] in a distinct place,121 his original intent is considered to have been nullified. Therefore, if he brings in the article afterwards, he is not liable unless it is of the prescribed measure.
Halacha 22
When an entity is not usually stored away,122 nor is it fit to be stored away123 - e.g., a woman's menstrual discharge - a person who stores it and then transfers it is liable.124 Other people, by contrast, are exempt for [transferring] such an article, for [in general] one is not liable unless one transfers an article that is fit to be stored and that people generally store.
Halacha 23
A person who transfers half125 of the prescribed measure [of a substance] is not liable.126 Similarly, a person who performs half the measure of any of the other [forbidden] labors is not liable.
If a person transfers half of the prescribed measure [of a substance], places it down, and then returns and transfers the second half, he is liable.127 If, however, he picks up the first half before he places down the second half, it is as if [the first half] were burned,128 and he is not liable.
When a person transfers half of the prescribed measure [of a substance], places it down, and then returns and transfers the second half, passing it over the first [half without placing it on the ground], he is liable [if the second half] is [held] within three handbreadths of the first half.129 [The rationale is] that transferring is considered equivalent to placing the object down on a substance.
Halacha 24
[When a person] transfers half the prescribed measure [of a substance], and afterwards transfers another half of the prescribed measure [of that substance] to the same domain in a single period of unawareness, he is liable.132
[Different rules apply if] he transfers [the two half-measures] to two different domains. If there is a domain into which one would be liable [for transferring an article interposed] between [the two domains], one is not liable [for transferring these two halves].133 If there is a carmelit between them, they are considered to be a single domain,134 and [the person who transfers the two half-measures] is liable to bring a sin offering.135
Halacha 25
When a person transfers less than the prescribed measure [of a substance], but before he places it down, [the substance] swells in size and reaches the prescribed measure [he is not liable].136 Similarly, one is not liable if one transfers more than the prescribed measure [of a substance], but before he places it down [the substance] diminishes in size and becomes less than the prescribed measure.
Halacha 26
[The following rule applies when] a person transfers a portion [of a food] the size of a dried fig with the intent of eating it,137 but before he places it down it diminishes in size: If he [reconsiders and] decides to use it to sow, or for medicinal purposes,138 he is liable, because of the intent he had at the time he placed it down.139
If a person transfers [a quantity of seeds] smaller than the size of a dried fig with the intent of sowing them, but before he places them down, changes his mind and decides to eat them, he is not liable.140 If [the seeds] swell in size before they are placed down and reach the size of a dried fig before141 he changes his mind [and decides to] eat them, he is liable.142 Even if he had not change his mind, he would still have been liable because of his original intent.
Halacha 27
When a person transfers a portion [of a food] the size of a dried fig with the intent of eating it, it diminishes in size, and then it swells [to the size of a dried fig] again before it is placed down, there is a question [whether he is liable or not]: [Does the fact that in the interim, it was not of sufficient size for its transfer to incur liability cause that liability] to be deferred [forever] or not?143
When a person throws a portion of the food the size of an olive into a house that is impure144 and by doing so, complements the quantity of food145 that was already in the house, causing there to be an amount [of food] the size of an egg [in the impure house], there is a question [whether he is liable or not]: Is he liable for transferring [the portion of] food that is equivalent to the size of an olive, because he completed the measure of food that is significant with regard to the laws of ritual impurity, or is he not liable?146
Halacha 28
A person who transfers less than the standard measure [of a substance] is not liable even though he transfers it in a container. [The rationale is that] the container is subsidiary [to its contents]; [when the person transfers it,] he is concerned not with the container, but with its contents.147
Accordingly, if a person transfers a man who is alive and who is not bound on a bed, he is not liable,148 for the bed is considered to be subsidiary to the man. These principles apply in all similar situations.
A person who transfers a perfumer's box is liable for only a single [sin offering], although it contains many different types [of scents].149 [Similarly,] even if he transfers [several items] in his hand,150 he is liable for only a single sin offering, for [he has performed] a single act of transfer.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
All the authorities agree that a person is not liable until he transfers an amount of a substance large enough to be of benefit to a person, and that it is forbidden to transfer any article regardless of its size. The commentaries question, however, whether transferring less than a beneficial amount is forbidden according to Torah law or whether the prohibition is merely Rabbinic in origin.
Liability for most of the prohibitions of the Torah is associated with a specific measure (שיעור). For example, with regard to the majority of the prohibitions against eating forbidden foods, one is liable only if one eats a k'zayit (a measure of food the size of an olive). Should one eat less than that amount (חצי שיעור), one is considered to have transgressed the Torah's commandment. Nevertheless, one is not liable for punishment. (See Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 3:6, 7:15.)
The Mishneh LaMelech states that this same principle applies with regard to transferring objects on the Sabbath. Although one is liable only for transferring a beneficial amount, transferring any amount is forbidden by the Torah itself.
Note, however, Totza'ot Chayim (8) and others, who explain that according to the Rambam, there is no concept of חצי שיע ור with regard to the prohibition against work on the Sabbath. On the Sabbath, a person is liable only for performing מלאכת מחשבת, "purposeful work." If an activity is not in itself beneficial, it does not serve a purpose. Therefore, it is not forbidden by the Torah on the Sabbath.
Kinat Eliyahu notes that in Halachah 23, the Rambam states that "A person who transfers half of the prescribed measure [of a substance] is not liable." According to the principles the Rambam states in Chapter 1, Halachah 3, the use of the term "is not liable" (פטור) indicates that the prohibition was instituted by our Sages. Significantly, in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot, loc. cit., and in other places where the Rambam discusses this issue, he uses the term אסור, "forbidden." Thus the use of the term פטור in regard to the Sabbath laws clearly indicates a difference. See alsoS'dei Chemed, Klallim, Ma'areches Chatzi Shiur.
|
| 2. |
See Chapter 12, Halachah 9, and notes.
|
| 3. |
In this and in the following halachot, the Rambam proceeds to list the minimum amounts for which one is liable for transferring particular substances. As explained in Halachot 20-21, this applies when one transfers an object without any specific intent. If, however, one intends to use the article one transfers for a specific purpose, one is liable for transferring even a smaller amount.
|
| 4. |
As the Rambam mentions in Chapter 8, Halachah 5, he considers a dried fig to be one-third the size of an egg. (As mentioned in the notes on that halachah, there are differing opinions regarding this measure.) Eating a smaller amount of food would not be significant at all. Therefore, one is not liable.
|
| 5. |
I.e., it is not that one must transfer an amount equal to the size of a dried fig from one particular type of food. Even if one transfers this amount from a combination of different foods, one is liable.
|
| 6. |
For they are not food.
|
| 7. |
Shabbat 8:1 states "wine, enough to mix a cup." In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that a cup refers to the cup over which the grace after meals was recited, which must contain a revi'it. The wines of the Talmudic period were stronger, and it was customary to mix three portions of water to every portion of wine.
|
| 8. |
Tosafot 76b defines this as מלא לוגמיו, "a cheekful." The Maggid Mishneh, however, explains that a smaller measure is intended.
|
| 9. |
The popular translation of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.) mentions "river water" instead of "dew." Rav Kapach explains, however, that this is an erroneous translation of the Arabic, and there, too, the Rambam's intent is "dew."
|
| 10. |
Rav Moshe Cohen objects to the fact that the Rambam mentioned a measure that is not spoken of in the Babylonian Talmud. The Maggid Mishneh notes that the Rambam's source is in the Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 8:1), which he favors in this instance, because there is a difference of opinion on this matter in the Babylonian Talmud.
|
| 11. |
This represents somewhat of a new concept, because generally the Sages followed the principle (Shabbat 78a) that whenever an object has both an uncommon use and a common use, we follow the more lenient measure. For this reason, kosher milk, although just as beneficial as an eyewash as non-kosher milk, is considered to be a food. Accordingly, it is given a more lenient measure.
If so, the fact that honey is considered to be a salve instead of food raises questions. The Talmud, however, explains that since honey is also very commonly used as a salve, there is no difficulty.
|
| 12. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:8), the Rambam interprets this is as sores that come from improper amputations. (Note Rav Kapach's translation, which differs slightly from the standard text.)
|
| 13. |
This is useful for mixing clay for building (Shabbat 78a).
|
| 14. |
This is the most common use for this substance.
|
| 15. |
A larger measure than stated previously. Bean straw is harder than grain straw and is therefore given to camels, who have stronger jaws and larger mouths.
|
| 16. |
This reflects a general principle applicable with regard to the minimum measures for which one is liable for transferring: When a person has an individual desire for an object that makes it beneficial for him, he is liable even though most people would not use that object for that purpose. (See Halachah 20.)
|
| 17. |
This refers to softer straw that need not be chewed as forcefully as the straw from grain mentioned at the beginning of the halachah ( Tiferet Yisrael, Shabbat 7:4). Hence, it is suitable for smaller animals with smaller and less-powerful mouths.
|
| 18. |
A lamb's mouthful is equal to the size of a dried fig. Nevertheless, our Sages speak in terms of a lamb so that we will understand the motivating principle for this measure (Tosafot, Shabbat 76a).
|
| 19. |
This is the smallest measure in this halachah.
|
| 20. |
I.e., the leaves that sprout above ground (Tosefot Yom Tov, Shabbat 7:4).
|
| 21. |
Since the cow will not normally eat the bean straw, the amount of straw the person has taken out is not beneficial. Hence, he is not l iable.
|
| 22. |
For the camel will eat the grain straw. Thus, the person has taken out an amount of fodder that will be beneficial.
|
| 23. |
This is the food that requires the least heat to cook (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah,Shabbat 8:5).
|
| 24. |
The egg will then cook faster. Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.).
|
| 25. |
In the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), he mentions that the pot is already preheated, so that the wood must produce sufficient heat to cook the egg alone, and not to warm the pot as well.
|
| 26. |
In the Talmudic era, it was common for the point of a reed to be sharpened to serve as a pen in a manner similar to a quill.
|
| 27. |
I.e., the amount to cook a portion of an egg, as mentioned in the beginning of the halachah.
|
| 28. |
The rationale is that all spices serve a similar purpose (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah,Shabbat 9:5).
|
| 29. |
Rashi (Shabbat 90a) explains that this does not refer to the species of pepper used as a spice (for if so, there is no reason to differentiate between it and other spices), but rather to a different species, which is used as a breath freshener.
|
| 30. |
See the notes on Chapter 5, Halachah 10, regarding our translation of the name of this substance.
|
| 31. |
Rashi (Shabbat 90a) states that this was used as a remedy for headaches. Even the slightest amount was beneficial.
|
| 32. |
For people will appreciate its fragrance.
|
| 33. |
For people will appreciate the removal of an unpleasant odor. Rashi (Shabbat 90a) offers a different interpretation.
|
| 34. |
This also has a pleasant fragrance (Rashi).
|
| 35. |
Our translation follows the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 9:6), which notes that these metals are mentioned in connection with spices and explains that this refers to parts of a utensil used for crushing spices. Even a small portion of metal is beneficial, because it can be fashioned into a needle or pin.
|
| 36. |
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:15.
|
| 37. |
See Hilchot Sefer Torah 10:3-4.
|
| 38. |
As mentioned in the sources cited in the previous two notes, we are obligated to show respect for even the slightest piece of any of these articles and entomb them, rather than allow them to be discarded as trash. Accordingly, even the smallest amount is considered significant. Hence, one is liable for transferring it on the Sabbath.
|
| 39. |
For it may be used for cooking, or kindling a fire.
|
| 40. |
Beitzah 39a explains that a flame has no substance. Hence, one is not liable. This applies, however, only when the person carries only a flame and not the coal, or the piece of wood that is burning.
|
| 41. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 9:7), the Rambam interprets this as referring to carrot seeds, turnip seeds, or onion seeds. (We have used Rav Kapach's translation which differs slightly from the standard text.)
|
| 42. |
Were the seeds fit for human consumption, the minimum measure for which one would be liable would be the size of a dried fig. We assume that the primary reason for which a person would transfer seeds is to serve as food. Since these seeds, by contrast, are not fit for human consumption, they are given a smaller measure.
