Today's Laws & Customs:
• Count "Thirty-Three Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the thirty-third day of the Omer Count. Since, on the Jewish calendar, the day begins at nightfall of the previous evening, we count the omer for tomorrow's date tonight, after nightfall: "Today is thirty-three days, which are four weeks and five days, to the Omer." (If you miss the count tonight, you can count the omer all day tomorrow, but without the preceding blessing).
The 49-day "Counting of the Omer" retraces our ancestors' seven-week spiritual journey from the Exodus to Sinai. Each evening we recite a special blessing and count the days and weeks that have passed since the Omer; the 50th day isShavuot, the festival celebrating the Giving of the Torah at Sinai.
Tonight's Sefirah: Hod sheb'Hod -- "Humility in Humility" (also: "Splendor in Splendor")
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:
• Roman Garrison Defeated (66)
Following the theft of silver from the Holy Temple in Jerusalem on the 17th of Iyar of the year 3826 from Creation (66 CE), the Jewish defense force attacked and defeated the Roman garrison stationed in Jerusalem.
• Passing of "Noda B'Yehudah" (1793)
The 17th of Iyar marks the passing of Rabbi Yechezkel Landau (1713-1793), author of the Talmudic-Halachic work Noda B'Yehuda and Chief Rabbi of Prague. His famous "Letter of Peace" helped to heal the rift between the great sages Rabbi Yaakov Emden and Rabbi Yonasan Eibeshutz, which threatened to irreparably divide the Jewish people.
Daily Quote:
You will see [the tzitzit], and you will remember all the commandments of G‑d, and you will do them...[Numbers 15:39]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Emor, 4th Portion Leviticus 23:1-23:22 with Rashi
• Chapter 23
1And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, אוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
2Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: The Lord's appointed [holy days] that you shall designate as holy occasions. These are My appointed [holy days]: בדַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם מוֹעֲדֵי יְהֹוָה אֲשֶׁר תִּקְרְאוּ אֹתָם מִקְרָאֵי קֹדֶשׁ אֵלֶּה הֵם מוֹעֲדָי:
Speak to the children of Israel…The Lord’s appointed [holy days]:Designate the [times] of the festivals so that [all of] Israel will become accustomed to them, [meaning] that they should proclaim leap years for [the Jews in] the Diaspora who had uprooted themselves from their place to ascend to [Jerusalem for] the festivals, but who had not yet arrived in Jerusalem. [The leap year would enable them to arrive in time. Consequently, in ensuing years, they would not lose hope of arriving on time and would be encouraged to make the pilgrimage.]- [Torath Kohanim 23:139; Levush Ha’orah. See also Mizrachi , Nachalath Ya’akov , Sefer Hazikkaron , Yosef Hallel , Chavel] דבר אל בני ישראל וגו' מועדי ה': עשה מועדות שיהיו ישראל מלומדין בהם, שמעברים את השנה על גליות שנעקרו ממקומם לעלות לרגל ועדיין לא הגיעו לירושלים:
3[For] six days, work may be performed, but on the seventh day, it is a complete rest day, a holy occasion; you shall not perform any work. It is a Sabbath to the Lord in all your dwelling places. גשֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תֵּעָשֶׂה מְלָאכָה וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ כָּל מְלָאכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ שַׁבָּת הִוא לַיהֹוָה בְּכֹל מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם:
[For] six days…: Why does the Sabbath [designated by God,] appear here amidst the festivals [designated by the Sanhedrin]? To teach you that whoever desecrates the festivals is considered [to have transgressed as severely] as if he had desecrated the Sabbath, and that whoever who fulfills the festivals is considered as if he has fulfilled the Sabbath, [and his reward is as great]. — [Be’er Basadeh ; Torath Kohanim 23:144] ששת ימים: מה ענין שבת אצל מועדות, ללמדך שכל המחלל את המועדות מעלין עליו כאלו חלל את השבתות. וכל המקיים את המועדות, מעלין עליו כאלו קיים את השבתות:
4These are the Lord's appointed [holy days], holy occasions, which you shall designate in their appointed time: דאֵלֶּה מוֹעֲדֵי יְהֹוָה מִקְרָאֵי קֹדֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תִּקְרְאוּ אֹתָם בְּמוֹעֲדָם:
These are the Lord’s appointed [holy days, holy occasions, that you shall designate]: In the earlier verse (verse 2), Scripture is referring to the proclamation of a leap year, while here, Scripture is referring to sanctifying the new month [i.e., “designating” which day is the first of the month, based on testimony of the sighting of the new moon. Both of these “designations,” therefore, have bearing on the establishment of the festivals.] - [Torath Kohanim 23: 146] אלה מועדי ה': למעלה מדבר בעבור שנה, וכאן מדבר בקדוש החדש:
5In the first month, on the fourteenth of the month, in the afternoon, [you shall sacrifice] the Passover offering to the Lord. הבַּחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לַחֹדֶשׁ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם פֶּסַח לַיהֹוָה:
in the afternoon: Heb. בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, lit. between the two evenings. From six [halachic] hours [after dawn,] and onwards [until evening (עֶרֶב), i.e., nightfall.] בין הערבים: משש שעות ולמעלה:
the Passover offering to the Lord: Heb. פֶּסַח, the offering up of a sacrifice named “Pesach.” [The term “Pesach” here refers to the Pesach offering brought on the fourteenth of Nissan, not to the Passover Festival, which begins on the fifteenth. — [Be’er Heitev on Rashi] פסח לה': הקרבת קרבן ששמו פסח:
6And on the fifteenth day of that month is the Festival of Unleavened Cakes to the Lord; you shall eat unleavened cakes for a seven day period. ווּבַחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה חַג הַמַּצּוֹת לַיהֹוָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מַצּוֹת תֹּאכֵלוּ:
7On the first day, there shall be a holy occasion for you; you shall not perform any work of labor. זבַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם כָּל מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ:
8And you shall bring a fire offering to the Lord for a seven day period. On the seventh day, there shall be a holy occasion; you shall not perform any work of labor. חוְהִקְרַבְתֶּם אִשֶּׁה לַיהֹוָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ כָּל מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ:
And you shall bring a fire offering [to the Lord for a seven-day period]:These are the additional offerings [of Passover] delineated in parshath Pinchas (Num. 28:1625). Why are they mentioned here? To inform you that the additional offerings do not impede one another, [if some are omitted, as the Torah states:] והקרבתם אשה וגו': הם המוספין האמורים בפרשת פנחס ולמה נאמרו כאן, לומר לך שאין המוספין מעכבין זה את זה:
And you shall bring a fire offering to the Lord: in any case. If there are no bulls, bring rams, and if there are neither bulls nor rams, bring lambs [as prescribed in Num. 28:19]. — [Torath Kohanim 23:152] והקרבתם אשה לה': מכל מקום, אם אין פרים הבא אילים, ואם אין פרים ואילים, הבא כבשים:
for a seven-day period: Heb. שִׁבְעַת יָמִים, lit., a “seven” of days. Wherever the שִׁבְעַת appears, it denotes a noun, and [thus, the expression here שִׁבְעַת יָמִים means “a week of days” ; septaine in Old French [which is the noun, as opposed to sept, meaning the number seven. See Mizrachi on Rashi Exod. 10:22]. Likewise, every [construct expression like], שְׁמוֹנַת, שֵׁשֶׁת, חֲמֵשֶׁת, שְׁלֹשֶׁת [literally means, respectively, “an eight of,” “a six of,” “a five of,” “a three of,” [meaning a unit consisting of one of these numbers]. - [See Gur Aryeh and Levush Haorah on Rashi Exod. 10:22 for the reason this type of expression is used here instead of simply שִׁבְעָה יָמִים, “seven days.”] שבעת ימים: כל מקום שנאמר שבעת שם דבר הוא, שבוע של ימים, שטיינ"א בלע"ז [קבוצה של שבעה ימים רצופים], וכן כל לשון שמונת, ששת, חמשת, שלשת:
work of labor: Even types of work (מְלָאכוֹת) that are considered by you as labor (עֲבוֹדָה) and necessities, where a monetary loss may be incurred if one would refrain from them, for example, something that will be lost [if the activity is postponed]. I understood this from Torath Kohanim, where it is taught (23:187): “One might think that even during the intermediate days of the Festival, work of labor is prohibited…” [and the text concludes by teaching us that during those days, מְלֶאכֶת עֲבוֹדָה is permitted, and we know that the type of work that is permitted on the intermediate days is such work whose postponement would cause a loss (דָּבָר הָאָבֵד). Hence, we see that מְלֶאכֶת עֲבוֹדָה and דָּבָר הָאָבֵד are synonymous, and that is what the Torah meant to prohibit on the festival holy days-namely, the first and seventh days of Passover, when even that type of work is prohibited]. מלאכת עבדה: אפילו מלאכות החשובות לכם עבודה וצורך, שיש חסרון כיס בבטלה שלהן, כגון דבר האבד. כך הבנתי מתורת כהנים, דקתני יכול אף חולו של מועד יהא אסור במלאכת עבודה וכו':
9And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, טוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
10Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: When you come to the Land which I am giving you, and you reap its harvest, you shall bring to the kohen an omer of the beginning of your reaping. ידַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן לָכֶם וּקְצַרְתֶּם אֶת קְצִירָהּ וַהֲבֵאתֶם אֶת עֹמֶר רֵאשִׁית קְצִירְכֶם אֶל הַכֹּהֵן:
[you shall bring…an omer] of the beginning of your reaping: the first of the harvest [from the fields. Thus, one is permitted to proceed with the general harvest only after this omer has been reaped.]- [Sifthei Chachamim; Men. 71a] ראשית קצירכם: שתהא ראשונה לקציר:
omer: a tenth of an ephah (see Exod. 16:36). That was its [the measure’s] name, like “And they measured it with an omer” (Exod. 16:18). עמר: עשירית האיפה, כך היתה שמה, כמו (שמות טז יח) וימודו בעומר:
11And he shall wave the omer before the Lord so that it will be acceptable for you; the kohen shall wave it on the day after the rest day. יאוְהֵנִיף אֶת הָעֹמֶר לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה לִרְצֹנְכֶם מִמָּחֳרַת הַשַּׁבָּת יְנִיפֶנּוּ הַכֹּהֵן:
And he shall wave: Every [mention of] תְּנוּפָה, “waving,” [in Scripture], denotes moving back and forth, up and down. [It is moved] back and forth to prevent evil winds; [it is moved] up and down to prevent evil dews [i.e., the dew should be a blessing for the crop, not a curse]. — [Men. 61a-62a] והניף: כל תנופה מוליך ומביא מעלה ומוריד. מוליך ומביא לעצור רוחות רעות, מעלה ומוריד לעצור טללים רעים:
so that it will be acceptable for you: If you offer it up according to these instructions, it will be acceptable for you. לרצנכם: אם תקריבו כמשפט זה, יהיו לרצון לכם:
on the day after the rest day: מִמָּחֳרַת הַשַּׁבָּת. On the day after the first holy day of Passover, [since a holy festival day is also שַׁבָָּת, rest day , in Scripture]. For if you say [that it means] the “Sabbath of Creation” [i.e., the actual Sabbath, the seventh day of the week], you would not know which one. - [Men. 66a] ממחרת השבת: ממחרת יום טוב הראשון של פסח, שאם אתה אומר שבת בראשית, אי אתה יודע איזהו:
12And on the day of your waving the omer, you shall offer up an unblemished lamb in its [first] year as a burnt offering to the Lord; יבוַעֲשִׂיתֶם בְּיוֹם הֲנִיפְכֶם אֶת הָעֹמֶר כֶּבֶשׂ תָּמִים בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ לְעֹלָה לַיהֹוָה:
you shall offer up [an unblemished lamb in its [first] year]: It comes as obligatory for the omer [not as part the additional offerings of Passover. ועשיתם כבש: חובה לעומר הוא בא:
13Its meal offering [shall be] two tenths [of an ephah] of fine flour mixed with oil, a fire offering to the Lord as a spirit of satisfaction. And its libation [shall be] a quarter of a hin of wine. יגוּמִנְחָתוֹ שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרֹנִים סֹלֶת בְּלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן אִשֶּׁה לַיהֹוָה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ וְנִסְכּוֹ (כתיב ונסכה) יַיִן רְבִיעִת הַהִין:
Its meal offering: The meal offering [which accompanies every sacrifice], along with its libations. [See Num. 15:116.] [This is not an independent meal offering.] ומנחתו: מנחת נסכיו:
two tenths [of an ephah]: It was double [the usual meal offering for a lamb, which is one tenth.] (See Num. 15:4.) שני עשרנים: כפולה היתה:
and its libation [shall be] a quarter of a hin of wine: Although its meal offering is double, its libations are not double, [but the usual libation prescribed for a lamb (Num. 15:5). - [Men. 89b] ונסכה יין רביעית ההין: אף על פי שמנחתו כפולה, אין נסכיו כפולים:
14You shall not eat bread or [flour made from] parched grain or fresh grain, until this very day, until you bring your God's sacrifice. [This is] an eternal statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places. ידוְלֶחֶם וְקָלִי וְכַרְמֶל לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַד עֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה עַד הֲבִיאֲכֶם אֶת קָרְבַּן אֱלֹהֵיכֶם חֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם בְּכֹל משְׁבֹתֵיכֶם:
or [flour made from] parched grain: [This refers to] flour made from tender, plump grain that is parched in an oven (see Lev. 2:14). וקלי: קמח עשוי מכרמל רך שמייבשין אותו בתנור:
plump grain: [These are the] plump, parched kernels, grenaillis [in Old French]. — [See Rashi, Sifthei Chachamim on Lev. 2:14] וכרמל: הן קליות שקורין גרניד"ש [שבולים]:
in all your dwelling places: The Sages of Israel differ concerning this. Some learned from here that [the prohibition of eating] the new crop [before the omer] applies [even] outside the Land [of Israel], while others say that this phrase comes only to teach [us] that they were commanded regarding the new crop only after possession and settlement, after they had conquered and apportioned [the land. — [Kid. 37a] בכל משבתיכם: נחלקו בו חכמי ישראל, יש שלמדו מכאן שהחדש נוהג בחוצה לארץ, ויש אומרים לא בא אלא ללמד שלא נצטוו על החדש אלא לאחר ירושה וישיבה, משכבשו וחלקו:
15And you shall count for yourselves, from the morrow of the rest day from the day you bring the omer as a wave offering seven weeks; they shall be complete. טווּסְפַרְתֶּם לָכֶם מִמָּחֳרַת הַשַּׁבָּת מִיּוֹם הֲבִיאֲכֶם אֶת עֹמֶר הַתְּנוּפָה שֶׁבַע שַׁבָּתוֹת תְּמִימֹת תִּהְיֶינָה:
from the morrow of the rest day: On the day after the [first] holy day [of Passover]. — [See Rashi on verse 11; Men. 65b] ממחרת השבת: ממחרת יום טוב:
[seven weeks;] they shall be complete: [This verse] teaches us that one must begin counting [each of these days] from the evening, because otherwise, they would not be “complete.” - [Men. 66a] תמימת תהיינה: מלמד שמתחיל ומונה מבערב, שאם לא כן אינן תמימות:
16You shall count until the day after the seventh week, [namely,] the fiftieth day, [on which] you shall bring a new meal offering to the Lord. טזעַד מִמָּחֳרַת הַשַּׁבָּת הַשְּׁבִיעִת תִּסְפְּרוּ חֲמִשִּׁים יוֹם וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם מִנְחָה חֲדָשָׁה לַיהֹוָה:
the day after the seventh week: הַשַּׁבָּת הַשְּׁבִיעִת, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders: שְׁבוּעֲתָא שְׁבִיעָתָא, “the seventh week.” השבת השביעת: כתרגומו שבועתא שביעתא:
You shall count until the day after the seventh week: But not inclusive, making forty-nine days. עד ממחרת השבת השביעת תספרו: ולא עד בכלל, והן ארבעים ותשעה יום:
the fiftieth day, [on which] you will bring a meal offering to the Lord from the new [wheat crop]: [lit., “(You shall count) fifty days and bring a meal offering to the Lord from the new (wheat crop).” But we count only forty-nine days. Therefore, the meaning is:] On the fiftieth day, you shall bring this [meal offering of the new wheat crop]. But I say that this is a Midrashic explanation of the verse [since it requires the forced attachment of the words חֲמִשִּׁים יוֹם to the continuation of the verse regarding the meal offering, whereas the cantillation signs attach them to the preceding words regarding the counting]. But its simple meaning is: “until [but not inclusive of]…the day after [the completion of] the seventh week, which is the fiftieth day, shall you count.” Accordingly, this is a transposed verse. חמשים יום והקרבתם מנחה חדשה לה': ביום החמשים תקריבוה. ואומר אני זהו מדרשו, אבל פשוטו עד ממחרת השבת השביעית, שהוא יום חמשים, תספרו. ומקרא מסורס הוא:
a new meal-offering: This is the first meal offering brought from the new [crop]. Now, if you ask, “But was not the meal offering of the omer already offered up (see verse 10 above)?” [the answer to this is that] that is not like other meal offerings-for it comes from barley [and hence, this meal offering is new since it is the first meal offering from the wheat crop]. מנחה חדשה: היא המנחה הראשונה שהובאה מן החדש. ואם תאמר, הרי קרבה מנחת העומר, אינה כשאר כל המנחות, שהיא באה מן השעורים:
17From your dwelling places, you shall bring bread, set aside, two [loaves] [made from] two tenths [of an ephah]; they shall be of fine flour, [and] they shall be baked leavened, the first offering to the Lord. יזמִמּוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם תָּבִיאוּ | לֶחֶם תְּנוּפָה שְׁתַּיִם שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרֹנִים סֹלֶת תִּהְיֶינָה חָמֵץ תֵּאָפֶינָה בִּכּוּרִים לַיהֹוָה:
From your dwelling places: but not from outside the Land. — [Men. 83b] ממושבתיכם: ולא מחוצה לארץ:
bread set aside: Heb. לֶחֶם תְּנוּפָה, bread of separation, set aside for the sake of the Most High, and this is the new meal offering, mentioned above [in the preceding verse]. לחם תנופה: לחם תרומה המורם לשם גבוה, וזו היא המנחה החדשה האמורה למעלה:
the first offering: The first of all the meal offerings [brought from the new crop]; even a “jealousy meal offering” [for suspected infidelity, see Num. 5:11-31], which comes from barley [see verse 15 there], may not be offered up from the new crop before the two loaves [have been brought]. — [Men. 84b] בכורים: ראשונה לכל המנחות, אף למנחת קנאות הבאה מן השעורים, לא תקרב מן החדש קודם לשתי הלחם:
18And associated with the bread, you shall bring seven unblemished lambs in their [first] year, one young bull, and two rams these shall be a burnt offering to the Lord, [along with] their meal offering and libations a fire offering [with] a spirit of satisfaction to the Lord. יחוְהִקְרַבְתֶּם עַל הַלֶּחֶם שִׁבְעַת כְּבָשִׂים תְּמִימִם בְּנֵי שָׁנָה וּפַר בֶּן בָּקָר אֶחָד וְאֵילִם שְׁנָיִם יִהְיוּ עֹלָה לַיהֹוָה וּמִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַיהֹוָה:
And associated with the bread: Heb. עַל הַלֶּחֶם,lit. on the bread, i.e., “because of the bread,” i.e., as an obligation for the bread, [but not as a separate obligation for that day. I.e., if they did not bring the bread offering, they do not bring this associated burnt offering. — [Mizrachi; Torath Kohanim 23:171] על הלחם: בגלל הלחם, חובה ללחם:
[along with] their meal offering and libations: i.e., according to the prescription of meal offerings and libations specified for each [type of] animal in the passage that delineates [libations (see Num. 15:1-16), as follows: three tenths [of an ephah of flour] for each bull, two tenths for a ram and one tenth for a lamb-this is the meal offering [for sacrifices]. And the libations are as follows: Half a hin [of wine] for a bull, a third of a hin for a ram, and a quarter of a hin for a lamb. ומנחתם ונסכיהם: כמשפט מנחה ונסכים המפורשים בכל בהמה בפרשת נסכים (במדבר טו ד - י) שלשה עשרונים לפר ושני עשרונים לאיל ועשרון לכבש, זו היא המנחה. והנסכים חצי ההין לפר ושלישית ההין לאיל ורביעית ההין לכבש:
19And you shall offer up one he goat as a sin offering, and two lambs in their [first] year as a peace offering._ יטוַעֲשִׂיתֶם שְׂעִיר עִזִּים אֶחָד לְחַטָּאת וּשְׁנֵי כְבָשִׂים בְּנֵי שָׁנָה לְזֶבַח שְׁלָמִים:
And you shall offer up one he-goat: One might think that the seven lambs (preceding verse) and the he-goat mentioned here are the same seven lambs and the he-goat enumerated in the Book of Numbers (28:19, 22). However, when you reach [the enumeration there of] the bulls and rams, [the numbers of each animal] they are not the same [as those listed here]. You must now conclude that these are separate and those are separate-these are brought in conjunction with the bread, while those as additional offerings [for the Festival]. — [Torath Kohanim 23:171] ועשיתם שעיר עזים: יכול שבעת הכבשים והשעיר האמורים כאן הם שבעת הכבשים והשעיר האמורים בחומש הפקודים, כשאתה מגיע אצל פרים ואילים אינן הם, אמור מעתה אלו לעצמן ואלו לעצמן, אלו קרבו בגלל הלחם ואלו למוספין:
20And the kohen shall wave them in conjunction with the first offering bread as a waving before the Lord, along with the two lambs. They shall be holy to the Lord, [and] belong to the kohen. כוְהֵנִיף הַכֹּהֵן | אֹתָם עַל לֶחֶם הַבִּכֻּרִים תְּנוּפָה לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה עַל שְׁנֵי כְּבָשִׂים קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ לַיהֹוָה לַכֹּהֵן:
And the kohen shall wave them…as a waving: This teaches us that they require waving while still alive. Now, one might think that they all [require waving]. Scripture, therefore, says, “along with the two lambs.” - [see Men. 62a] והניף הכהן אתם תנופה: מלמד שטעונין תנופה מחיים, יכול כולם, תלמוד לומר על שני כבשים:
They shall be holy: Since a peace offering of an individual has itself a minor degree of holiness, Scripture had to say concerning communal peace offering that they are holy of holies. קדש יהיו: לפי ששלמי יחיד קדשים קלים, הוזקק לומר בשלמי צבור שהם קדשי קדשים:
21And you shall designate on this very day a holy occasion it shall be for you; you shall not perform any work of labor. [This is] an eternal statute in all your dwelling places throughout your generations. כאוּקְרָאתֶם בְּעֶצֶם | הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם כָּל מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ חֻקַּת עוֹלָם בְּכָל מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם:
22When you reap the harvest of your Land, you shall not completely remove the corner of your field during your harvesting, and you shall not gather up the gleanings of your harvest. [Rather,] you shall leave these for the poor person and for the stranger. I am the Lord, your God. כבוּבְקֻצְרְכֶם אֶת קְצִיר אַרְצְכֶם לֹא תְכַלֶּה פְּאַת שָׂדְךָ בְּקֻצְרֶךָ וְלֶקֶט קְצִירְךָ לֹא תְלַקֵּט לֶעָנִי וְלַגֵּר תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָם אֲנִי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:
When you reap: [But Scripture has already stated this, “When you…reap its harvest…” (verse 10 above).] Scripture repeats it once again, [so that one who disobeys] transgresses two negative commands. Rabbi Avdimi the son of Rabbi Joseph says: Why does Scripture place this [passage] in the very middle of [the laws regarding] the Festivals-with Passover and Atzereth (Shavuoth) on one side and Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and the Festival [of Succoth] on the other? To teach you that whoever gives לֶקֶט, gleanings, שִׁכְחָה, forgotten sheaves, and פֵּאָה, the corners , to the poor in the appropriate manner, is deemed as if he had built the Holy Temple and offered up his sacrifices within it. — [Torath Kohanim 23:175] ובקצרכם: חזר ושנה לעבור עליהם בשני לאוין. אמר רבי אבדימס ברבי יוסף מה ראה הכתוב ליתנה באמצע הרגלים, פסח ועצרת מכאן וראש השנה ויום הכפורים והחג מכאן, ללמדך שכל הנותן לקט שכחה ופאה לעני כראוי, מעלין עליו כאילו בנה בית המקדש והקריב קרבנותיו בתוכו:
you shall leave: Leave it before them and let them gather it up. And you shall not help one of them [since this will deprive the others]. — [Torath Kohanim 19:22] תעזב: הנח לפניהם והם ילקטו, ואין לך לסייע לאחד מהם:
I am the Lord, your God: Who is faithful to give reward [to those who fulfill My Torah]. אני ה' אלהיכם: נאמן לשלם שכר:Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 83 - 87
• Chapter 83
A prayer regarding the wars against Israel in the days of Jehoshaphat, when the nations plotted against Israel.