Rashi (Shabbat 90a) differs and explains that this law applies even to seeds that are fit for human consumption. Although these seeds are also fit to be eaten, a person usually takes them out with the intent of sowing them.
|
| 43. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), where he interprets the Mishnaic phrase, פחות מכגרוגרת in this fashion. Note the Mayim Chayim, which interprets this as referring to a k'zayit.
|
| 44. |
Since these seeds were more valuable than those of most garden vegetables, they were assigned a smaller measure.
|
| 45. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:4), the Rambam explains that bran is placed on the opening of the crucible during the smelting process. Rav Kapach explains (based on his experience as a jeweler) that the bran is intended to burn, and in that process to clear away impurities that cloud the smelter's vision.
|
| 46. |
Which grow in vineyards. Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shvi'it 7:5).
|
| 47. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Pe'ah 6:10), the Rambam defines luf as a sub-species of onion.
|
| 48. |
A species of beans.
|
| 49. |
The commentaries note that although the Rambam's statements are based on the Tosefta, Shabbat 9:8, they are problematic, for there is another Tosefta (Ma'aser Sheni 1:13) that appears to be a direct contradiction. The difficulty is intensified by the fact that the Rambam also quotes the latter Tosefta in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 7:8. It is possible, however, to explain the contradiction based on the possibility that in our halachah, the word ימתיקו, translated as "become sweet," is a euphemism and means "become bitter." See also Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin1:14 and Hilchot Sh'vitat Asor 2:6, where the Rambam mentions similar subjects, and the Responsa of the Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1425) and the Merkevet HaMishneh, who offer possible resolutions.
|
| 50. |
Shabbat 90b quotes a similar, but slightly different passage from the Tosefta. We can assume that the Rambam's text of that passage differed from the one in our text of the Talmud.
|
| 51. |
The amount necessary to cook an egg, as mentioned in Halachah 4.
|
| 52. |
The seeds were used as a primitive calculator. Rashi (Shabbat 90b) explains that when transactions were made, a seed was used as a symbol for a gold coin.
|
| 53. |
I.e., to use in the purification process of a metzora or a person who came into contact with a human corpse. (See Leviticus 14:6 and Numbers 19:18.)
|
| 54. |
Isatis is a substance which produces an indigo dye. Similarly, nut shells and pomegranate shells are used to produce dyes.
|
| 55. |
A root that produces a red dye.
|
| 56. |
This represents a difference between the Rambam's interpretation of Shabbat 9:5 and that of other commentaries, including Rashi and Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro. Instead of stating בגד קטן כסבכה, as in the Rambam's version of the Mishnah, the text quoted by the latter authorities states בגד קטן בסבכה, "a small cloth in the hairnet," referring not to the entire hairnet, but to one cloth within it.
|
| 57. |
Note Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 9:37, which states that aged urine is one of the cleansing agents used to determine whether a stain is blood or not.
|
| 58. |
These are also cleansing agents and are mentioned in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah (loc. cit.).
|
| 59. |
The Mishnah (Shabbat 8:3) states that one is liable for transferring an amount of ink sufficient to write two letters. The Jerusalem Talmud (loc. cit.) states that one is not liable unless one transfers this amount of ink while it is on the pen. Otherwise, there is a doubt (as reflected in the following clause), for it is difficult for all the ink that is in an inkwell to be picked up by a pen.
|
| 60. |
The person is not liable for transferring the quill or the inkwell, for they are considered secondary to the ink. As the Rambam states in Halachah 28, when a person transfers a measure for which he is not liable in a utensil, he is not liable for transferring the utensil, since it is considered secondary to its contents.
|
| 61. |
The hanachah without which one is not liable for transferring.
|
| 62. |
He is not liable for transferring. He is, however, liable for writing.
|
| 63. |
At no one time did he transfer the minimum measure for which he would be held liable, for by the time he transfers the second portion of ink, part of the first portion will have dried. Therefore, he remains exempt (Rashi, Shabbat 80a).
|
| 64. |
כחול, rendered by some translators as "stibium," was reputed to have medicinal properties in addition to its cosmetic qualities. Even if only one of a person's eyes was affected, it would be common for him to apply כחול to that eye alone. Hence, one is liable for transferring the amount necessary to paint one eye.
|
| 65. |
Rashi, Shabbat 80a, relates that modest women would veil their faces entirely, exposing only one eye to enable them to see. They would, however, paint this eye.
|
| 66. |
Rashi (loc. cit.) interprets this as referring to small villages, where frivolity was not commonplace. Therefore, women would walk outside with their faces uncovered. Hence, if a woman painted her eyes for cosmetic purposes, she would paint both eyes. Note the Ra'avad, who offers a different interpretation of that Talmudic passage.
|
| 67. |
Rashi (Shabbat 78a) interprets this as referring to a phial of mercury that is sealed closed with these substances. Afterwards, a hole is made in the sulfur or tar with a pin through which the mercury can be poured, but through which it will not spill excessively if the b ottle falls on its side. The Meiri interprets the Talmud as referring to making a seal for a jug of wine.
|
| 68. |
The Maggid Mishneh interprets this as referring to stopping a hole in a wine barrel.
|
| 69. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:4), the Rambam interprets this as referring to a board with paste taken into a dovecote on which the fledglings perch and are thus captured. Rashi (Shabbat 80a) interprets this as a board with paste used to catch wild fowl.
|
| 70. |
A coin of the Talmudic period with a width of a handbreadth, approximately 8 cm. according to Shiurei Torah.
|
| 71. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:5), where he emphasizes that the Hebrew אדמה means both "earth" and "red."
|
| 72. |
In the Talmudic period, letters were sealed with clay. This refers to a seal like that of a notary placed on a letter to testify to its authenticity.
|
| 73. |
Rav Kapach notes that in this instance the Rambam does not state "a goldsmith's crucible," for crucibles used for smelting other metals need not be as heat-resistant as those used for gold.
|
| 74. |
Shabbat 80b relates that plaster is mixed with sand in order to strengthen the structure.
|
| 75. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:4). Rashi (Shabbat 78b) interprets חרסית as "crushed brick."
|
| 76. |
Shabbat 80b states that hair was mixed with clay when a crucible was fashioned for smelting gold.
|
| 77. |
Shabbat 80b states that lime would be applied to the bodies of young girls, one limb at a time. Rashi states it would make their skin red. Tosafot maintains that it would whiten their skin.
|
| 78. |
As Leviticus 17:13 states that after a bird or a wild animal is slaughtered, its blood must be covered with earth or ashes. (See Hilchot Shechitah, Chapter 14.)
|
| 79. |
For in this way, the pebble will be beneficial in shooing the animal (Shabbat 81a).
|
| 80. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:2), the Rambam gives a more specific definition, mentioning an Arabic term that Rav Kapach identifies as cypress.
|
| 81. |
This is a smaller measure than the amount sufficient to make a handle. Nevertheless, rope would not be used for this purpose, because it is coarse and might damage the utensil (Shabbat 78b).
|
| 82. |
To use as a filter (ibid.).
|
| 83. |
The Mishnah (Shabbat 8:6) mentions sharpening a needle. The Talmud (Shabbat 81a) mentions cutting threads. Apparently, the Rambam considers the two measures to be identical.
|
| 84. |
Rashi, Shabbat 90b, states that these hairs were used by bird hunters.
|
| 85. |
Rashi (ibid.) states these hairs are used in sewing leather.
|
| 86. |
From the Rambam's statements, it appears that his interpretation - a nd perhaps even the wording in his text - of Shabbat 90b was different from Rashi's interpretation of our version of that passage. (See the commentaries of the Meiri and Rabbenu Chanan'el on that passage.)
|
| 87. |
The Rambam's source appears to be the Tosefta, Shabbat 9:3 which states m'lo hasit kafulwhich, as mentioned in Chapter 9, Halachah 10, is equivalent to four handbreadths.
|
| 88. |
See Hilchot Keilim 22:1.)
|
| 89. |
Fabric made from camel's hair and other fibers that are rough and are therefore generally not used to make garments for humans.
|
| 90. |
See Hilchot Keilim 23:3.
|
| 91. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:3), the Rambam interprets this as referring to the wrapping in which the amulet was held, and not to the amulet itself.
|
| 92. |
Although at present, the word k'laf is commonly translated as "parchment," the Rambam is referring to a more specific meaning. In Hilchot Tefillin 1:6-8, he differentiates between three types of parchment, stating:
|
| 93. |
This is the shortest passage of the four passages included in the tefillin. In the head-tefillin, each of these passages is written on a separate piece of parchment.
|
| 94. |
This appears to be the Rambam's interpretation of the statement of the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:2), "One who transfers a customs officer's receipt is liable." Since the Mishnah already stated that a person who transfers a piece of paper large enough to write such a receipt is liable, it goes without saying that a person who transfers an unused receipt is liable. When explicitly telling us that a person is liable for transferring such a receipt, the Mishnah is obviously referring to a receipt that has already been used. See Shabbat 78b.
|
| 95. |
Note Shabbat 78b, 79a which discusses the propriety of maintaining possession of such a promissory note.
|
| 96. |
Since the paper has already been erased, it is no longer fit for writing. Therefore, it is considered to be suitable for other purposes and requires a larger measurement.
|
| 97. |
Shabbat 94a quotes Rabbi Natan as stating, "A living creature carries itself." Although the Sages differ with him, their objections concern animals only, for the latter resist being carried and struggle to free themselves. In contrast, a human being assists in being carried. This is obvious from the fact that it is far easier to carry a living person than the same amount of "dead weight."
It must be emphasized that although there is no prohibition from the Torah against carrying a living person, our Sages forbade this. (See Mishnah Berurah 308:153,154.)
|
| 98. |
For in this instance, the person being carried is unable to assist the one carrying him.
|
| 99. |
I.e., the child must propel himself forward. His mother may not, however, drag him (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 308:41). Note the Mishnah Berurah 308:154, which states that the principle, "A living being carries itself," does not apply to a child unless he is old enough to take steps by himself.
|
| 100. |
As reflected in Halachah 28, when a person transfers two articles, one of primary importance and one of secondary importance, whether or not he is liable depends on the article of primary importance. If he would be liable for transferring this article by itself, he is liable. If not, he is not liable. The article of secondary importance is of no significance whatsoever.
When does this apply? When the article of secondary importance is subsidiary to the article of primary importance. If they are, as in the example cited in this halachah, two unrelated objects, the person is liable for transferring the article of secondary importance.
|
| 101. |
They are considered to be separate objects, unrelated to the person who is holding them.
|
| 102. |
Shabbat 90b states that locusts are often used as playthings for children. Hence, regardless of the locust's size, one is liable.
The Rambam's ruling is quoted from the Mishnah (Shabbat 9:7), which also mentions two opinions: One that maintains that this applies only to a kosher locust, and that of Rabbi Yehudah, which states that it applies to all locusts, whether kosher or nonkosher. In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam states that the halachah does not follow Rabbi Yehudah's opinion.
From the fact that the Rambam does not mention whether the locust must be kosher or not in this halachah, the Merkevet HaMishneh concludes that he has reversed his opinion and accepts Rav Yehudah's view. Others differ and maintain that this is clarified by the second clause, which mentions "[an amount] the size of a dried fig" - i.e., the measure applying to food. Just as the second clause applies only to kosher locusts, so too, does the first clause.
|
| 103. |
As mentioned in the previous note, this is the minimum measurement for food.
|
| 104. |
In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 1:21 the Rambam (as does Rabbenu Chanan'el and the Aruch) defines this as a species of kosher locusts. Others define it as a bird.
|
| 105. |
Shabbat 10:1 states that one is liable for transferring even the slightest amount of any substance that is retained for its medicinal purposes.
|
| 106. |
According to Shabbat 90b, partaking of such a creature enhances one's intellectual capacities.
|
| 107. |
Shabbat 93b-94a states that Rabbi Shimon exempts a person from liability in this instance, for in contrast to other situations, the person is not removing the impure object because he desires it itself, but because he desires the place to be free of impurity. Hence, this is a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, a labor that is not performed for the same purpose for which the labor was performed in the construction of the Sanctuary. In the construction of the Sanctuary, articles were transfered because they were, themselves, desired. In contrast, in this instance, the person's intent is to remove impurity. Nevertheless, as the Rambam rules in Chapter 1, Halachah 7, one is liable for performing a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה.
|
| 108. |
See Hilchot Tum'at Meit 2:1-2.
|
| 109. |
See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTum'ah 1:1.
|
| 110. |
More specifically, this refers to the eight species mentioned in Leviticus 11:29- 30. (See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTum'ah 4:2.)
|
| 111. |
In this instance, the phrase "half the size of an olive" is not intended to serve as an exact measure. The intent is any measure that will reduce the size of the portion of the animal carcass to less than the size of an olive. The same principles apply to flesh from a human corpse.
|
| 112. |
For an amount large enough to convey ritual impurity still remains intact.
|
| 113. |
Since even the small amount of the substance the person transfers is valuable to him, he has a reason for transferring it. Accordingly, his act is considered to be "purposeful." See the notes to Halachah 1.
|
| 114. |
The commentaries note that Halachah 6 mentions taking seeds for sowing and mentions specific measures. Among the possible resolutions is that there is ordinarily a measure for seeds as well. This halachah, however, specifically focuses on the exceptions to the general rule, and there are indeed individuals who will sow a single seed in a flower pot (Rav Kapach, Kinat Eliyahu).
|
| 115. |
Note the Mishneh LaMelech, who states that with this statement the Rambam does not intend to negate totally the measures he mentioned previously. For example, if a person transfers food, he is not liable unless it is the size of a dried fig. Even if a particular person desires to eat a smaller amount, that intent is not considered significant, since most people would not appreciate such an amount. In this halachah, the Rambam is stating that in certain instances, as in the examples he mentions, there is a particular intent which requires merely a tiny amount of a substance to be accomplished. In such an instance, the person is liable for transferring an object of this small size.
|
| 116. |
Before the commencement of the Sabbath (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat10:1).
|
| 117. |
On the Sabbath (ibid.).
|
| 118. |
I.e., even if he forgot the intent for which he originally stored away the article.
|
| 119. |
By setting the article aside for a specific purpose, the person shows that it is important to him, regardless of its size. Therefore, if he later transfers the article, he is liable (Shabbat 90b, 91a).
|
| 120. |
I.e., the intent a particular individual has for an article is important regarding the measure for which he is liable for transferring that article. It does not affect the status of that article vis-a-visothers.
|
| 121. |
As opposed to being mixed together with the other objects in the storeroom. This might be considered to be a sign that it is being saved for a specific purpose.
|
| 122. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 7:3), the Rambam interprets this phrase as excluding an article that is commonplace and easily obtainable. Therefore, it is not stored away. [Note Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro and Rashi (Shabbat 75b), who interpret this as excluding an amount of a substance smaller than the prescribed measure.]
|
| 123. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that this excludes objects that will spoil if stored.
|
| 124. |
By storing the article in question, the person indicates that he considers it important. Therefore, he is liable for transferring it.
|
| 125. |
The intent is any amount less than the full measure.
|
| 126. |
See the notes on the first halachah of this chapter which discuss whether the prohibition against this activity stems from the Torah itself or is Rabbinic in origin. As mentioned there, according to the principles the Rambam states in Chapter 1, Halachah 3, the use of the word פטור indicates that the prohibition was instituted by our Sages.
|
| 127. |
For he has transferred a full measure of the article in question. As the Maggid Mishneh mentions, it is clear from the following halachah that this refers to actions performed in a single period of unawareness.
|
| 128. |
Since a full measure of the entity in question was never transferred into the second domain and placed down there at a single time, the person is not liable.
|
| 129. |
Based on the principle of l'vud, an article held within three handbreadths of a second article is considered as having been placed down on that article, as implied by Chapter 13, Halachah 6. Therefore, the two half-measures of the substance in question are considered to have been placed down in the same place. Hence, the person who placed them down is liable. See the commentary of Rabbenu Chananel to Shabbat 80a.
|
| 130. |
Even if it passes within three handbreadths of the ground, as long as it does not come to rest even momentarily (see Chapter 13, Halachah 16, and notes).
|
| 131. |
As mentioned in the notes on the halachah cited above, it would appear that the object would have to come to rest on a substance four handbreadths by four handbreadths, or come to rest within three handbreadths of the ground.
|
| 132. |
One is liable to bring a sin offering for performing a forbidden labor only if one performed the labor without intent to violate the Torah's commandments. Furthermore, if in the midst of one's performance of a forbidden activity, one becomes conscious of the prohibition involved, even if one loses awareness immediately afterwards and completes the measure of forbidden activity without the desire to violate the law, one is not liable. (See Hilchot Shegagot 6:8.)
|
| 133. |
As long as the two half-measures were taken from the same original domain and placed down together in the same domain, they can be combined. If, however, a totally separate domain interposes between them, the two actions cannot be considered to be complementary.
|
| 134. |
For according to the Torah, a carmelit is considered to be a makom patur. (See the notes on Chapter 14, Halachah 1). Hence, it is not considered to be an interruption between the two domains.
|
| 135. |
The commentaries note the apparent contradiction between the Rambam's ruling here and his ruling in Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 1:11. (See the gloss of the Lechem Mishneh on that halachah.)
|
| 136. |
As explained in Chapter 13, Halachah 5, the forbidden labor of transferring involves removing an article from one domain and placing it down in another domain. A sin offering is not required unless both activities are performed in a forbidden manner.
|
| 137. |
Thus the akirah (removal) of the article is performed when the article is of sufficient size to incur liability (Halachah 1).
|
| 138. |
In which case, he is liable, regardless of the size of the article (Halachah 20).
|
| 139. |
Since at the time of both the removal and the placing down (hanachah) of the substance, its size was sufficient to incur liability according to the intent which the person had in mind, he is liable. The fact that he experienced a change of mind in the interim is not of consequence.
|
| 140. |
For at the time he placed the object down, it was not of sufficient size to incur liability.
|
| 141. |
Based on the following halachah, it is clear that the increase in the seed's size must take place before the person's change of mind.
|
| 142. |
For at the time the article was removed from its original place and it the time it was placed down, it was of sufficient size to incur liability.
|
| 143. |
The question of the Rambam (based on Shabbat 91b) is whether the fact that the object was too small for its transfer to incur liability in the time between its akirah and its hanachah causes these actions to be considered as unconnected or not.
Note the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh on Hilchot Sh'ar Avot HaTum'ah 4:13, which quotes the distinction made by Rav Yitzchak Korcus between that halachah and the present one.
|
| 144. |
Because of the presence of a corpse or the presence of tzara'at.
|
| 145. |
The Maggid Mishneh questions why the Rambam changes the wording used in the source for this teaching (Shabbat, loc. cit.), which mentions food that is terumah and applies this concept to all foods. The Mishneh LaMelech, however, resolves this difficulty, explaining that according to the Rambam's conception of the laws of ritual impurity (see Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin 4:1), there is no difference between terumah and other foods.
|
| 146. |
The commentaries cite this passage as a source, teaching that a dried fig is larger than an olive. Ordinarily, a person who transfers an amount of food the size of an olive is not liable. Nevertheless, this instance is different, because of the laws of ritual impurity.
Food cannot impart ritual impurity to other substances unless a portion equivalent to the size of an egg is present. Thus, before the person threw the food into the house, there was not sufficient food there to impart impurity, and the food he threw in completed that measure. Hence, the Rambam (based on Shabbat, loc. cit.) asks whether the fact that the transfer of the food is significant with regard to the laws of ritual impurity is of consequence with regard to the Sabbath laws.
|
| 147. |
Since the container is desired only because of its function as an accessory for its contents, it is not considered to be an entity in its own right. Unless the person has a desire for it itself, he is not liable for transferring it, regardless of its size. (See Shabbat 93b.)
Likkutei Sichot (Vol. XVII, p. 48, Vol. XIX, p. 193) focuses on the homiletic dimensions of this halachah, interpreting it as an indication of how an object's spiritual qualities are of such primacy that they eclipse totally its material dimensions.
|
| 148. |
This ruling depends on the principle stated in Halachah 16: "A living creature carries itself." As mentioned in that halachah, this principle does not apply if the person is bound. Since the person would not be liable for carrying the man, he is also not liable for carrying the bed on which he is lying.
|
| 149. |
Although the box contains several distinct entities, the person is considered to have performed a single forbidden activity. Therefore, he is not liable for a separate sin offering for every article he transfers.
|
| 150. |
With this clause, the Rambam indicates that this ruling is not dependent on the principle (see Chapter 12, Halachah 11) that the contents of a box are considered to be a single entity, but on a different rationale.
|
Terumot - Chapter 1
Halacha 1
According to Scriptural Law, [the obligation to separate] the terumot1 and the tithes2 applies only in Eretz Yisrael.3[It applies] whether the Temple is standing or not.4 The prophets ordained that these obligations should be observed in Babylon as well, because it is adjacent to Eretz Yisrael and the majority of the Jewish people journey to and from there.5 The Sages of the early generations6ordained that they also be observed in the lands of Egypt and the lands of Ammon and Moab, because they are on the peripheries of Eretz Yisrael.
Halacha 2
Whenever Eretz Yisrael is mentioned, the intent is the lands conquered by the King of Israel or a prophet with the consent of the entire Jewish people. This is called "a conquest of the community."7 If, however, an individual Jew, a family, or a tribe go and conquer a place for themselves - even in the land given to Abraham8 - it is not considered as Eretz Yisrael in the sense that one is obligated to observe all the mitzvot there.9 For this reason, Joshua10 and his court divided the entire Land of Israel into tribal portions11 even though it was not conquered [entirely] at that time. In this way, when every tribe would ascend and conquer its portion, it would not be considered as merely an individual conquest.
Halacha 3
The lands which [King] David conquered outside of the Land of Canaan, e.g., Aram Naharaim, Aram Tzovah, Achlab,12 and the like, even though he was a King of Israel and he was acting with the consent of the High Court,13 is not considered as the Land of Israel with regard to all matters, nor is it like the Diaspora, i.e., Babylonia and Egypt with regard to all matters. Instead, it was removed from the category of the Diaspora, but did not enter the category ofEretz Yisrael.
Why was its level considered lower than that of Eretz Yisrael? Because David conquered them before he conquered all of Eretz Yisrael.14 Instead, there were still member of the seven nations there. If, however, he had conquered Eretz Yisrael entirely, in all of its boundaries, and afterwards conquered15 other lands,16his entire conquest would have been equivalent to Eretz Yisrael with regard to all matters.17 The lands which [King] David conquered are called Syria.
Halacha 4
There are dimensions of [the laws that apply to] Syria that resemble [the laws that apply in] Eretz Yisrael18 and there are dimensions of [its laws] that resemble [those which apply] in the Diaspora.19 A person who purchases landed property [in Syria] is comparable to one who purchases [land] in Eretz Yisrael with regard to terumot, tithes, and the Sabbatical year.20 All [the laws that apply] in Syria are of Rabbinic origin.21
Halacha 5
All of the lands that [the Jews] who ascended from Egypt took possession of were sanctified in the first consecration [of the land]. When they were exiled, that sanctity was nullified.22 [The rationale is that] the initial consecration came about because of the conquest. [Hence,] its consecration was effective for the time [it was under their rule], but not for all time.23 When, by contrast, the descendants of the exiles ascended [from Babylon] and took possession of a portion of the land,24 they consecrated it a second time.25 [This consecration] is perpetuated forever, for that time and for all time.26
[The Sages] left those places that had been settled by [the Jews who] ascended from Egypt, but were not settled by those who ascended from Babylon in their previous [halachic status] and did not exempt them from [the obligations of]terumah and tithes so that the poor could rely upon them in the Sabbatical year.27 Our holy teacher28released Beit Shan29 from those places which [the Jews] who ascended from Babylon did not take hold of. He decided that Ashkelon should be exempted from the tithes.30
Halacha 6
Thus the entire earth is divided into three categories in relation to those mitzvot involving the land: Eretz Yisrael, Syria, and the Diaspora. Eretz Yisrael itself is divided into two categories: a) those portions settled by the Jews who ascended from Babylonia, and b) those portions that were settled only by the Jews who ascended from Egypt.
The Diaspora is divided into two categories: a) Egypt, Babylon, Ammon, and Moab in which the mitzvot are observed according to the decrees of the sages and the prophets and the other lands in which [the obligations of] the terumotand the tithes are not observed.
Halacha 7
What are [the boundaries of] the land settled by the Jews who ascended from Egypt? From Rekem which is in the east of Eretz Yisrael until the Mediterranean Sea. From Ashkelon31 which is in the south of Eretz Yisrael until Acre which is in the north. As one proceeds from Acre to Kziv,32 the area to one's right, on the east, can generally be assumed to be of the Diaspora - it is impure as is the lands of the nations33 and is exempt from [the mitzvot of] the tithes and the Sabbatical year - unless it is known that it was part of Eretz Yisrael. The area to one's left, to the west, can generally be assumed to be part of Eretz Yisrael - it is pure [from the impurity associated with] the lands of the nations and is obligated with regard to [mitzvot of] the tithes and the Sabbatical year - unless it is known to be part of the Diaspora.34 With regard to the entire area that slopes downward from the Samnum Mountains:35 The inner [portion]36 is Eretz Yisrael, the portion outside the Samnum Mountains is the Diaspora.
Halacha 8
Which area did the Jews who ascended from Babylonia settle in? [The area] from Kziv inward toward the east. They did not, however, take possession of the area from Kziv outward until Amana which is Samnum until the river, i.e., the River of Egypt.39 And they did not take possession of Kziv itself.
Halacha 9
What constitutes Syria? From Eretz Yisrael and below40 parallel to Aram Naharaim and Aram Tzovah, the entire region of the Euphrates until Babylonia, e.g., Damascus, Achalev, Charan, Minbag, and the like until Shinar41 and Tzahar. These are considered like Syria. Acre, by contrast, is considered part of the Diaspora, like Ashkelon.42 These are the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael.
Halacha 10
When a gentile purchases land in Eretz Yisrael, he does not cause it to be absolved from [the observance of] the mitzvot.43 Instead, its holiness is still intact.44 Therefore, if a Jew purchases this land from [the gentile], it is not considered as a private conquest.45 Instead, he should separate the terumotand the tithes and bring the first fruits. All these [obligations] are Scriptural in origin, as if it was never sold to a gentile. When a gentile acquires land in Syria, his acquisition has the power to absolve [the land] from the obligations of tithes and the Sabbatical year,46 as will be explained.47
Halacha 11
[The following laws apply with regard to] produce belonging to a gentile that grew on land that he purchased in Eretz Yisrael. If all the work involving the produce was completed in the possession of a gentile and the gentile straightened the edges of the grain heap,48 they are exempt, because [the verse mentioning the obligation to separate terumah, Deuteronomy 18:4] mentions "your grain," [thus excluding] the grain of a gentile.49
If a Jew purchases [the produce] after it was harvested, but before the tasks involved with it were completed and they were completed by a Jew, all [of the agricultural obligations apply with regard to the produce] according to Scriptural Law.50 He must separate the great terumah and give it to a priest and [separate] the terumat ma'aser and sell it to a priest.51 The first tithe belongs to him,52 because he can tell a Levite with regard to the tithes and a priest with regard to the terumat ma'aser: "I am coming in the stead of a person53 from which you could not have collected anything."54
Why do we say that he should not give the terumat ma'aser to a priest as [he gives him] the great terumah?55 Because with regard to terumat ma'aser, it is written: "When you take the tithes from the children of Israel...."56 [Implied is that from] untithed produced that you purchase from a Jew, you should separate terumat ma'aser and give it to a priest, but from untithed produce that you purchase from a gentile, you need not give the priest the terumat ma'aseryou separate from it. Instead, you sell it to the priest and take the money.
Halacha 12
[The following laws apply if] a gentile sold his produce to a Jew while it was connected to the earth. If [he sold it] before it developed to a stage when he is obligated to separate tithes57 and the work [associated with it] was completed while it was owned by the Jew, [the Jew] is responsible for all of the agricultural obligations and should give the terumot and the tithes to their [appropriate] owners.58 If [the gentile] sold [the produce] after it developed to a stage when he is obligated to separate tithes, he should separate terumat ma'aser and the tithes and give them to their [appropriate] owners according to the [acceptable] reckoning.
What is implied? If he purchased grain that had been sown from a gentile after it reached a third of its growth and the work associated with its completion was performed while it was in the possession of a Jew, he should separate theterumot and the tithes, as we explained.59 He should give two thirds of the tithes to a Levite.60 [With regard to the] terumat ma'aser, he should give two thirds to the priest and sell him one third.61
Halacha 13
[The following laws apply if] a Jew sold his produce to a gentile before it developed to a stage when he is obligated to separate tithes and the work [associated with it] was completed by the gentiles, it is exempt from the terumotand the tithes.62 If [he purchased it] after it developed to a stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated, even if the gentile completed the work associated with it, all of the agricultural obligations are incumbent upon it according to Rabbinic decree.63
Halacha 14
If a gentile sold produce that was still connected to the earth after it reached the stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated and [another] gentile straightened the edges of the grain heap in the possession of a Jew, [the produce] is not obligated in the terumot or the tithes.66 Since the produce reached the stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated in the possession of a gentile and a gentile straightened the edges of the grain heap,67 [the fact] the produce belongs to a Jew [is not significant].68
Halacha 15
When a person purchases a field in Syria, he is obligated by Rabbinic decree to separate terumot and tithes like one who purchases [a field] in Jerusalem69according to Scriptural Law, as we explained.70 If, however, a person [merely] purchases produce from a gentile - whether it was harvested or [still] connected to the earth - he is exempt, because [the produce] does not come from his land.71 [This applies] even if [he purchases the produce] before it develops to a stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated [and] even though a Jew straightened the edges of the grain heap.72
Halacha 16
[The following laws apply when a person] purchases land in Syria to which produce is attached. If it reached a stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated while in the possession of a gentile, it is exempt.73 [Conversely,] if it did not reach a stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated [in his possession],74 [the Jewish purchaser] is obligated to tithe it, since he purchased it together with the land.