1. A song, a psalm by Asaph.
2. O God, do not be silent; do not be quiet and do not be still, O God.
3. For behold, Your enemies are in uproar, and those who hate You have raised their head.
4. They plot deviously against Your nation, and conspire against those sheltered by You.
5. They say, "Come, let us sever them from nationhood, and the name of Israel will be remembered no more.”
6. For they conspire with a unanimous heart, they made a covenant against You-
7. the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites, Moab and the Hagrites,
8. Geval and Ammon, and Amalek; Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre.
9. Assyria, too, joined with them, and became the strength of the sons of Lot, Selah.
10. Do to them as to Midian; as to Sisera and Yavin at the brook of Kishon,
11. who were destroyed at Ein Dor, and were as dung for the earth.
12. Make their nobles like Orev and Ze'ev, all their princes like Zevach and Tzalmuna,1
13. who said, "Let us inherit the dwellings of God for ourselves.”
14. My God, make them like whirling chaff, like straw before the wind.
15. As a fire consumes the forest, and a flame sets the mountains ablaze,
16. so pursue them with Your tempest and terrify them with Your storm.
17. Fill their faces with shame, and they will seek Your Name, O Lord.
18. Let them be shamed and terrified forever; let them be disgraced and perish.
19. And they will know that You, Whose Name is the Lord, are alone, Most High over all the earth.
Chapter 84
In this psalm of prayers and entreaties, the psalmist mourns bitterly over the destruction of Temple from the depths of his heart, and speaks of the many blessings that will be realized upon its restoration. Fortunate is the one who trusts it will be rebuilt, and does not despair in the face of this long exile.
1. For the Conductor, on the gittit,1 a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. How beloved are Your dwellings, O Lord of Hosts!
3. My soul yearns, indeed it pines, for the courtyards of the Lord; my heart and my flesh [long to] sing to the living God.
4. Even the bird has found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she lays her young on the [ruins of] Your altars, O Lord of Hosts, my King and my God.
5. Fortunate are those who dwell in Your House; they will yet praise You forever.
6. Fortunate is the man whose strength is in You; the paths [to the Temple] are in his heart.
7. For those who pass through the Valley of Thorns, He places wellsprings; their guide will be cloaked in blessings.2
8. They go from strength to strength; they will appear before God in Zion.
9. O Lord, God of Hosts, hear my prayer; listen, O God of Jacob, forever.
10. See our shield,3 O God, and look upon the face of Your anointed one.
11. For better one day in Your courtyards than a thousand [elsewhere]. I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God, than dwell [in comfort] in the tents of wickedness.
12. For the Lord, God, is a sun and a shield; the Lord bestows favor and glory; He does not withhold goodness from those who walk in innocence.
13. O Lord of Hosts! Fortunate is the man who trusts in You.
Chapter 85
In this prayer, lamenting the long and bitter exile, the psalmist asks why this exile is longer than the previous ones, and implores God to quickly fulfill His promise to redeem us. Every individual should offer this psalm when in distress.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. O Lord, You favored Your land; You returned the captives of Jacob.
3. You forgave the iniquity of Your people, and covered all their sin forever.
4. You withdrew all Your fury, and retreated from Your fierce anger.
5. Return us, O God of our salvation, and annul Your anger toward us.
6. Will You forever be angry with us? Will You draw out Your anger over all generations?
7. Is it not true that You will revive us again, and Your people will rejoice in You?
8. Show us Your kindness, O Lord, and grant us Your deliverance.
9. I hear what the Almighty Lord will say; for He speaks peace to His nation and to His pious ones, and they will not return to folly.
10. Indeed, His deliverance is near those who fear Him, that [His] glory may dwell in the land.
11. Kindness and truth have met; righteousness and peace have kissed.
12. Truth will sprout from the earth, and righteousness will peer from heaven.
13. The Lord, too, will bestow goodness, and our land will yield its produce.
14. Righteousness shall walk before him, and he shall set his footsteps in [its] path.
Chapter 86
This psalm contains many prayers regarding David's troubles, and his enemies Doeg and Achitophel. It also includes many descriptions of God's praise. Every individual can offer this psalm when in distress.
1. A prayer by David. Lord, turn Your ear, answer me, for I am poor and needy.
2. Guard my soul, for I am pious; You, my God, deliver Your servant who trusts in You.
3. Be gracious to me, my Lord, for to You I call all day.
4. Bring joy to the soul of Your servant, for to You, my Lord, I lift my soul.
5. For You, my Lord, are good and forgiving, and exceedingly kind to all who call upon You.
6. Lord, hear my prayer and listen to the voice of my supplications.
7. On the day of my distress I call upon You, for You will answer me.
8. There is none like You among the supernal beings, my Lord, and there are no deeds like Yours.
9. All the nations that You have made will come and bow down before You, my Lord, and give honor to Your Name,
10. for You are great and perform wonders, You alone, O God.
11. Lord, teach me Your way that I may walk in Your truth; unify my heart to fear Your Name.
12. I will praise You, my Lord, my God, with all my heart, and give honor to Your Name forever.
13. For Your kindness to me has been great; You have saved my soul from the depth of the grave.
14. O God, malicious men have risen against me; a band of ruthless men has sought my soul; they are not mindful of You.
15. But You, my Lord, are a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger and abounding in kindness and truth.
16. Turn to me and be gracious to me; grant Your strength to Your servant, and deliver the son of Your maidservant.
17. Show me a sign of favor, that my foes may see and be shamed, because You, Lord, have given me aid and consoled me.
Chapter 87
Composed to be sung in the Holy Temple, this psalm praises the glory of Jerusalem, a city that produces many great scholars, eminent personalities, and persons of good deeds. It also speaks of the good that will occur in the Messianic era.
1. By the sons of Korach, a psalm, a song devoted to the holy mountains [of Zion and Jerusalem].
2. The Lord loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwelling places of Jacob.
3. Glorious things are spoken of you, eternal city of God.
4. I will remind Rahav Egypt and Babylon concerning My beloved; Philistia and Tyre as well as Ethiopia, "This one was born there.”
5. And to Zion will be said, "This person and that was born there"; and He, the Most High, will establish it.
6. The Lord will count in the register of people, "This one was born there," Selah.
7. Singers as well as dancers [will sing your praise and say], "All my inner thoughts are of you."
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 48• Lessons in Tanya
• Wednesday, Iyar 17, 5775 · May 6, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 48
למשל: כדור הארץ הלזו, הרי ידיעתו יתברך מקפת כל עובי כדור הארץ, וכל אשר בתוכו ותוך תוכו, עד תחתיתו, הכל בפועל ממש
For example, in the case of the orb of this earth, His knowledge encompasses the entire diameter of the globe of the earth, together with all that is in it and its deepest interior to its lowest depths, all in actual reality.
שהרי ידיעה זו היא חיות כל עובי כדור הארץ כולו, והתהוותו מאין ליש
For this knowledge constitutes the vitality of the whole spherical thickness of the earth and its creation ex nihilo.
The whole earth was originally created and continues to be created ex nihilo as a result of G‑d’s knowledge of it.
רק שלא היה מתהווה כמות שהוא עתה, בעל גבול ותכלית, וחיות מועטת מאד כדי בחינת דומם וצומח
However, it would not have come into being as it is now, as a finite and limited thing, with an exceedingly minute degree of vitality sufficient for the categories of inorganic matter and vegetation,
אם לא על ידי צמצומים רבים ועצומים, שצמצמו האור והחיות שנתלבש בכדור הארץ
were it not for the world being created through the many powerful contractions which have condensed the light and vitality that is clothed in the orb of the earth,
להחיותו ולקיימו בבחינת גבול ותכלית, ובבחינת דומם וצומח בלבד
so as to animate it and sustain it in its finite and limited status and in the categories of inorganic and vegetable matter alone.
Thus the minute degree of illumination which results from the tzimtzumim enables the earth to exist in a finite manner, and only in the finitude of inorganic and vegetable matter. G‑d’s knowledge, however, as shall presently be explained, encircles the earth from above. For since His knowledge is infinite, while the world is finite, it is impossible for this knowledge to pervade the earth, even though this knowledge constitutes the earth’s very creation and existence.
אך ידיעתו יתברך המיוחדת במהותו ועצמותו, כי הוא המדע והוא היודע והוא הידוע
But His knowledge which is united with His essence and being, for “He is the Knowledge, the Knower, and the Known,
It has been previously explained (in ch. 2) that G‑d’s knowledge and intellect are totally different from man’s. When a mortal being knows something, three distinct identities are involved: (a) the “knower” — the person in possession of the knowledge; (b) the “knowledge” — the intellectual faculty which enables him to know; (c) the “known” — the particular item of knowledge which he knows. G‑d, however, “...is the Knowledge, the Knower, and the Known.” He that knows, and the vehicle through which He knows, and that which He knows — are all Himself. Thus His knowledge is wholly united, wholly identified, with His essence.