Halacha 17
When a Jew is working as a sharecropper for a gentile in Syria, his produce is exempt from the tithes, because he does not own the land itself at all. A gentile's purchase of land in Syria causes it to be absolved from [the obligation of] the tithes, as we explained.75 The same laws apply when one rents a field, but stipulates that the payment will be made in produce,76 enters into a sharecropping agreement as a mekabel,77 or rents a field for money from a gentile in Syria, he is absolved [from the obligations of] terumot and tithes.78
Halacha 18
[The following law applies when] a Jew purchases a field from a gentile in Syria before [the crops] reached a third of their development and sells it to a gentile after the crops reach a third of their development. If a Jew purchases it a second time,79he is obligated [to separate] the terumot and the tithes,80because [the field] incurred that obligation in the possession of a Jew.81
Halacha 19
When a Jew owns land in Syria and he hired a sharecropper and the sharecropper sent him produce,82 he is not obligated to separate [the terumotand tithes], for it is possible to say that [the sharecropper] purchased [the produce he gave him] from the marketplace.83 [This applies] provided this species is available in the marketplace.
Halacha 20
There is an obligation [to separate] the terumot and the tithes [from crops grown on land owned in] partnership with a gentile.
What is implied? When a Jew and a non-Jew purchased a field in partnership - even if they divided the field while the grain was standing,84 and needless to say, if they divided it after it was collected in a grain heap85 - tevel86and ordinary produce are mixed together in each and every stalk of grain in the gentile's share.87 [This applies] even if the gentile straightened the edges of the grain heap and thus the obligation is Rabbinic in origin,88 as explained.89
Halacha 21
When does the above apply? In Eretz Yisrael, where [the obligation to] tithe is Scriptural in origin, and according to Scriptural Law, the principle of bereirahdoes not apply. If, however, he purchased a field in Syria, since [the obligation to] tithe there is Rabbinic in origin, even if they divided a grain heap, the portion of the gentile is exempt entirely.90
Halacha 22
When produce from Eretz Yisrael is taken to the Diaspora, it is exempt from the obligations of challah, the terumot, and the tithes, [for one of the prooftexts requiring the separation of these gifts, Numbers 15:18]91states: "[the land] to which I am bringing you." [Implied is that] these obligations exist there alone. In the Diaspora, one is exempt.92 If [the produce] was taken to Syria, one is obligated by Rabbinic decree.
Conversely, we are obligated [to separate] challah from produce from the Diaspora that was brought into Eretz Yisrael, as [suggested by the phrase] "to which." [Implied is that] one is liable [to make these gifts] there, whether the produce is from Eretz Yisrael or the Diaspora. If the obligation [to separatechallah or the tithes] was established [because of the actions] of a Jew after the produce entered Eretz Yisrael, there is an obligation of Rabbinic origin to separate the tithes.93
Halacha 23
When earth from the Diaspora is brought to Eretz Yisrael by ship, if the ship's [bottom] comes in contact with the earth [of Eretz Yisrael],94 terumah and tithes must [be separated from produce] growing on [the earth in the ship] and the Sabbatical laws must be observed as if [the produce] was growing in Eretz Yisrael itself.95
Halacha 24
When a tree is standing in the Diaspora and its foliage leans into Eretz Yisraelor it is standing in Eretz Yisrael and its foliage leans into the Diaspora, [the determination of its status] depends on its roots.96 If some of its roots were inEretz Yisrael and others were in the Diaspora - even if they were separated by glistening stone, [it is considered as if] tevel and ordinary produce are mixed together [throughout the entire produce].
Halacha 25
[The following rules apply when] a plant in a flowerpot with a hole has not sprouted roots [outside the flowerpot]. If its roots where in Eretz Yisrael and its foliage in the Diaspora, [the determination of its status] depends on its foliage.97
Halacha 26
In the present era, even in the areas settled by the Jews who ascended from Babylonia, even those [settled] in the era of Ezra,98 [the obligation to separate]terumah does not have the status of a Scriptural commandment, merely that of a Rabbinic decree. [The rationale is that] the Scriptural [commandment to separate] terumah applies only in Eretz Yisrael and only when the entire99Jewish people are located there. [This is derived from the phrase]100 "When you enter...." [Implied is that] the entire [Jewish people] must enter [the land], as they did when they took possession of the land originally101 and as will happen in the future when they take possession of the land a third time.102 In contrast, the second time [the people] took possession of the land, in the time of Ezra, only a portion entered.103Hence, they were not obligated according to Scriptural Law.104 Similarly, it appears to me that the same concept applies with regard to the tithes.105 In the present era, this obligation [as well] has the status of a Rabbinic decree like terumah.106
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
The plural term is used in this halachah and in many instances in this text, because there are two types of terumot: a) "the great terumah," i.e., the terumah separated initially, and b) terumat ma'aser, the terumah the Levites separate from the tithes that are given them. See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim, ch. 6, for details regarding the separation of these allocations.
|
| 2. |
Here also the plural term is used because there are several tithes: the first tithe given to Levites, the second tithe which must be brought to Jerusalem, and the tithe for the poor. See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim, loc. cit.
|
| 3. |
Kiddushin 36b states that all the mitzvot involving the produce of the earth apply only in Eretz Yisrael.
|
| 4. |
Although the agricultural laws apply even when the Temple is not standing, there is a restriction to the time when they apply according to Scriptural Law. The entire Jewish people must be located in our holy land, as stated in Halachah 26. (See also Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 10:8-9.)
|
| 5. |
Even though Babylonia is further away than the other lands mentioned in this halachah, it had a larger Jewish community and there was far more contact between its populace and the Jewish community of Eretz Yisrael. Hence, the prophets gave it precedence over the other lands (Radbaz).
|
| 6. |
The Sages of the generation that followed Ezra [Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura (Yadayim 3:3).
|
| 7. |
See also Hilchot Melachim 5:6.
|
| 8. |
The Rambam speaks of the land being given to Abraham, not merely being promised to him, since from the time God said that the land was his, spiritually, it became his possession. Moreover, as the Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 5:1) states, from Abraham's time onward, even though the land was still possessed by the Canaanites, the Jews were already its legal owners. See also Bava Batra 119b.
|
| 9. |
I.e., the agricultural mitzvot that must be observed in Eretz Yisrael.
|
| 10. |
A king and a prophet.
|
| 11. |
I.e., since Joshua and his court had made this division, when the tribe went to conquer its portion, it was acting on behalf of the entire Jewish people.
|
| 12. |
These regions are located in contemporary Syria.
|
| 13. |
The wars to conquer these lands are classified as voluntary wars, and a voluntary law requires the consent of the High Court (Hilchot Melachim 5:1).
|
| 14. |
See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 6:11) where he criticizes King David for this approach, quoting the Sifri (Parshat Ekev) that states that he did not act in accordance with the Torah. Since the designation of the land as Eretz Yisrael is through Divine fiat as expressed through the Torah. Accordingly, a conquest that is not in accord with the Torah cannot bring about such a designation (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. V, p. 9).
|
| 15. |
With the consent of the High Court.
|
| 16. |
Even lands outside of the homeland promised to Abraham (Radbaz).
|
| 17. |
And the agricultural laws would have to be observed there.
|
| 18. |
In addition to those points the Rambam mentions below, among the other examples of this principle are: its air is not considered as a source of impurity (Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 11:6); it is permitted to have a gentile compose a deed of purchase for land there on the Sabbath so that one will acquire the land (Hilchot Shabbat 6:11).
|
| 19. |
Among the examples of the relevant laws: its earth is considered as a source of ritual impurity (Hilchot Tuma'at Meit, loc. cit.); a servant from Eretz Yisrael sold there is granted his freedom (Hilchot Avadim 8:6).
|
| 20. |
See Halachah 15.
|
| 21. |
For according to Scriptural Law, it is not part of Eretz Yisrael.
|
| 22. |
In Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:16, the Rambam states: "It was no longer Eretz Yisrael," i.e., none of the halachic obligations apply there.
|
| 23. |
Since it was established by conquest, it could be nullified by conquest. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, loc. cit. The Radbaz explains that when the Jews ascended from Egypt, they did not make a statement, consecrating the land. Therefore its holiness could be nullified.
|
| 24. |
As Yevamot 16a states: "Much of the land that was conquered by [the Jews who] ascended from Egypt was not conquered by [the Jews who] ascended from Babylon.
|
| 25. |
Nevertheless, since the entire Jewish people did not return together with Ezra, this consecration is only of Rabbinic origin.
|
| 26. |
And thus at present, Ezra's consecration of the land is still effective.
In his gloss to Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, loc. cit., the Kessef Mishnah finds these statements difficult to accept because of the following questions:
a) On what basis is chazakah considered a more effective means of acquisition than conquest?
b) After the initial conquest of Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish people manifested their ownership over it and thus, effected a chazakah. If so, why is Ezra's chazakah, which was not preceded by conquest, more effective than the chazakah which followed the original conquest? Why should the conquest detract from the consecration of the land?
To explain: As mentioned above, the Jewish people's ownership of the land began with God's promise of the land to Abraham. The sanctity of the land, by contrast, did not begin until the Jewish people actually took possession of it, upon their reentry into the land after the exodus from Egypt and the journey through the desert. At that time, they were commanded to conquer the land and take it forcefully from the Gentiles (see Numbers 32:29,Deuteronomy 3:21, et al). Since God made the consecration of the land dependent upon its conquest by the Jewish people, it follows that conquest by a Gentile nation can nullify its holiness.
In contrast, Ezra was not commanded to reconquer Eretz Yisrael, but to settle it. In this instance, God made the sanctity of the land dependent on the Jewish people manifesting their ownership over it. In other words, the sanctity came from manifesting the true reality: that Eretz Yisrael is a Jewish land. Accordingly, since Eretz Yisrael remains our land, regardless of how many times it has been conquered by Gentiles, the sanctity effected by that manifestation of ownership also continues eternally (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. XV, pp. 102-109).
|
| 27. |
And receive the tithe of the poor.
|
| 28. |
Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi.
|
| 29. |
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that Beit Shan was released only from those obligations that are of Rabbinic origin.
|
| 30. |
The Kessef Mishneh relates that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi released these cities from the obligation of the tithes, because they were not populated by Jews and were not close to the area settled by Jews.
|
| 31. |
Ashkelon - and similarly, the other cities the Rambam refers to - is located near, but not exactly on the same cite - as the city presently called by that name. With regard to Ashkelon in particular, there is discussion of the issue by the commentaries, for some sources (see Radbaz and Kessef Mishneh) explain that it was part of the land conquered by the Jews who ascended from Egypt. It was not, however, conquered by the Jews who ascended from Babylonia.
|
| 32. |
I.e., proceeding northward.
|
| 33. |
Our Sages decreed that merely touching the earth of the Diaspora is sufficient to impart ritual impurity. See Hilchot Tuma'at Meit, ch. 11.
|
| 34. |
I.e., as depicted in the map drawn by the Rambam to accompany the Mishneh Torah, the borders of Eretz Yisrael ascend northward from Acre to Kziv, but there is a strip of land in the center that did not become part of Eretz Yisrael.
|
| 35. |
Our text is based on authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah as cited in the Rav Shabsie Frankel edition. The standard printed text refers to the Umenum Mountains. See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 6:1).
In the map the Rambam drew to depict this matter, the Samnum Mountains are located in the southeastern corner of Eretz Yisrael, near Ashkelon. Most of the other commentaries understand this term as referring to the Umenum Mountain range in Northern Lebanon.
|
| 36. |
I.e., to the south.
|
| 37. |
According to the Radbaz, this refers to Wadi el Arish and not the Nile. Most other commentaries, however, identify "the River of Egypt" as the Nile.
|
| 38. |
I.e., the Rambam included the accompanying map so that the matter would be clearly understood.. This reflects his thrust throughout the Mishneh Torah: to provide his readers with an applicable text without any ambiguity.
|
| 39. |
Thus it appears that the entire coastal range of Eretz Yisrael was not settled by the Jews who ascended from Babylon.
|
| 40. |
The term "below" in this context is problematic. It does not mean "south," because significant portions of Syria are more northerly than Eretz Yisrael. Some commentaries understand it as meaning in height, because as Kiddushin 69b states, Eretz Yisrael is higher than other lands.
|
| 41. |
Shinar itself, however, is part of the Diaspora, as evident from Halachah 1.
|
| 42. |
As mentioned above, there are commentaries who consider Ashkelon to be part of the land conquered by the Jews who ascended from Egypt, but not that conquered by the Jews ascending from Babylonia. Some also place Acre in this category.
|
| 43. |
See the following halachah for the practical application of this principle.
|
| 44. |
Gittin 47a derives this concept from Leviticus 25:23: "The entire land is Mine." Implied is that the land belongs to God and His ownership cannot be absolved through conquest by any earthly power.