ובידיעת עצמו, כביכול, יודע כל הנבראים
and knowing Himself, as it were, He knows all created beings,
ולא בידיעה שחוץ ממנו, כידיעת האדם
though not with a knowledge that is external to Himself, like the knowledge of a human being,
Human knowledge requires getting to know something which is external to the knower himself. Not so G‑d’s knowledge: it comes from His knowing Himself,
כי כולם נמצאים מאמיתתו יתברך
for all of [the created beings] are derived from His true reality,
G‑d’s true reality and existence is the source of all created beings. By knowing Himself, therefore, as mentioned just above, He knows all of creation.
ודבר זה אין ביכולת האדם להשיגו על בוריו וכו׳
and this thing is not within the power of human beings to comprehend clearly...,“ —*
The human mind cannot possibly grasp the concept of “Knowledge, Knower and Known” all being one and the same. For whatever matter a man may desire to comprehend, he imagines how it exists within himself — bearing in mind, of course, that when the matter at hand is the knowledge of G‑dliness, it is to be conceived on a more exalted and abstract plane than that of simple human existence. Since G‑d’s manner of knowledge is totally dissimilar from man’s, it is thus impossible for him to picture it at all. It must forever remain beyond his ken.
הגהה
*NOTE
“He is the Knowledge, the Knower...” and so on, is a quotation from Rambam(Maimonides). There are prominent sages who take issue with this view, among them Maharal(Rabbi Yehudah Loewe) of Prague.
In the introduction to his Gevurot HaShem, Maharal raises a number of objections to the thesis of Rambam. One of his most telling arguments: The descriptive term “knowledge” or “intellect” is one of limitation. By terming something as being “intellect” we are thereby saying that it is not anything other than intellect — such as feelings, action, or whatever. Yet how can we possibly say that G‑d is limited in any way? For He is the ultimate in indivisible simplicity, not a complex amalgamation of distinct, limited attributes.
Even if we posit that G‑d’s knowledge and man’s are totally dissimilar, and that man is incapable of comprehending how G‑d is both simultaneously “Knowledge, Knower, and Known,” yet the fact still remains that knowledge is a specific attribute: we are speaking of knowledge, to the exclusion of all else. This cannot possibly serve as a description of G‑d’s essence.
Maharal goes on to point out that the Sages of the Talmud refer to G‑d as “the Holy One, blessed be He,” not as “the Intellect, blessed be He.” For “holy” means separate and apart — utterly transcending anything that is within the realm of description. And it is specifically because He is above everything and beyond all description that everything derives from Him. For He is limited in no respect that might preclude the existence of anything.
Intellect, Maharal teaches, is merely one of G‑d’s creations. Seen in this light, “And G‑d knew” is no different from “And G‑d said” or “And G‑d made.” Just as G‑d’s speech and action are not His essence but faculties which He brought into being, so, too, with regard to knowledge — the attributes of knowledge and intellect are His creations.
The Alter Rebbe explains in this note that the scholars of the Kabbalah subscribed to the view of Rambam that Divine knowledge ought to be considered in terms of “Knowledge, Knower, and Known.” However, they specify, this only applies after the light of the Ein Sofcontracted into the ten Sefirot of Atzilut — Chochmah, Binah, Daat (wisdom, knowledge and understanding) and so on, i.e., after the “clothing of the light in vessels.” Only after the light ofChochmah clothed itself in the vessel of Chochmah, the light of Binah in the vessel of Binah,and so forth — i.e., only after these entities already exist — is it possible to say that this knowledge and intellect is totally at one with G‑d. However, before the contraction within these Sefirot, G‑d supremely transcends intellect and wisdom, even as they exist in their most abstract and rarefied form.
According to the teachings of Chassidut, following along the lines of Rabbi Isaac Luria’s interpretation of the doctrine of tzimtzum (“contraction”), the views of both Rambam andMaharal are correct.
G‑d’s essential existence and being, before any contraction of G‑dliness, is as described byMaharal — an existence of unqualified simplicity, beyond the pale of knowledge and intellect in whatever form they may take, even so subtle a form as “Knowledge, Knower, and Known.” However, once the contraction took place, and the Sefirot came into being, then His vestiture in them may properly be described by saying, in the words of Rambam, that “He is the Knowledge....”
This is because the Sefirot are emanations of G‑dliness rather than created beings. As such they are wholly united with G‑d. This is expressed in the statement of Tikkunei Zohar: “He and His life-giving emanations (i.e., the orot, the ”lights“ of the ten Sefirot of the World of Atzilut) are one; He and His causations (i.e., the kelim, the ”vessels“ of the ten Sefirot of Atzilut) are one....” That is to say, the Ein Sof-light is one with the lights and vessels of Atzilut. This is exactly the same as saying “He is the Knowledge...,” for the knowledge of the Sefirot is truly one with G‑d (and not a created being), as Maharal insists.
For the view of Maharal, too, is fraught with difficulties. Firstly, we note that Scripture does ascribe knowledge to G‑d Himself, as in the verse, “...and His understanding is beyond reckoning.” Furthermore, it appears unreasonable to argue that G‑d’s knowledge is dependent on a created entity.
According to the explanation of Chassidut, then, all these difficulties — both those in the view of Maharal and those in the view of Rambam — are satisfactorily resolved: G‑d’s essence is indeed beyond description, yet He is still the “Knowledge, the Knower and the Known” as He unites Himself with the Sefirot of Atzilut, after their having come into being through the medium of “contraction”.
In the words of the Alter Rebbe:
כמו שכתב הרמב״ם ז״ל
As Rambam, of blessed memory, has written — that G‑d is “Knowledge, Knower, and Known,
והסכימו עמו חכמי הקבלה, כמו שכתוב בפרדס מהרמ"ק ז"ל
and the scholars of the Kabbalah have agreed with his views, as is stated in Pardes of Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, of blessed memory.
וכן הוא לפי קבלת האריז"ל
This is also in accord with the Kabbalah of our master, Rabbi Isaac Luria, of blessed memory,
It was Rabbi Isaac Luria, the AriZal, who first revealed the doctrine of tzimtzum(“contraction”), which taught that G‑d’s exalted essence is even more removed from the Sefirotthan was thought before then. It would thus be logical to assume that since he stresses this infinite distance from the Sefirot (the Sefirah of Chochmah, for example), he would be unable to accept the statement that “He is the Knowledge....” Nevertheless this teaching holds true even according to him — but with the proviso:
בסוד הצמצום והתלבשות אורות בכלים, כמו שכתוב לעיל, פרק ב׳
in the mystery i.e., the doctrine of “contraction” and the clothing of the lights [of theSefirot] in the vessels [of the Sefirot], as has been explained previously, in ch. 2.
The unity of G‑d with the Divine Sefirot is so absolute that even according to Rabbi Isaac Luria one may safely say of this unity, “He is the Knowledge, the Knower, and the Known.”
END OF NOTE
Before the above note the Alter Rebbe stated that G‑d’s knowledge is united with His essence and being; since He is infinite His knowledge is infinite as well. It is therefore impossible for this knowledge to pervade the earth, and it must encompass it. This is true, of course, not only of G‑d’s knowledge of the earth but of creation as a whole.
הרי ידיעה זו, מאחר שהיא בחינת אין סוף, אינה נקראת בשם מתלבשת בכדור הארץ, שהוא בעל גבול ותכלית, אלא מקפת וסובבת
this knowledge, then, since it is of an infinite order, is not described as clothingitself in the orb of the earth, which is finite and limited, while G‑d’s knowledge is limitless, but as encircling and encompassing it,
אף שידיעה זו כוללת כל עביו ותוכו בפועל ממש
even though this knowledge embraces its entire thickness and interior in actual reality,
Unlike the knowledge of a human being, which encompasses only the image of an object and not its reality, G‑d’s knowledge embraces the object in actual reality,
ומהווה אותו על ידי זה מאין ליש
thereby giving it existence ex nihilo,
Creation does not come about from the minute glimmer of G‑dliness found within the object, which sustains it only at the inanimate and vegetative level, but from the Supernal Knowledge that encompasses and encircles it. And although this knowledge is responsible for the object’s existence, it is still described as encompassing. For inasmuch as the knowledge is infinite while the created being is finite, this knowledge is unable to clothe itself within the created being.