This ruling was a point of question for the Rambam. As indicated by the notes of Rav Kappach to his translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 4:9; Gittin 4:9, et al), the Rambam changed his mind concerning the issue several times and amended his text of the Commentary to the Mishnah accordingly. At first, he stated the opinion quoted here, then adopted the opposite view, that a gentile's acquisition does cause the agricultural obligations to be absolved, and finally returned to his original position. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:3-4) follow the Rambam's ruling here. See also Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 4:29 where this issue is also discussed.
|
| 45. |
In which instance, the agriculture laws would not be applicable, as stated in Halachah 2.
|
| 46. |
The entire obligation to observe the agricultural laws in Syria is Rabbinic in origin (Halachah 4) and our Sages did not enforce their decrees in this instance.
|
| 47. |
Halachot 15-19.
|
| 48. |
I.e., completed the work involved in preparing them. See Hilchot Ma'aser 3:13.
|
| 49. |
From the interpretation of the term by the Sages (Bechorot 11b), the intent seems to be that not only that the grain must belong to a Jew, but that he must perform the work to complete its preparation for use.
|
| 50. |
I.e., for the produce to be obligated in the agricultural laws according to Scriptural Law, it must belong to the Jew and the Jew must complete the work involved with preparing it. If only one of these conditions was met, the obligations must be fulfilled only because of Rabbinic decree. See Halachah 13.
|
| 51. |
The terumat ma'aser is sold to the priest and not given to him for the reason explained shortly afterwards by the Rambam. It cannot be kept by the owner, because he is forbidden to partake of it. Instead, it is consecrated and must be eaten by a priest in a state of ritual purity (Siftei Cohen 331:10).
|
| 52. |
I.e., he must separate the first tithe to fulfill the agricultural obligations incumbent upon the produce, but is not obligated to give it to the Levites. There is no difficulty in him keeping the tithes, because, as the Rambam explains, he is not obligated to give them to the Levite and there is no prohibition against him partaking of them, because they are not consecrated at all and any person may partake of them, even when he is not in a state of ritual purity.
|
| 53. |
The gentile.
|
| 54. |
Had the gentile completed the tasks associated with preparing the grain, he would not have been under any obligation to make any of these separations. Hence, although the Jew is obligated to separate the various allocations, the obligation is primarily a ritual one and not a financial one. With the exception of the great terumah, he is not obligated to accept any loss and may keep the first tithes for himself.
|
| 55. |
I.e., like the first tithe, the terumat ma'aser must be separated, but it need not be given to the priest.
|
| 56. |
There is, by contrast, no such verse stated with regard to the great terumah. Hence, it is not considered the property of the owner, but instead, must be given - and not sold - to a priest.
|
| 57. |
See below and Hilchot Ma'aserot 2:5 for a definition of this concept.
|
| 58. |
I.e., the tithes to a Levite and the terumot to a priest. It is as if the produce grew on land belonging to the Jew from the outset.
|
| 59. |
I.e., as explained in the previous halachah and notes, the terumot and the tithes must be separated even if they - or a portion of them - are kept by the owner.
|
| 60. |
He may keep one-third of the tithes as his own. The rationale is that since the produce reached one third of its growth in the possession of the gentile, the Jew is not liable to give away theterumat ma'aser and the tithes for that portion of the crop. With regard to that portion, the concepts stated in the previous halachah apply. With regard to the remaining two thirds, it is considered as produced owned by a Jew and is obligated in all agricultural laws.
|
| 61. |
As stated in the previous halachah, he must give the great terumah to the priest without receiving any return whatsoever.
|
| 62. |
It is as if the produce grew in the possession of the gentile from the outset in which instance, they are exempt from all agricultural obligations, as stated in Halachah 11.
The Ra'avad objects to this ruling based on the principle stated in Halachah 10: "When a gentile purchases land in Eretz Yisrael, he does not cause it to be absolved from [the observance of] the mitzvot. Instead, its holiness is still intact." The Radbaz explains that this principle applies only when the gentile purchases the land, but not when he purchases merely produce. TheShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:6) quotes the Rambam's view.
|
| 63. |
I.e., if the produce is later sold to a Jew, the Jew must separate the terumot and the tithes. The rationale is that since the produce grew in a Jew's possession, it is considered as Jewish produce.
|
| 64. |
Our translation is based on the interpretation of Rav Yosef Corcus as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh. He explains that, based on the exegesis of Deuteronomy 18:4 by Bechorot 11b (see Halachah 11 and notes), as long as the work is completed by a gentile, the fact that the produce belongs to a Jew is not significant.
|
| 65. |
In one of his responsa, the Rambam writes (based on Menachot 67a) that this decree was enacted lest Jewish landowners have gentiles complete the work associated with the crops to avoid having to separate the tithes.
|
| 66. |
I.e., even according to Rabbinic Law.
|
| 67. |
I.e., performs the task which completes the work associated with the produce at which time the obligation to separate the terumot and tithes takes effect.
|
| 68. |
I.e., it is as if the produce belonged entirely to the gentile and the laws stated in Halachah 11 apply.
|
| 69. |
The Rambam is referring to the wording of Challah 4:11: "One who purchases [land] in Syria is comparable to one who purchases [land] in the suburbs of Jerusalem."
|
| 70. |
Halachah 4.
|
| 71. |
Since the entire obligation to separate the terumot and tithes in Syria is Rabbinic in origin, our Sages applied it only when the Jew owned the land itself. Since the obligation to separate tithes when one purchases produce alone is merely Rabbinic in origin even in Eretz Yisrael, our Sages did not apply it in Syria.
|
| 72. |
I.e., performs the task which completes the work associated with the produce at which time the obligation to separate the terumot and tithes takes effect.
|
| 73. |
I.e., it is considered as if it was the gentile's produce entirely.
|
| 74. |
The previous growth of the produce is not significant.
|
| 75. |
Halachah 10.
|
| 76. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's definition of the term chocher in Hilchot Sechirut 8:1.
|
| 77. |
Both the terms aris and mekabel refer to sharecropping agreements. The difference between them is that an aris is working for the owner of the field for a percentage of the crops (see Hilchot Shluchin 8:5), while a mekabel is renting the field from the owner for a percentage of the crops (Hilchot Sechirut 8:2).
|
| 78. |
The motivating principle behind these laws is that renting the field is not equivalent to purchasing it, for the land itself does not become his (Avodah Zarah 15a).
In Eretz Yisrael, by contrast, a person entering any one of these types of agreements would be obligated to separate the tithes (Radbaz).
|
| 79. |
See the Kessef Mishneh who debates whether, to be obligated, the Jew must purchase the field or it is sufficient for him to purchase the produce alone without purchasing the land. It appears that he concludes that if one does not purchase the field, he is exempt as indicated by Halachah 15.
|
| 80. |
The Radbaz states that the Jew may not deduct from the tithes the portion of the produce that grew in the gentile's possession. Since it incurred the obligation for tithes while in the Jew's possession and was completed by him, everything else is not of consequence.
|
| 81. |
I.e., when it reached a third of its development.
|
| 82. |
As payment of the produce due the owner from his field.
|
| 83. |
I.e., we allow for the possibility that the sharecropper sold the produce from the field and then purchased other produce to pay the owner his due. The rationale for this leniency is that since the obligation to tithe in Syria is Rabbinic in origin, as long as we are not definitely certain that it applies, we rule leniently. In Eretz Yisrael, he would have to separate the tithes (Radbaz).
|
| 84. |
In such a situation, there is room to say that the principle of bereirah applies. Bereirah means that retroactively, it is considered as if the division that was ultimately made was made at the outset (see Hilchot Ma'aser 7:1). To explain within the context of the present situation: Were a portion of the field to belong to the gentile, there would be no obligation to separate the tithes from the grain that grew in that portion. To apply the principle of bereirah would mean that, after the division of the crops, it is clarified that at the outset, the portion of the field where the crops given to the gentile grew belonged to him. There is a debate among the Sages whether the principle ofbereirah can be applied and with regard to halachah, the accepted general principle is that in question of Scriptural Law, it does not apply. Thus in Eretz Yisrael, where the obligation to tithe is one of Scriptural Law, we do not accept this principle and maintain that the Jew has a share in the grain given to the gentile and hence, it is under obligation to be tithed.
|
| 85. |
In this instance, all authorities agree that the principle of bereirah is not applied.
|
| 86. |
Produce which is forbidden because the terumot and the tithes were not separated from it.
|
| 87. |
Hence if a Jew purchases that produce, he must separate the terumot and the tithes.
|
| 88. |
In such an instance, there is room to say that the principle of bereirah should be applied, because the obligation to separate the tithes is Rabbinic in origin. Nevertheless, since the fundamental obligation is Scriptural, we rule stringently even with regard to this dimension which is Rabbinic (Radbaz).
|
| 89. |
Halachah 13.
|
| 90. |
When quoting these laws, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:11) states that in the present age, when the obligation to separate terumot and tithes in Eretz Yisrael is Rabbinic in origin (see Halachah 26), the laws applying to produce grown in Syria also apply to produce grown in Eretz Yisrael.
|
| 91. |
And from that verse which speaks of the obligation to separate challah, we learn that one is also obligated to separate the terumot and the tithes.
|
| 92. |
The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the exemption from the obligation to tithe applies only according to Scriptural Law. According to Rabbinic Law, all authorities agree that one is obligated, for this produce is comparable to that of Ammon and Moav. The Radbaz does not accept this perspective, stating that there is no source which maintains that a Rabbinic obligation exists. The Radbaz does, however, qualify the Rambam's ruling, explaining that it applies only when the work that makes the produce obligated to be tithed is completed in the Diaspora. If this work is completed in Eretz Yisrael, the obligation to separate the tithes has already been incurred and they must be separated even if the produce was later taken to the Diaspora. For this reason, in most instances, terumah and tithes must be separated from produce that is grown inEretz Yisrael in the present age and later exported to the Diaspora. This, however, applies to fruits only, not vegetables as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 6.
|
| 93. |
The Kessef Mishneh questions why the obligation to separate the tithes is only of Rabbinic origin. Since the concept is based on the exegesis of the same Biblical term as mentioned above, if the work that made the produce obligated to be tithed was performed in Eretz Yisrael, why is the obligation not Scriptural in origin? The Kessef Mishneh answers that since the prooftext mentions "the bread of the land," one can conclude that the obligation applies only to produce grown in the Holy Land itself. Alternatively, the Kessef Mishneh suggests that indeed if the work that makes the produce obligated to be tithed is completed only in Eretz Yisrael, the obligation is indeed Scriptural in origin. This ruling is quoted by the Siftei Cohen 331:22.
|
| 94. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 2:2).
|
| 95. |
Even if it does not have a hole, since wood is porous, it is as if the earth on the ship is connected to the earth in Eretz Yisrael.
|
| 96. |
I.e., if the trunk is located in Eretz Yisrael, the tithes must be separated from the produce. If it is located in the Diaspora, they need not.
The Rambam LeAm notes that the laws in this halachah must be qualified on the basis of Halachah 22. For if as stated there, everything depends on where the work that makes the produce obligated in the tithes is completed, of what difference does it make where the produce grows. That text explains that if the person separates tithes from produce that grew in the Diaspora before the work that makes the produce obligated in the tithes is completed, even if that work is completed in Eretz Yisrael, the tithes separated are not significant. For at the time, they were separated, there was no obligation to tithe the produce.
|
| 97. |
Generally, if there is a hole in the bottom of a flowerpot, it is considered as if the plant is connected to the earth beneath it. Nevertheless, in this instance, Gittin 22a teaches that we follow the foliage of the plant and not the position of the hole in the flower pot.
|
| 98. |
Who brought about a consecration of Eretz Yisrael that is effective until the present day, as stated in Halachah 5.
|
| 99. |
More precisely, the majority of the Jewish people, for the majority is considered equivalent to the entire whole.
|
| 100. |
There is no such phrase in the Torah stated with regard to terumah or the tithes. The commentaries explain that Ketubot 25a makes such a statement with regard to the mitzvah ofchallah based on Numbers 15:18 and the laws regarding terumah are derived from it. See also a parallel ruling in Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 10:8.
|
| 101. |
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the obligation to separate terumah has the status of a Scriptural commandment in the present age. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro elaborates in support of the Rambam's position and in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah331:2), he rules accordingly.
|
| 102. |
In the era of Mashiach. At that time, the observance of all the agricultural laws will return to Scriptural status, as stated in Hilchot Melachim 11:1.
|
| 103. |
Indeed, we find several sources (Yoma 9b) where our Sages criticized the majority of the people for remaining in Babylonia.
|
| 104. |
The commentaries point to Ezra 2:62-63 as indicating that in the era of the Second Temple,terumah was still observed with the status of a Scriptural mitzvah. For Ezra and Nechemiah restricted the priests whose lineage was not affirmed from partaking of it. Nevertheless, it can be explained that at that time, they were expecting the majority of the people to return and then, the status of the mitzvah would revert to that of Scriptural origin. Lest confusion arise concerning these priests were this to occur, they enforced these restrictions.
|
| 105. |
See Hilchot Ma'aser 1:7 which points to several dimensions of the equivalence between terumahand the tithes.
|
| 106. |
Although in Halachah 1, the Rambam writes that the Scriptural status of terumah and the tithes is not dependent on the Temple, there is no contradiction to this halachah. If the majority of the Jewish people are located in Eretz Yisrael, these mitzvos have the status of Scriptural Law, even if the Temple is not standing. Conversely, even if the Temple is standing, if the majority of the Jewish people are not located in Eretz Yisrael (as was the case in the Second Temple era), the status of these commandments is Rabbinic (Radbaz).
|
Terumot - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
[We are] obligated [to separate] terumah from food1 [designated] for human [consumption],2 that is guarded,3 and that grows from the earth.4 It is a positive commandment5 to separate the first portion [of such crops] for a priest, as [Deuteronomy 18:4] states: "You shall give him the first portion of your grain, your wine, and your oil." Just as grain, wine, and oil are [agricultural produce that] is food that is designated for humans, grows from the earth, and has an owner - as indicated by the term "your grain,"6 - so, too, [we are] obligated to [separate] terumot and tithes from any analogous [agricultural produce].7
Halacha 2
[We are] obligated [to separate] terumah and tithes from vetch,8 even though it is not [usually] food for humans, since it is eaten [by humans] in a year of famine. [We are] obligated [to separate] tithes from siyah, hyssop,9 andkoranit10 that are sown for human consumption. Similar laws apply to analogous species.
If they were sown as animal fodder, even though the person changed his mind and thought to use them for human [consumption] while they were still connected to the ground, they are exempt. For the intent [of the owner] while [the produce] is growing is of no consequence.11
[The following rules apply if] these herbs grow in a courtyard on their own. If the produce growing in the courtyard is guarded,12 [we are] obligated to [separate the tithes], for most probably it is for human consumption. If the produce within is not guarded, it is exempt.
Halacha 3
Seeds of garden vegetables that are not eaten, e.g., turnip seed, raddish seed, onion seed, and the like are exempt from terumah and tithes, because they are not used for human consumption. [We are,] by contrast, obligated [to separate]terumah and tithes from caraway seed.13
Halacha 4
Blossoms of chilba,14 mustard seed, white beans, capers, and the caper bark15are exempt, because they are not considered as produce.
When does the above apply? When they were sown for seed. When, however, they were sown for their produce, there is an obligation [to tithe].16 Similarly, there is an obligation [to tithe] caper berries, because they are produce.
Halacha 5
When coriander was sown for seed, its vegetable is exempt from terumah and the tithes.17 If it was sown as a vegetable, we must separate terumot and tithes from both the vegetables and the seed.18 Similarly, when shevet19 is sown for seed, its vegetable is exempt from terumah and the tithes. If it was sown as a vegetable, we must separate terumot and tithes from both the vegetables and the seed. The seed capsules need not be tithed. If he sowed it for the sake of the seed capsules, he must separate terumot and tithes from the vegetables, the seed, and the seed capsules. Similarly, when cress and wild cress20 were sown as a vegetable, we must separate tithes from both the seed and the vegetables.
What is meant by [the statement] we must separate tithes from both the seed and the vegetables? That if he gathered the vegetables to eat them, he must separate terumah and the tithes and [only] then, eat. When [he allows the plant] to dry [and produce] seeds which he gathers, he must make these separations from the seed.
Halacha 6
Even though vegetables are used for human consumption, the obligation to tithe them is only Rabbinic in origin.21 [The rationale is that] with regard to the tithes, [Deuteronomy 14:22] speaks of "the yield of your planting." Now the termtevuah [translated as "yield"] refers to grain and the like. Vegetables are not included as tevuah.
Similarly, it appears to me22 that this also applies with regard to terumah, for with regard to terumah, it is stated: "your grain, your wine, and your oil." Implied is that the obligation is applied to all species resembling those.23 Instead,terumah which is separated from vegetables is a Rabbinic decree like their tithes.
Halacha 7
We do not separate terumah and tithes from vegetables in the Diaspora, even in the places where we said that tithes should be separated,24 Similarly, vegetables that come from the Diaspora to Eretz Yisrael, even though there is earth in their roots,25 they are exempt26 and nothing was decreed concerning them.27
When grain or legumes are sown for their vegetables, the person's intent is not considered of consequence because of the prevailing conception of most people. [Hence,] their vegetables are exempt and [we are] obligated [to separate] terumah and tithes from their kernels.
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
The following are exempt from terumah and tithes: Leket, shichachah, pe'ah, individual grapes that separate from a cluster, and underdeveloped grape clusters.32 This applies even if [a poor person] collects them in a grainheap.33If, however, he collects them in granary in the field, it is established that there is an obligation for tithes upon them and terumah and tithes must be separated from them.34 If, however, he collects them in a granary in a town, they are exempt, for the matter is spoken about and everyone knows that [the produce] is leket, shichachah, and pe'ah.
Halacha 10
One is obligated [to separate] terumah and tithes from leket, shichachah, andpe'ah [left] by a gentile35 unless he declared them ownerless. Similarly, if grain and olives did not reach a third of their growth, they are exempt from terumahand the tithes.36
How can one know [whether produce has reached a third of its growth]? When [the kernels] would grow if they were sown,37 it is known that it has reached a third of its growth. If a person transgressed and separated [terumah] from grain and olives before they reached a third of their growth, [the separated produce] is not terumah.38
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
When a person declares standing grain ownerless, takes possession of it, and then transgresses and separates terumah,41 the laws of terumah apply to the produce separated.42 If, however, he declared sheaves [of grain] ownerless, takes possession of them, and transgresses and separates terumah, the laws of terumah do not apply to the produce separated.43 Similarly, whenever a person separates [terumah] from produce from which terumah is not obligated to be separated, the laws of terumah do not apply to the produce separated.
Similarly, with regard to tithes, produce which the majority of people do not ordinarily sow in their gardens and fields, but instead, can be assumed to have grown ownerless are exempt from terumah and tithes. [This includes] garlic that makes one cry, onions of Rikpah,44 a pearled Cilcilian bean, Egyptian lentils,45and the like.
Halacha 13
[The following laws apply if] produce from which we are obligated to separateterumah becomes mixed with produce which is exempt,46 e.g., olives gathered by the poor47 become mixed with olives reaped [by the owner], underdeveloped grape clusters48 become mixed with grapes that were harvested. If the person has other produce,49 he separates [terumah from it] for the produce upon which the obligation lies according to the appropriate reckoning.50If this is all the produce the person has, he should separate terumah and terumat ma'aser for the entire mixture,51 as if there was an obligation to separate terumah from the entire amount.52 He should separate the first and second tithes for the produce upon which the obligation lies according to the appropriate reckoning.53
Halacha 14
Terumah [must be given] to a priest whether it is in a state of ritual purity or not. Even if all the grain or the wine became impure before [terumah] was separated, he is obligated to separate the terumah that is impure and give it to a priest, as [Numbers 18:8] states: "And behold I have given you the watch over My terumah,"54 i.e., whether it is pure or impure. The pure [terumah] may be eaten by the priests and they can benefit from the impure [terumah] by burning it.55 If it is oil, it can be kindled [as fuel for a lamp]. If it is grain or the like, it can be used as fuel for an oven.56
Halacha 15
Similarly, if terumat ma'aser became impure - or if the tithes became impure, he must separate [terumat ma'aser] in impurity and give it to a priest to benefit from by using it as fuel.
Halacha 16
Anyone who separates the great terumah or terumat ma'aser should recite a blessing before separating it, just as one recites a blessing over the observance of all the mitzvot, as we explained in [Hilchot] Berachot.57
Halacha 17
Terumah - even impure terumah - should not be taken from Eretz Yisrael to the Diaspora.58 We should not bring terumah from the Diaspora to Eretz Yisrael.59If it was brought [from the Diaspora], it should not be eaten, because it is impure because [of contact with] the earth of the nations.60 It should not be burnt, lest people say: "We saw terumah that did not become impure being burnt." It should not be returned to the Diaspora, lest people say: "Terumahmay be taken [from Eretz Yisrael] to the Diaspora." Instead, we leave it until it becomes impure because of a known source of impurity61 or until the day before Pesach if it was leaven,62 and then it will be burnt.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
To exclude herbs grown as dyes and the like. This is derived from the fact that the prooftext cited states: "And you shall eat" [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 1:1)].
|
| 2. |
In contrast to animal fodder (Shabbat 68a).
|
| 3. |
By its owner, rather than left ownerless (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.).
|
| 4. |
This excludes mushrooms whose roots do not enter the earth.
|
| 5. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 126) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 507) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 6. |
I.e., grain that someone calls his own.
|
| 7. |
I.e., the Rambam considers grain, wine, and oil as examples, teaching that all similar produce must be tithes. Other commentaries (the Ra'avad, gloss to Hilchot Ma'aser 1:9; Rashi, Berachot36a) maintain that, according to Scriptural Law, we are obligated to separate terumotand the tithes from only these three types of produce. They maintain that the obligation to separate the tithes from other types of produce is Rabbinic in origin. See also Halachah 6.
|
| 8. |
Beans that are used as animal fodder.
|
| 9. |
This is the common translation for the term aizov. In his notes to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Sh'vi'it, ch. 8, note 6, Rav Kappach identifies the Arabic term used by the Rambam as "oregano."
|
| 10. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 3:3), the Rambam identifies these species as types of hyssop that grow wildly in gardens and courtyards.
|
| 11. |
This is a principle applicable in other halachic contexts as well. See Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 3:3.
|
| 12. |
E.g., it has a fence or the like around it.
|
| 13. |
For it is used for human consumption. The Radbaz maintains that the obligation is Scriptural in origin.
|
| 14. |
A pungent herb.
|
| 15. |
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 4:6).
|
| 16. |
The Radbaz maintains that the obligation is Rabbinic in origin.
|
| 17. |
Since it was sown as seed, the vegetables that grow are of no consequence.
|
| 18. |
For even the seed can be used for human consumption.
|
| 19. |
In his notes to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah, ch. 3, note 4), Rav Kappach identifies this as dill.
|
| 20. |
See Rav Kappach's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 4:5).
|
| 21. |
The obligation to make these separations from other fruits, by contrast, is Scriptural in origin. See Halachah 1 and notes.
|
| 22. |
The Rambam's use of this expression in this instance has raised questions. Generally, he employs this expression to refer to laws that he derives through his powers of deduction without a previous Rabbinic source. In this instance, however, this concept is explicitly stated in the Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 4:4) and in the Babylonian Talmud (Zevachim 76a).
|
| 23. |
And vegetables are not comparable to these species.
|
| 24. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 1, which states that tithes should be separated in Babylon, Ammon and Moab. Nevertheless, since there is no Scriptural obligation to tithe vegetable, our Sages did not impose such an obligation in the Diaspora. Thus even when vegetables from Eretz Yisrael are exported to the Diaspora in contemporary times, there is no need to separate terumah and tithes.
|
| 25. |
And thus they will continue growing in Eretz Yisrael.
|
| 26. |
According to Scriptural Law. Even though there is an obligation on other produce as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 22, our Sages did not extend this obligation to vegetables.
|
| 27. |
By the Sages.
|
| 28. |
An herb identified as chilbah, a sharp and pungent herb used in Eretz Yisrael today.
|
| 29. |
And thus there are certain laws (see Chapter 11, Halachah 9; Chapter 12, Halachah 7) that deal with chilbah as if it were not fit for human consumption.
|
| 30. |
When it is still soft and edible.
|
| 31. |
The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam, noting that in Halachah 4, he ruled that chilbah blossoms are exempt. The Kessef Mishneh explains that there is no contradiction, for there is a difference between chilbah and chilbah blossoms.
|
| 32. |
As explained in Hilchot Matanot Aniyim, all of these are portions of one's crops that must be given to the poor. Since they are ownerless, they are exempt according to Scriptural Law, as indicated by Halachah 1.
The Rambam's statements are based on Challah 1:3. That mishnah does not, however, mention individual grapes that separate from a cluster and underdeveloped grape clusters. Nevertheless, since they are also presents given to the poor from our produce, the same laws apply to them.
|
| 33. |
Although the Jerusalem Talmud (Kilayim 6:2) equates a granary with a grainheap, the Babylonian Talmud (Berachot 40b) mentions only a granary (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 34. |
As evident from the continuation of the Rambam's statements, the obligation is Rabbinic in origin, lest an observer think that the harvesting process will have been completed by the owner of the field without the agricultural obligations being met. See Berachot, loc. cit.
|
| 35. |
A gentile is not required to leave these presents for the poor. Hence, if he does leave them, they are not given that status. Nevertheless, they are not considered as ownerless, but rather as a present given by the gentile to the poor (Radbaz). Hence, the produce is considered as produce from a gentile acquired by a Jew. If the Jew completes the work associated with the produce,terumah and the tithes must be separated from [Chapter 1, Halachot 10-11; see also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 4:9)].
|
| 36. |
Because the produce is not considered significant until it reaches that size (Siftei Cohen 331:28).
|
| 37. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 1:3).
|
| 38. |
If a separation was made from produce that was exempt for produce that was liable, a new separation must be made and none of the prohibitions applying to terumah are associated with the produce separated originally.
|
| 39. |
Although declaring property ownerless is in certain matters equivalent to taking a vow (Hilchot Nedarim 2:14) and the laws of vows do not apply to a gentile, when a gentile declares property ownerless, his declaration is effective. This concept is not accepted by all authorities and some even suggest alternate versions of the Mishneh Torah. Nevertheless, it is borne out by the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah, loc. cit.).
|
| 40. |
For the crops themselves are not ownerless (Radbaz).
|
| 41. |
He is considered to have transgressed, because, according to law, there is no obligation to separate terumah from such produce. Even though the original owner himself took possession of the field, there is no difference between it and other ownerless crops. See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim5:27.
|
| 42. |
Since while the grain is standing, separating a portion as terumah would not be effective, if it was declared ownerless at that time, that declaration does not prevent the separation of terumahafterwards from being effective [Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aserot 1:1)].
|
| 43. |
Since terumah separated from sheaves is effective (even though all the work associated with preparing crops is not completed), if the sheaves are declared ownerless, that declaration prevents the separation of terumah from being effective (ibid.).
|
| 44. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 5:7) where he explains that these species of garlic and onion are so pungent that they cause people to cry. He does, however, allow for the possibility that the Hebrew terms refer to names of places.
|
| 45. |
These types of beans and lentils are of abnormal shape and grow wild (ibid.).
|
| 46. |
And a separation between the two cannot be made.
|
| 47. |
From which terumah need not be separated.
|
| 48. |
These types of beans and lentils are of abnormal shape and grow wild (ibid.).
|
| 49. |
From which he is obligated to separate terumah, but from which he did not separate it as of yet.
|
| 50. |
I.e., if five pounds of grapes from which there was an obligation to separate terumah become mixed with other grapes, we separate an amount of terumah sufficient for five pounds of grapes from an additional source of grapes. With regard to the measure of terumah appropriate to give, see the following chapter.
|
| 51. |
This is speaking about an instance where wine was made from the grapes and oil from the olives. Hence every drop contains a mixture of produce from which terumah is obligated to be separated and produce upon which there is no obligation.
|
| 52. |
He cannot merely separate the appropriate amount from the mixture, because one may not separate terumah (or tithes) from produce upon which there is no obligation for produce upon which there is an obligation. Since in every drop that he separates, there is a portion upon which there is no obligation, that separation is not effective (Siftei Cohen 331:28). As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 3:9), one must be stringent and separate terumah andterumat ma'aser for the entire amount, because one is liable for death at the hand of heaven for partaking of produce from which these allocations were not made properly.