וכמו שכתוב במקום אחר
as is explained elsewhere — that creation ex nihilo can take place only as a result of the “encompassing light.”
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Wednesday, Iyar 17, 5775 · May 6, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 82
The Unredeemed Firstborn Donkey
"And if you do not redeem it, you shall break its neck"—Exodus 34:20.
We are commanded to break the neck of a firstborn male donkey—if the owner does not wish to redeem it.
The Unredeemed Firstborn Donkey
Positive Commandment 82
Translated by Berel Bell
The 82nd mitzvah is that we are commanded to break the neck1 of our first-born donkey if we don't want to redeem it.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "[The first-born of a donkey must be redeemed with a sheep,] and if it is not redeemed, you must break its neck."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Bechoros.3
It is possible for one to ask: "Why are redemption and breaking its neck counted as two separate mitzvos instead of just one mitzvah? The [option of] breaking its neck would then be included in this mitzvah, as explained in the Seventh Introductory Principle.4
This would indeed be the case if not for the fact that we find a statement of the Sages5 which indicates otherwise: "The mitzvah of redemption is preferable to the mitzvah of breaking its neck; and the mitzvah of yibum is preferable to the mitzvah of chalitzah."6 The explanation of this statement is as follows: one may perform either yibum or chalitzah on a yevamah — yibum being a mitzvah, as is mentioned, and chalitzah counting as a separate mitzvah. So too, our Sages said,7 a first-born donkey may either be redeemed or have its neck broken — and each counts as a separate mitzvah.
FOOTNOTES
1.The back of the animal's neck is struck with a hatchet, until the windpipe and foodpipe are severed. See Yerushalmi, Sotah 9:5.
2.Ex. 34:20.
3.Ch. 1.
4.This Principle states that the details of a single mitzvah are not counted separately. Applied here, this Principle would seem to indicate that there should be one mitzvah of redeeming the donkey — but that one has the option of breaking its neck.
5.Bechoros 13a.
6.See P216, P217.
7.The expression used is "mitzvah of redemption," and "mitzvah of breaking its neck."
Positive Commandment 135
Abstaining from Agricultural Work during the Sabbatical Year
"During the plowing and harvest [seasons] you shall rest"—Exodus 34:21.
We are commanded to abstain from agricultural work during the Shemitah (Sabbatical) Year. This command is repeated in the Torah several times.
This mitzvah, according to biblical law, applies only in the Land of Israel.
Abstaining from Agricultural Work during the Sabbatical Year
Positive Commandment 135
Translated by Berel Bell
The 135th mitzvah is that we are commanded to stop working the land during the seventh year [shemittah].
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "You must cease plowing and reaping."
This commandment is repeated a number of times, as in the verse,2 "It shall be a Shabbos Shabboson ["Sabbath of Sabbaths"] for the land." We already mentioned previously3 the statement of our Sages,4 "The word 'Shabboson' indicates a Positive Commandment." The Torah also says,5 "The land must be given a rest period, a Sabbath to G‑d."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Sh'vi'is. It is a Biblical commandment only in Eretz Yisrael.6
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid. 34:21. See Rav Kook edition, 5718, note 593.
2.Lev. 25:4.
3.P90.
4.Shabbos 24b.
5.Ibid. 25:2.
6.Outside Eretz Yisrael it is obligatory by Rabbinic decree
Negative Commandment 220
Working the Fields during the Sabbatical Year
"You shall not sow your field"—Leviticus 25:4.
It is forbidden to sow the fields during the Shemitah (Sabbatical) Year.
Working the Fields during the Sabbatical Year
Negative Commandment 220
Translated by Berel Bell
The 220th prohibition is that we are forbidden from working the land during the seventh year [shemittah].
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "[It is G‑d's Sabbath during which] you may not plant your fields."
The punishment for transgressing this prohibition is lashes.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Sh'vi'is.
Negative Commandment 221
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid. 25:4.
Negative Commandment 221
Working the Orchards during the Sabbatical Year
"You shall not prune your vineyard"—Leviticus 25:4.
It is forbidden to do agricultural work on fruit trees during the Shemitah (Sabbatical) Year.
Working the Orchards during the Sabbatical Year
Negative Commandment 221
Translated by Berel Bell
The 221st prohibition is that we are forbidden from cultivating trees during the seventh year [shemittah].
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "[It is G‑d's Sabbath during which you may not plant your fields] nor prune your vineyards."
The punishment for transgressing this prohibition is also lashes.
The Sifra says: "The prohibitions of planting and pruning were already included.2 Why were they singled out? To make a comparison — just as planting and pruning have the special quality of applying both to the land and to trees, so too, the prohibition includes any type of work which applies both to the earth and to trees."3
The details of this mitzvah are also explained in tractate Sh'vi'is.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid.
2.In P135. See Yad Halevi, note 2, from Minchas Chinuch 228 and Tosafos, Makos 18a.
3.Yad Halevi (note 3) explains that the Rambam quotes the Sifra in order to prove that N220 and N221 count as separate mitzvos.
In the 9th Introductory Principle, the Rambam shows that land and tress may be mentioned separately in Scripture, and that they are nevertheless counted as a single mitzvah (see N214). However, he also says that when the wording of our Sages indicates, the two are counted separately.
Therefore the Rambam quotes the Sifra (unlike similar statements in the Talmud), because it uses the expression "The prohibitions of planting and pruning were..." If there was only one mitzvah, they could have simply said, "The prohibition of planting was..." and omitted mention of pruning altogether. The mention of both implies that they count as separate mitzvos.»Negative Commandment 222
Harvesting Wild Field Crops during the Sabbatical Year
"That which grows of its own accord of your harvest, you shall not reap"—Leviticus 25:5.
It is forbidden to harvest – in normal fashion – that which grows wild in the fields during theShemitah (Sabbatical) Year. One may only harvest it as if it was ownerless, i.e. without extensive preparation or arrangement, and not in bulk.
Harvesting Wild Field Crops during the Sabbatical Year
Negative Commandment 222
Translated by Berel Bell
The 222nd prohibition is that we are forbidden from harvesting in the normal way crops which the ground produces on its own during the seventh year [shemittah]. This means as follows: we are forbidden from working the land and cultivating trees during the shemittah year, as mentioned above. Food that was planted in the sixth year and grows in the seventh year — called safiach — may be eaten during the seventh year.1 However, it may not be harvested unless one makes a variation in the normal harvesting process.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,2 "Do not harvest crops that grow on their own." This does not mean that one may not harvest them at all, as is evident from the verse3 "[What grows while] the land is resting may be eaten by you." The intention of the verse is that one may not harvest in the same way one harvests grain during other years. One may only gather it as if it was ownerless, without preparation or arrangement, as we shall explain.4
FOOTNOTES
1.This is as far as the Biblical law is concerned. It is prohibited by Rabbinic law. See Hilchos Shemittah V'yovel, 4:2.
2.Ibid. 25:5.
3.Ibid. 25:6.
4.See N223.
Eruvin - Chapter Five
Halacha 1
[The following rules apply when] the inhabitants of a lane join in a business partnership with regard to a particular food - i.e., they have bought wine, oil, honey, or the like [for sale]:1 They need not establish another shituf for the sake [of carrying on] the Sabbath. Instead, they may rely on the partnership they have established for business reasons.
[When does this leniency apply?] When their business partnership involves one type of produce, and [this produce] is stored in a single container. But if their partnership is such that one possesses wine and the other oil,2 or they both possess wine but hold it in two different containers, they are required to establish another shituf for the sake of the Sabbath.
Halacha 2
If one of the inhabitants of a lane asks another for wine or oil before the Sabbath, and the latter refuses to give it to him, the shituf is nullified.3 [The rationale is that this individual] revealed that his intent was that they are not all to be considered partners who do not object to each other's [use of the combined resources].
When one of the inhabitants of a lane who usually participates in a shituf fails to do so,4 the inhabitants of the lane may enter his home and take [his share for] the shituf against his will. If one of the inhabitants of a lane refuses5 to join with the others in the shituf, he may be compelled to do so.6
Halacha 3
When one of the inhabitants of a lane owns a storeroom of wine, oil, or the like, he may grant a small share to all the inhabitants of the lane and establish ashituf on their behalf. The shituf is acceptable even though he did not separate or designate [the wine he granted them, but rather left it] mixed together [with the remainder] in the storeroom.
Halacha 4
[When the inhabitants of] a courtyard that has two entrances, each leading to a different lane, establish a shituf with one of [the lanes] and not the other,7 [they] are forbidden to bring articles to and from the second lane.
Therefore, if a person [sets aside food for a shituf], grants a portion to all the inhabitants of the lane, and establishes a shituf on their behalf, he must notify the inhabitants of that courtyard. For they must make a conscious decision to join the shituf, since this is not [necessarily] to their benefit,8 because it is possible that they desire to join in a shituf with [the inhabitants of] the other lane, and not with this one.
Halacha 5
A person's wife may participate in an eruv on his behalf without his knowledge, provided he does not [intend to cause] his neighbors to be forbidden [to carry].9If he does [intend to cause] them to be forbidden [to carry], however, she may not join an eruv on his behalf, nor may she join a shituf on his behalf unless he consents.
What is meant by "[intend to cause] them to be forbidden [to carry]"? That he says, "I will not join in an eruv or a shituf with them."
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply when a courtyard opens up to two lanes and] the inhabitants of the courtyard have established a shituf with [the inhabitants of] one of the lanes: If they had originally established the shituf with one type of produce, even if the produce in the shituf was consumed entirely, one may establish a second shituf and grant them a portion; there is no need to inform them a second time.10
If they have established the shituf with two types11 of produce,12 and the amount of food was reduced [from the minimum required],13 one may add to it and grant the others a share; there is no need to inform them. If [the produce] was consumed entirely, one may [establish a second shituf and] grant them a portion; it is, however, necessary to inform them.14
If the number of inhabitants within the courtyard is increased, one may grant [the newcomers] a portion in the shituf, but one must notify them.15
Halacha 7
If the inhabitants of this courtyard have established a shituf with the inhabitants of this lane from one entrance, and have established another shituf with the inhabitants of the other lane from the other entrance, they are permitted [to carry to and from] both [of these lanes]16, and [the inhabitants of] both [lanes] are permitted [to carry within the courtyard]. [The inhabitants of] both lanes are, however, forbidden [to carry] from one [lane] to the other.17
If [the inhabitants of the courtyard] have not established a shituf with either of them, they cause [the inhabitants of] both to be forbidden [to carry].18
Halacha 8
[The following rules apply when the inhabitants of] this courtyard usually [pass] through one entrance [into one lane], but do not usually [pass] through a second entrance [into another lane]: They cause carrying to be forbidden [in the lane to which] the entrance through which they usually [pass opens].19 They do not cause carrying to be forbidden [in the lane to which] the entrance through which they do not usually [pass opens].20
If [the inhabitants of this courtyard] have established a shituf with [only] the lane through which they do not usually [pass], [the inhabitants of] the other lane are allowed [to carry];21 they do not have to establish a shituf with [the inhabitants of this courtyard].
Halacha 9
[A leniency is granted in the following situation.] The inhabitants of the lane [through] which [the inhabitants of] this courtyard usually pass established ashituf by themselves. [The inhabitants of the courtyard] did not joined in thisshituf, nor have they joined in a shituf with the inhabitants of the lane [through] which they do not usually pass. The inhabitants of the latter lane [also] did not established a shituf for themselves.
Since [the inhabitants of the courtyard] have not joined in a shituf at all, they are considered part of the lane [through] which they do not usually pass. Since both these groups of individuals have not established a shituf, they are classed together, so that they will not cause [the inhabitants of] the lane who established the shituf to be forbidden [to carry].22
Halacha 10
[The following rules apply when] a courtyard has an entrance to a lane and another entrance to a valley or to an area enclosed for purposes other than habitation, which is larger than the area [needed] to sow two se'ah:23 Since it is forbidden to transfer articles from the courtyard to that enclosed area, [the inhabitants of the courtyard] rely only on the entrance to the lane. Therefore, they cause the inhabitants of the lane to be forbidden [to carry] unless they join together with them in a shituf.
If, however, the enclosed area is the size of the area [needed] to sow two se'ahor less, its presence does not cause the inhabitants of the lane to be forbidden [to carry]. Since carrying is permitted within the entire enclosed area, [the inhabitants of the courtyard] rely on the entrance that is exclusively theirs.24
Halacha 11
When one of the inhabitants of a lane goes away and spends the Sabbath in another place, [the fact that he owns a domain in the lane] does not cause carrying to be forbidden.25
Similarly, if one of the inhabitants of a lane builds a pillar that is four handbreadths wide [or more] before his entrance, [the fact that he owns a domain in the lane] does not cause carrying to be forbidden. For he has separated himself from [the other inhabitants], and has made his domain a distinct entity.26
Halacha 12
[The following rules apply when] the inhabitants of a lane have joined together in a shituf, but several of the inhabitants forgot and did not join: [Those who forgot] should subordinate the ownership of their domain to those who joined in the shituf. The laws governing the subordination of the ownership of their domain are the same as the laws governing the subordination of the ownership of a domain when one or more of the inhabitants of a courtyard forgot to join in an eruv.27
We have already explained28 that a person and [all] the members of his household who are dependent on him for meals are considered to be a single entity with regard to the establishment of an eruv for a courtyard and a shituf for a lane.
Halacha 13
[The following rules apply when the inhabitants of] all the courtyards establishederuvin for each of the courtyards, and afterwards they all joined in a shituf for the lane: When one of the inhabitants of a lane forgot to join in the eruv with the other inhabitants of his courtyard, he does not lose any [privileges]. For all of them have joined together in a shituf, and it is on the shituf that they rely.
The only reason it was required to establish an eruv within the courtyards, together with the shituf, is so that the children will not forget the law of theeruv.29 [And in this instance, that requirement has been met,] for eruvin were established in the courtyards.
If, however, one of the inhabitants of the lane forgot to join in the shituf, carrying is forbidden in the lane.30 The inhabitants of the courtyards, however, may carry in their [respective] courtyards. [When a shituf is not established,] the relationship between courtyards and a lane is parallel to that between homes and a courtyard.31
Halacha 14
[The following rules apply when the inhabitants of all the courtyards] have joined in a shituf, but all have forgotten to establish eruvin for their respective courtyards: If they do not stint on sharing their bread,32 they may rely on theshituf for one Sabbath alone. This leniency is granted, however, only because of the difficulty [of their immediate circumstance].33
Halacha 15
When eruvin have been established between the courtyards and the homes [of a lane], but a shituf has not been established, carrying [an article] more than four cubits [within the lane] is forbidden, as [would be the law] within a carmelit.
[The rationale is that] since eruvin were established between the courtyards and the homes, the lane is considered as though it opened only to homes, and not to courtyards. Therefore, we are not allowed to carry within its area at all.34
If the inhabitants of the courtyards have not established eruvin, they may carry articles left in the [lane] at the commencement of the Sabbath throughout its entire area, as is the law regarding a courtyard in which an eruv was not established.35
Halacha 16
The laws that the inhabitants of a lane must follow with regard to a gentile36 or a Sadducee37 who dwells in one of the courtyards of a lane are the same as must be followed by the inhabitants of the courtyard. They must rent the gentile's domain within the courtyard from him or from one of the members of his household, and the Sadducee must subordinate the ownership of his domain.
Halacha 17
When a gentile living in a lane has an opening40 from his courtyard to a valley, his presence does not cause [carrying] to be forbidden within the lane [although his courtyard also opens to the lane].41 Even if this entrance is small - merely four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths] - and the gentile leads his camels and his wagons out through the other entrance, his presence does not cause [carrying] to be forbidden. For he is concerned only with the entrance that is distinctly his own - i.e., [the one leading to] the valley.
Similarly, if he has an entrance leading to an area that was enclosed for purposes other than habitation, [and that entrance] is larger than the area needed to sow two se'ah [of grain], it is regarded like an entrance to a valley, and his presence does not cause [carrying] to be forbidden. If, however, the enclosed area was the size needed to sow two se'ah of grain or less, [the gentile] is not concerned with [this area],42 and his presence causes [carrying] to be forbidden,43 unless [his domain] is rented from him.
Halacha 18
[The following rule applies when] there is a lane that has gentiles living [in the courtyards] on one side and Jews living [in the courtyards] on the other side, and there are windows that open from each of the courtyards in which the Jews [live] to the other: Although they established eruvin via the windows, and thus are joined together as the members of a single household - and are, therefore, permitted to transfer [articles] to and from [one courtyard to another] via the windows - they are, nevertheless, forbidden to use the lane via its entrances44unless they rent the domains from the gentiles. For the principle that [because of an eruv] the many become considered a single entity does not apply when there are gentiles involved.45
Halacha 19
How is a shituf established in a city?46 Every courtyard should establish an eruvfor itself, so that the children will not forget [the laws of eruvin]. Afterwards, all the inhabitants of the city join together in a shituf in the same way as a shituf is established in a lane.
If the city had once been the property of a single individual, even if later it became the property of many individuals, it is possible for all [the inhabitants] to join in a single shituf and [be permitted] to carry throughout the entire city.47Similarly, although a city is owned by many, if it has only one entrance, all [the inhabitants] may join in a single shituf.48
Halacha 20
If, by contrast, [a city] was originally built as the property of many individuals,49and it has two openings used for entrance and egress, the entire [city] may not be included in the eruv. [This applies even if the city later] becomes the private property of one individual. Instead, one area - even one house in one courtyard - is set aside,50 and a shituf is established in the remainder [of the city].
All the individuals who participate in the shituf are permitted [to carry] throughout the entire city with the exception of the place that was set aside. If there are many people [living in] the place [that was set aside], they are permitted to carry in that place if they make a shituf for themselves. They are, however, forbidden to carry throughout the remainder of the city.
Halacha 21
This was instituted to make a distinction, so that [the inhabitants know that theeruv made carrying possible in this large city through which many people pass.51 [For they will see] the place that was set aside, which did not join in theshituf, in which carrying is forbidden. [Each group of individuals, the inhabitants of the city and the inhabitants of the area that was set aside] will have their separate [area].
Halacha 22
When a city belonging to many individuals has one entrance and has a ladder52[that could be used to enter or depart] at another place [in its wall], it [is possible to include] the entire [city] in the eruv; no portion need be set aside. For a ladder in the wall is not considered to be an entrance.53
The houses that are set aside [and are not included in the shituf] need not face the city. Even if they face the outside area, and their back is towards the city, they may be [designated as the houses that are] set aside, and then an eruvmay be established throughout the remainder [of the city].54
Halacha 23
Halacha 24
When all the inhabitants of a city with the exception of the inhabitants of a single lane join together in a shituf, [the presence of these individuals] causes [carrying] to be forbidden for all. [The inhabitants] should61 build a pillar62 at the entrance to the lane, so that [carrying] is not forbidden.
For this reason, a shituf is not established in half a city.63 Either the entire city joins in the shituf or [separate shitufim are made], each lane for itself. Each lane should build a pillar at its entrance to keep its domain distinct from the others, so that it will not cause [the inhabitants of] the other lanes to be forbidden [to carry].
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
A shituf established by the inhabitants of a lane is mentioned because it can be established with other types of food besides bread. In contrast, an eruv for a courtyard may be established only with bread (Chapter 1, Halachah 8). The Rashba (as quoted by the Maggid Mishneh) states that the same principle would apply if the inhabitants of a courtyard established a business partnership for the sale of bread.
|
| 2. |
The Tur (Orach Chayim 366) states that even if the partnership involves several types of produce, as long as it is stored in a single container, the inhabitants may rely on it for the sake of the Sabbath. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 386:3) quotes this ruling.
|
| 3. |
The Rambam's ruling is based on Eruvin 68a. In his commentary on that passage, Rashi explains that this refers to the food set aside for the shituf. If the person asks for some of this food and it is not given to him, the eruv is nullified.
Although this does not appear to be the Rambam's intent, the Kessef Mishneh explains that his words can be interpreted in this manner. [And in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 366:5), Rav Yosef Karo rules according to his explanation in the Kessef Mishneh]. The Ra'avad goes further and explains that this law applies only when one person has granted others a share in his produce for the purpose of establishing a shituf. If, afterwards, he refuses to allow one of the members of the lane to take from the shituf, the shituf is nullified.
|
| 4. |
With the intent of nullifying the shituf.
|
| 5. |
I.e., in contrast to the previous law, this person was not a regular participant in the shituf.
|
| 6. |
I.e., the communal court may compel him to join the shituf. Nevertheless, in contrast to the previous law, the matter may not be dealt with by the inhabitants of the lane themselves (Maggid Mishneh). This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 367:1).
The Noda BiY'hudah (Vol. II, Choshen Mishpat, Responsum 39) points to Hilchot Sh'chenim 5:12 (quoted in the Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 162:1), which appears to contradict this interpretation, for it states that the members of the lane may compel each other to build a pole or a beam for a courtyard. The Noda BiY'hudah explains, however, that there is a difference between the structure of a courtyard (i.e., the pole or the beam) and participation in an eruv.
|
| 7. |
According to most authorities, the inhabitants of such a courtyard have the right to establish ashituf with the inhabitants of both lanes, if they desire. If they chose this option, they may bring articles to and from both lanes. The Maggid Mishneh maintains that the Rambam accepts this view, as well.
There are opinions (see Rabbenu Yehonatan) that maintain that Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi differs with this view, and maintains that in such a situation, the inhabitants of the courtyard may join in ashituf with the inhabitants of only one lane. Some maintain that the Rambam also accepts this view. This is surely the opinion of the Ra'avad, who objects to the Rambam's ruling here.
This interpretation cannot be justified in light of the Rambam's ruling in Halachah 7. Accordingly,Merkevet HaMishneh offers a different interpretation of Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's view, as is explained in the following note.
|
| 8. |
In Chapter 1, Halachah 20, the Rambam states: "A person need not inform the inhabitants of a lane or a courtyard that he has granted them [a portion of food] and established an eruv for them, for these deeds are to their benefit, and a person may grant a colleague benefit without the latter's knowledge."
The rationale behind that ruling is that it is surely to the benefit of the inhabitants of a courtyard to be able to bring articles to and from areas outside their courtyard. In this instance, however, the establishment of a shituf is not necessarily to the benefit of the inhabitants of that courtyard, and they must therefore be notified beforehand.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that the shituf is not necessarily to their benefit, because they have another alternative to transfer articles to and from the courtyard from outside. Hence, it is possible that the inhabitants of the courtyard do not desire to join in the shituf with this lane, lest doing so increase the amount of human traffic in their courtyard.
According to Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's view, the question facing the inhabitants of this courtyard is: If they do not join in a shituf with either of the lanes, they are allowed to transfer articles left in the courtyard at the commencement of the Sabbath to and from both the lanes. Should they join in a shituf with only one of the lanes, although their opportunities are greatly increased with regard to transferring articles to and from the lane with which they established the shituf, they lose the opportunity to transfer articles to and from the other lane. Perhaps they would desire to maintain the situation as it was originally rather than forfeit this opportunity.
|
| 9. |
In this ruling, the Rambam's interpretation of Eruvin 80a (the source for this halachah) parallels that of Rabbenu Chanan'el. Rashi, the Ra'avad, and others offer a directly opposite interpretation of that passage. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 367:1) follows the latter view.
The Ra'avad's objection to the Rambam's ruling revolves around the interpretation of the passage cited above, which begins:
According to the Rambam, the law Rabbi Zeira cites as support is not entirely analogous to the situation regarding which he was asked. A Jew's wife may establish an eruv without his knowledge, but not against his will. A gentile's wife, by contrast, may rent out his domain even when he has already refused (Sefer HaKovetz).
|
| 10. |
Since they agreed to join in the shituf previously, we assume that they desire to continue the arrangement (Levush, Orach Chayim 368:1).
|
| 11. |
Rashi (Eruvin 80b) explains that this refers to establishing the second shituf with a different type of produce, rather than establishing the first eruv with two types of produce. His approach is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 368:1).
|
| 12. |
Note Chapter 1, Halachah 11, where the Rambam states that a shituf can be established using two types of produce. The Ra'avad objects both there and here.
|
| 13. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 9.
|
| 14. |
Merkevet HaMishneh explains that, even according to the Rambam, using two types of produce for a shituf is undesirable. Therefore, if the shituf must be established anew, it is necessary to check whether the inhabitants of the lane consent.
|
| 15. |
For perhaps they would desire to establish the shituf with the inhabitants of the other lane.
|
| 16. |
See the notes on Halachah 4.
|
| 17. |
Unless they join together in a shituf.
|
| 18. |
Since there is a courtyard in their lane that has not joined in the shituf, all the inhabitants of the lane are forbidden to carry.
|
| 19. |
Unless they join in a shituf.
|
| 20. |
Even when they do not join in a shituf.
|
| 21. |
Provided they establish an eruv for themselves.
|
| 22. |
Based on the principles stated in the previous halachah, it would seem that the fact that the inhabitants of this courtyard have not joined in the shituf of the lane through which they usually pass would cause carrying to be