In that source, the Rambam adds that the owner must buy the olives or the grapes to be given to the poor from them before he takes possession of the entire mixture.
|
| 53. |
The Siftei Cohen 331:29 and the Turei Zahav 331:7 explain that the intent is that one should separate the tithes for the entire amount, but give the Levite only the tithe for the amount upon which the obligation originally lay. In this manner, he will not have separated the tithes from produce upon which there is no obligation and yet will not have given the Levite more than would have had to.
|
| 54. |
In the verse, the noun terumah uses a plural form alluding to two types of terumah: pure terumahand impure terumah. See also Hilchot Ma'aser 6:2.
|
| 55. |
It is forbidden to partake of it.
|
| 56. |
It may not, however, be given to animals as animal fodder. See Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 90) which states that it is a mitzvah to burn impure terumah. Impure terumah from fruits that will not be useful as fuel must be buried.
|
| 57. |
As stated in Hilchot Berachot 11:2, 6, 12, a blessing should be recited before the observance of every positive commandment.
|
| 58. |
If the terumah is pure, it should not be taken to the Diaspora, because the very earth of the Diaspora is considered as impure by Rabbinic decree (see Hilchot Tuma'at Meit, ch. 11) and theterumah will become impure. Even if the terumah was already impure, it should be burnt in Eretz Yisrael. See Sh'vi'it 6:5.
|
| 59. |
Lest the priests seek to leave Eretz Yisrael to collect it [Jerusalem Talmud (Sh'vi'it 6:6)].
|
| 60. |
I.e., by Rabbinic decree.
|
| 61. |
i.e., it is forbidden in the Diaspora, because of the doubt that perhaps it came into contact with a corpse. Nevertheless, we do not burn it until we know certainly that it became impure.
|
| 62. |
For all leaven must be burnt at this time.
|
Terumot - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
There is no minimum requirement for the great terumah according to Scriptural Law, as [implied by Deuteronomy 18:4]: "The first of your grain," i.e., even the slightest amount. Even one kernel of grain fulfills the requirement for the entire grain heap. As an initial and prefatory measure, one should separate only according to the measures specified by our Sages. In the present age, when [the terumah] will be burnt because of impurity, a person may separate even the smallest amount as an initial and prefatory measure.1
Halacha 2
What is the measure that our Sages established? A generous measure is one fourtieth [of the crop]. The average [measure] is one fiftieth and a parsimonious measure is one sixtieth.
Halacha 3
As an initial and preferred measure, we may separate one sixtieth [of the crop] as terumah from species to which the priests do not pay attention, e.g., carobs2and kilisin beans.
[Similarly,] we [may separate] one sixtieth [of the crop as terumah] in the following situations: terumah separated from produce grown from terumah,3terumah that is mixed [with tevel],4 or impure terumah that became impure against one's will or inadvertently,5 terumah taken from consecrated crops,6terumah [separated in] the Diaspora, terumah from ketzach, kilisin, carobs,7poor quality wild figs, red barley kernels, and the like,8 and produce grown in a flower-pot that does not have a hole.9
Similarly, when guardians separate [terumah] from the produce of orphans, they should separate one sixtieth.10
Halacha 4
One should not11 separate this terumah with a measure, a scale, or by number, because [the Torah] did not specify a measure for this [allocation]. Instead, one makes an estimation and separates one fiftieth12 according to his conception.13One may, however, separate terumah from [produce that is] measured, weighed, or counted.14 He should not separate terumah using a basket or a container whose measure is known.15 He may, however, separateterumah by [filling] half or a third of their measure. One should not separateterumah [by using] half [a measure of] a se'ah, because its half is also a measure.
Halacha 5
When a person separates a large measure of terumah,16 as long as he leaves a certain portion as ordinary produce,17 [the separated portion] is terumah. If, however, he said: "All of this produce is terumah," his statements are of no consequence.18
If a person intended to separate one tenth [of his crop] as terumah, but it happened that he actually set aside one sixtieth, [the separated portion] isterumah.19 If, however, he intended to sixtieth as terumah, but it happened that he actually set aside one fiftieth, [the separated portion] is not terumah.20
Halacha 6
When a person sets aside terumah and it happened that he gave one twentieth [of his crop],21 [the separated portion] is terumah.22 If he set aside terumah and it happened that he gave one sixtieth [of his crop] and hence, he added more produce for the sake of terumah,23 the tithes must be separated from that additional amount.24 The priest must separate them and only then may he partake of it.25
If a person set aside terumah26 and it happened that he gave one sixty-first [of his crop], [the separated portion] is terumah, but he must set aside a second portion to complete the measure that he originally intended to give. This additional measure may be set aside with a measure, a scale, or by number.27He should set aside [the terumah] only from the produce that is encompassed [in the same area] as is true with regard to the initial separation [of terumah].28
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
When a person separates a portion of terumah from one grain heap and a portion of terumah from a second grain heap of the same species, he should not separate terumah from one grain heap for the other.31
[The following rules apply when a person] says: "The terumah for this grain heap is in its midst." If he specified a place - on the north side or the south - he has designated terumah and is obligated to separate terumah from that [portion of the grain heap]. If he did not specify a place, his statements are of no consequence.32
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
[Produce] that is usually measured in volume, should be measured in volume. [Produce] that is weighed should be weighed and if it can [easily] be counted, it should be counted. If it could [easily] be counted, weighed, or measured in volume, it is praiseworthy to count it,38 more praiseworthy to measure its volume, and most praiseworthy to weigh it.39
Halacha 12
The mitzvah [to separate] terumat ma'aser is for a Levite to separate it from the tithe [given] him, as [Numbers 18:26] states: "When you take the tithe from the children of Israel...."40 An Israelite may separate terumat ma'aser and give it to a priest41 and then give the tithes to a Levite after separating the terumat [ma'aser] from it, i.e., a tenth of a tenth.
Halacha 13
When an Israelite separates the first tithe while the crop is still stalks [of grain] and gives it to the Levite before it was threshed and before he separated the great terumah, the Levite is not required to separate the great terumah from it after he threshes it, only terumat ma'aser.42
If, however, the Israelite threshed [the crop]43 and separated a tithe of the grain and gave it to the Levite before he separated the great terumah, the Levite is obligated to separate the great terumah and terumat ma'aser, since [the crop] has already been [separated into kernels of] grain, the obligation [to separate]terumah has fallen upon it, as [implied by the phrase]: "The first of your grain."44
Halacha 14
When a Levite took grain while it was in stalks, he should not give the terumahto the priest in stalks. Instead, we penalize him [and require him] to thresh [the crop], winnow it, and give the priest a tenth of a tenth of the kernels of the grain.45 He is not required to give him a tenth of the straw or the chaff.46 If he set aside terumat ma'aser while the crop was in stalks as it was given to him, he must crush it and give the priest the kernels and the straw.47
Why did they penalize him and make him crush it? Because he accepted the tithe while it was in the stalks and thus precluded the separation of the greatterumah.
Halacha 15
When an Israelite tells a Levite: "My father told me: 'I have ma'aser for you in my possession,' we are not concerned about [the possibility of] it containingterumat ma'aser. [We are confident] that his father separated the terumat ma'aser. Therefore he commanded him that the [entire] tithe should be given to the Levite.48
If [the Israelite] told [the Levite]: "My father told me: 'I have a kor49of ma'aser for you in my possession,' we are concerned about [the possibility of] it containingterumat ma'aser.
Halacha 16
Terumat ma'aser that is an eight of an eight [of a log]50should be brought to a priest. For less than that, [we do not trouble him] to bring it to a priest.51Instead, he may throw it into the fire and burn it.52 With regard to wine and oil, by contrast, even the smallest amount [of terumat ma'aser] should be brought to a priest53 provided it is definitely terumat ma'aser and ritually pure.54 If it was ritually impure or if it was demai,55 if it does not contain [the above] measure, he is not required to trouble himself with it. Instead, he should burn it.
Halacha 17
We should separate the great terumah only from [produce] in the same location.56 What is implied? A person had 50 se'ah in one room57 and 50 se'ahin another,58 he should not separate two se'ah from one room for the entire 100se'ah, for he would be separating produce from one location for produce from another.
[After the fact,] if one separated terumah from one location for produce in another, the separation is effective,59 provided the produce separated [asterumah] is protected. If, however, a person possessed jugs of oil and/or wine and saw that they were breaking, should he say: "These are terumah for the produce in my home,"60his words are of no consequence.61
Halacha 18
When produce is scattered in a room or there are two granaries in the same room,62 one may separate terumah from one for the entire amount.63When sacks of grain, spheres of dried figs, or jugs of figs are in the same place, one may separate from one for the entire amount. With regard to jugs of wine, until one has sealed their lids closed, he may separate terumah from one for the entire amount.64After they have been sealed, he must separate terumah from each one individually.65
Halacha 19
When a person was gathering bunches of vegetables and leaving them in [his] garden, he may separate terumah from one for the entire amount.66 If he brings another type of produce between them, he must separate terumah from each one individually. If he brought several species together in a container, e.g., cabbage on top, cabbage on bottom, and another species in between, he should not separate terumah from the top head for the bottom head.67
Halacha 20
Terumat ma'aser may be separated even if [the produce] is not in the same location. [This is implied by Numbers 18:28]: Separate terumah "from all of your tithes."70 [Implied is that] even if there is one [collection of] tithes in one city and another [collection of] tithes in another city, one may separate terumat [ma'aser] once for all of them. Torah scholars separate even terumat ma'aseronly from [produce] in one location.71
Halacha 21
When a Levite possessed [produce from] the first tithe from which terumat ma'aser was not separated and he left it so that he could continuously separateterumat ma'aser [for other crops] from it while it is still tevel, his actions are viable. [This is derived from Numbers 18:24]: "For the tithes of the children of Israel [from] which they will separate terumah...." Implied is that [the tithes] can be transformed into terumat [ma'aser] in their entirety.
Halacha 22
If one separated terumat ma'aser first and then left [the produce] so that one could continually separate terumat ma'aser for other produce from it until it becomes terumat ma'aser in its entirety, at which he would give it to a priest, his actions are of no consequence.72 [This is derived from ibid.:29]: "The sacred portion from it." Implied is that when its sacred portion is in it,73 it can be madeterumat [ma'aser] for other [crops]. If its sacred portion is no longer in it, it cannot be made terumat [ma'aser] for other [crops]. Similarly, when a person sets aside crops to separate the great terumah from them, they must be tevelwith regard to terumah.74 If a person sets aside crops to separate the tithes from them, they must be tevel with regard to the tithes.75
Halacha 23
When terumah and the tithes are separated, we separate them in proper sequence.
What is implied? Before everything, one separates bikkurim.76 Afterwards, [he separates] the great terumah, the first tithe, then the second tithe or the tithe for the poor.77 If a person separated the second [tithe] before the first, or the tithes before terumah, or terumah before bikkurim, his actions are effective despite the fact that he has transgressed a negative commandment.78
What is the source which teaches that a negative commandment is involved? [Exodus 22:28] states: "Do not delay your fullness offering or your priestly heave-offering."79[Implied is a command] not to delay [the separation of produce] that should come first. Lashes are not given [as punishment for the violation] of this prohibition.80
Halacha 24
When a person desires to separate the great terumah and terumat ma'aser at the same time, he should separate 1/33.33 of his crop.81 He should say: "One hundredth of [the produce] that is here - i.e., on the side of the produce which I set aside - is ordinary produce.82 The remainder of what I separated is terumahfor the entire crop. The tithes which are necessary to be separated for these hundred portions83 of ordinary produce are at the side of [the produce] that I separated. The remainder of what I separated aside from the terumah isterumat ma'aser on the entire amount."84
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Since the produce will ultimately be burnt, there is no purpose in setting aside more than the very minimum. The Radbaz notes that the priests are also given the opportunity to benefit from impureterumah, because they use it as fuel. Why then shouldn't they be given a full measure of impureterumah? He explains that since this is not the primary use of terumah, our Sages did not feel that for the minimal benefit the priest receives from burning the terumah, it was necessary to require the people to separate a larger amount.
|
| 2. |
As stated in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 1:3, there are certain species of carobs which are generally not eaten by humans. There is no obligation to separate terumah from them according to Scriptural Law. Here we are speaking about carobs from which one is obligated to separate terumahaccording to Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, since they are not considered important by the priests, there is no need to separate more than the minimal amount.
|
| 3. |
As explained in Chapter 11, Halachot 21 and 27, when produce that is terumah is sown, according to Scriptural Law, the produce which grows is ordinary produce and terumah and tithes must be separated from it. Nevertheless, our Sages were stringent and declared that the entire crop should be considered as terumah and sold to the priests (at a price substantially less than that of ordinary produce). Since the owners are required to consider the entire crop as terumah, our Sages did not require them to separate more than a sixtieth to be given as terumah (Tosefta, Terumot, ch. 5).
|
| 4. |
Tevel is produce from which terumah and tithes were not separated. As indicated by Chapter 13, Halachah 1, if there are more than 100 times the amount of tevel as terumah, it is necessary to remove the amount of terumah that became mixed with the tevel and then separate the terumah. Since the person is already separating the amount of terumah from the mixture, our Sages did not require him to separate a large quantity of terumah from the tevel. As noted in Chapter 13, Halachah 2, more stringent laws apply when terumah becomes mixed with less than 100 times the amount of other produce.
|
| 5. |
The Radbaz questions: Why is it not sufficient to separate the slightest amount as terumah as is the practice in the present age (Halachah 1)? He explains that in the present age, all terumah will become ritually impure. Hence, there is no need to give a significant amount at all. In the time of the Talmud, by contrast, significant amounts of terumah that is pure must be separated. If an inconsequential amount of impure terumah would be separated, people might refrain from giving an appropriate amount of pure terumah.
|
| 6. |
I.e., crops that were consecrated after the work involving their harvest was completed (at which time the obligation to separate terumah became incumbent upon them), but from which terumahwas not actually separated. There is no need to separate terumah from crops that grew in a field belonging to the Temple treasury.
|
| 7. |
Note, however, Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 1:3.
|
| 8. |
I.e., all of these species are types of produce that are not usually considered valuable.
|
| 9. |
This leniency is granted for the obligation to separate terumah from such produce is merely Rabbinic in origin. Hence it is sufficient to separate one-sixtieth as an initial measure.
|
| 10. |
Because special consideration is given to the orphans' property.
|
| 11. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 1:7), Rambam states that separating terumah in this manner is "forbidden." The commentaries question whether his use of different wording in this halachah indicates a change of position or not.
|
| 12. |
This is the average measure. Our translation follows authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text reads "one sixtieth."
|
| 13. |
The Jerusalem Talmud (Terumah 1:7) derives this from Numbers 18:27: "And your terumah will be considered for you...." Venechshav translated as "considered" shares the root chashavmeaning "thought" or "estimate." Implied is that terumah should be given by estimation. Although this verse is speaking about terumat ma'aser which must be separated by exact measure (see Halachah 10), we follow the principle (see Rashi, Pesachim 24a): If a concept explicitly stated with regard to terumat ma'aser cannot be applied to it, we assume that it is referring to the greatterumah [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].
|
| 14. |
I.e., one measures the produce and then separates terumah by estimation (ibid.).
|
| 15. |
For that is obviously equivalent to separating with a measure.
|
| 16. |
I.e., a measure above that stated by the Sages.
|
| 17. |
I.e., he did not designate the entire crop as terumah.
|
| 18. |
For Numbers 15:21 speaks of giving "from the first of your kneading." Implied is that one must give "from the first," but not all the first [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 4:5, based on the Jerusalem Talmud)].
|
| 19. |
For he had intended to give this amount of produce - and more - as terumah (Kessef Mishneh). And when giving terumah, one's deed must be aligned - at least partially - with his intent. Since theterumah is acceptable, there is no need for the person to supplement the amount separated and give the amount he originally intended (Radbaz).
|
| 20. |
For he had not intended to give this amount as terumah (ibid.).
|
| 21. |
I.e., without either desiring to give this amount or having a desire to give a lesser amount. Note the gloss of the Radbaz who suggests that there is a printing error in the text.
|
| 22. |
The fact that he gave a larger measure than usual as terumah does not disqualify his gift.
|
| 23. |
So that he would not be giving a parsimonious measure.
|
| 24. |
Although normally, there is no obligation to separate tithes from terumah, since the portion he separated originally fulfilled his obligation, it immediately became necessary to separate tithes from the remainder of the produce.
|
| 25. |
He must observe all the obligations required when partaking of terumah.
|
| 26. |
With the intent of giving the measure required by our Sages.
|
| 27. |
Although initially, one should not give a measured amount of terumah as stated in Halachah 4, in this instance, he is required to give a measured amount so that he will give the amount that he originally intended.
|
| 28. |
As is required by Halachah 17, as an initial and preferable measure.
|
| 29. |
In contrast to the situation described in the previous halachah, in this instance, the person originally intended to separate more. Hence, what he separated is not considered as terumah.
|
| 30. |
Since the separation was not effective, that portion is considered as tevel and terumah must be separated from it. Since it was set aside as a separate portion, the terumah should be separated from it and not from other produce. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot4:1).
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's interpretation of that mishnah and maintains that the separated produce is in fact terumah. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's interpretation.
|
| 31. |
For as mentioned above and in Halachah 17, preferably, one should separate terumah from the grain for which it is being separated and not from other grain.
|
| 32. |
And he may separate terumah from other produce. The rationale is that terumah is called "the first." Implied is that it must be set aside from produce that is not "first" and in this instance, that has not been done (Siftei Cohen 331:45).
|
| 33. |
I.e., he designated a certain portion of the first grain heap as terumah.
|
| 34. |
I.e., the terumah for the second grain heap should be separated in a way entirely parallel to the separation from the first. It should be taken from an equivalent place and have the measure. Our translation is based on the version of the Mishneh Torah possessed by the Radbaz and theKessef Mishneh and their interpretations of that text. There are other slightly different versions of the text.
|
| 35. |
As stated in Halachah 12, after a tenth of the produce is given to the Levites, they must separate a tenth of that tenth and give it to the priests as terumat ma'aser.
|
| 36. |
I.e., in contrast to "the great terumah," as mentioned in Halachah 4.
As stated in the notes to that halachah, a verse ostensibly referring to terumat ma'aser (Numbers 18:27) states: "And your terumah will be considered for you...." Venechshav translated as "considered" shares the root chashav meaning "thought" or "estimate." Implied is that terumahshould be given by estimation. Nevertheless, according to the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumah 1:7), that verse refers to the great terumah and not to terumat ma'aser (Radbaz).
|
| 37. |
When it will be destroyed because of impurity.
|
| 38. |
I.e., separating the terumat ma'aser after counting it is praiseworthy [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 4:6)].
|
| 39. |
For in this way, the measurement is most precise.
|
| 40. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 129) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 396) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 41. |
I.e., the Torah's requirement is for the Israelite to give the tithes to the Levite and for the Levite to separate one tenth of the tithes as terumat ma'aser. Nevertheless, if the Israelite desires to fulfill this mitzvah, he has the option. It is not considered as if he is usurping the Levite's right.
The Radbaz notes that the source for this concept (Gittin 30b) also implies that terumat ma'asercan be separated by estimation and finds it somewhat problematic to derive one concept from that source, but not the second. Nevertheless, he concludes that this is in fact the Talmud's conclusion.
|
| 42. |
Berachot 47a derives this concept from the exegesis of Numbers 18:26 which speaks of taking "a tenth from the tithe." Implied is that only a tenth is separated from the tithe and nothing more.
|
| 43. |
And completed all the other tasks to make it obligated for tithing.
|
| 44. |
I.e., once produce has been reduced to kernels of grain, the obligation to separate terumah takes effect. Hence, the Levite must separate terumah from the tithe as well as terumat ma'aser.
|
| 45. |
I.e., he is penalized by being required to perform the work necessary to process the stalks of grain until they are reduced to kernels.
|
| 46. |
For the obligation to tithe is incumbent only on the food and not on the other parts of the plant.
|
| 47. |
He is required to perform the tasks necessary to process the grain for the reasons mentioned above. Nevertheless, he must give the priest the chaff because he designated it as terumah while it was in its stalks. That sacred designation does not depart from the chaff when the kernels are separated from it.
|
| 48. |
I.e., his statements indicate that his father desired that the entire tithe be given to the Levite. Hence, we assume that he already separated the terumat ma'aser.
|
| 49. |
The mention of a measure indicates that he expects the Levite to separate the terumat ma'aserrequired for this measure.
The Ra'avad challenges the Rambam's ruling, noting that it is the opposite of the standard text of the Talmud (Gittin 30b). The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh state that the version of the Talmud possessed by the Rambam differed from the standard version and indeed, possesses an advantage over it.
|
| 50. |
This measure, a kortov, is slightly less than 5 cc. according to Shiurei Torah and approximately 9.5 cc. according to Chazon Ish.
|
| 51. |
Because such a small amount is of little value.
On the basis of the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 11:4), the Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that even the slightest amount of pure grain should also be brought to a priest if there was a definite obligation to tithe. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh acknowledge the validity of Ra'avad's questions, but offer possible resolutions for the Rambam's approach.
|
| 52. |
He must, however, separate it. Otherwise, it is forbidden to benefit from the tithes.
|
| 53. |
For even a small amount of these substances is of value for a priest (Radbaz).
|
| 54. |
If it was not ritually pure, it would be of little benefit to the priest, for he could use it only as fuel. Hence we do not require that it be brought to him.
|
| 55. |
Produce from which we are uncertain whether the tithes had been separated and hence, require that the tithes be separated again. Since the tithes are being separated merely as a safeguard and thus it is possible that there is no Scriptural obligation from this crop, we do not trouble him to bring a priest a very small amount.
|
| 56. |
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 1:9). Note the contrast to terumat ma'aser as stated in Halachah 20.
|
| 57. |
We have chosen this translation for bayit based on the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh to Halachah 18 where he explains that when one grain heap is in a room and another in the loft of the same building, they are considered as being in the same place. This interpretation enables us to understand an otherwise difficult passage in the Tosefta, Terumot 3:9.
|
| 58. |
Everything that is in the same room is considered as being in the same location even if the two piles of produce are not touching each other (Radbaz; see the following halachah).
|
| 59. |
The Siftei Cohen 331:49 explains the rationale for the above restriction and why it is not binding after the fact. As mentioned above, according to Rabbinic Law, one must separate between one fortieth and one sixtieth of the crop as terumah and that separation must be made by estimation. Hence, in order to make an appropriate estimation, one must be in the same place as the produce. Nevertheless, since according to Scriptural Law, one fulfills his obligation with even one grain, after the fact, such a separation is not disqualified.
|
| 60. |
And thus try to receive something of value for the wine and/or oil that will be spilled.
|
| 61. |
Since the jugs are breaking, we considered them as having been broken already and the produce as having been spilled. When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:25) states that in the present age, when terumah is destroyed regardless because of its impurity, even when the jugs are breaking, the separation is effective.
|
| 62. |
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 1:9). Note the contrast to terumat ma'aser as stated in Halachah 20.
|
| 63. |
Since they are in the same room, they are considered as being in the same place.
|
| 64. |
It is considered as if they were all mixed together [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 3:12)].
|
| 65. |
Each closed jug is considered as a separate entity, even though they are all in the same room.
|
| 66. |
For the entire garden is considered as a single entity.
|
| 67. |
Since there are other species between them, they are not considered as of the same group.
|
| 68. |
The fact that they are in the same granary causes them to be considered as a single entity.
|
| 69. |
I.e., provided he has not begun removing produce from the granary.
|
| 70. |
The Rambam is not quoting the verse as it appears in the Torah.
|
| 71. |
The Siftei Cohen 331:48 describes this as the most choice way of observing the mitzvah. The Radbaz emphasizes that this is a stringency that Torah scholars have accepted upon themselves and, according to the Rambam, is not even a Rabbinic obligation. The Ra'avad explains that an Israelite need not separate terumat ma'aser from produce that is in one place, but a Levite must. The Kessef Mishneh does not accept that position and quotes sources in support of the Rambam's view.
|
| 72. |
And it is as if terumat ma'aser has never been separated for the produce for which he intended that it serve that purpose.
|
| 73. |
I.e., terumat ma'aser has not yet been separated.
|
| 74. |
I.e., terumah has never been separated from them. See Chapter 5, Halachah 12.
|
| 75. |
I.e., the tithes have never been separated from them. See Hilchot Ma'aser 1:7.
|
| 76. |
The first fruits.
|
| 77. |
I.e., either one or the other. For in the year the second tithe is separated, the tithe for the poor is not separated.
|
| 78. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 154) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 72) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 79. |
"Your fullness offering" refers to bikkurim for they are separated when the produce becomes full. "Your priestly heave-offering" refers to terumah. Thus the bikkurim precede terumah. See alsoTerumot 3:6-7.
|
| 80. |
Temurah 4b explains that this prohibition is considered as correctable by the fulfillment of a positive commandment, for one may make separations in the proper order. See the gloss of Radbaz.
|
| 81. |
I.e., three hundredths of his crop. An average donation of terumah is one fifitieth, two hundredths. And terumat ma'aser is one tenth of the first tithe, another hundredth. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 5:2).
|
| 82. |
This refers to the portion that will be separated as terumat ma'aser. Initially, it is to remain as ordinary produce, so that the prohibition against making the separations in improper sequence is not violated. See Ra'avad.
|
| 83. |
I.e., including that which was separated as terumah.
|
| 84. |
In this way, he will have separated terumah, the tithes, and terumat ma'aser in proper sequence.
|
• Sunday, Nissan 30, 5775 · 04/19/2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: K'doshim, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 145-150.
Tanya: Even if it (p. 235)...blessed be He. (p. 235).
The following farbrengens should take place in shul: The farbrengen of s'uda shlishit,1of Shabbat m'varchim,2 and of holidays (such as Rosh Chodesh and festive days3 ofanash)4
The farbrengen of melava malka5 should be held in the private homes of anash.
FOOTNOTES
1. The third Shabbat meal.
2. The Shabbat on which the coming month is blessed.
3. Such as Chassidic festivals - Yud-tess Kislev, Yud-beis Tamuz, Yud Kislev, Yud Sh'vat, Yud-Alef Nissan, Hay Tevet, Rosh Chodesh Kislev, etc.
4. Members of the Lubavitch community.
5. "Escorting the Shabbat Queen"; the Saturday night festive meal.
Daily Thought:
Humble Compassion
There is compassion that feeds the ego
and there is compassion that humbles it.
Compassion that feeds the ego
is a sense of pity for those who stand beneath you.
Compassion that humbles
is born of a deeper understanding of the order of things:
When you understand that your fellow man is suffering
in order that you may be privileged to help him
—then you are truly humbled.
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment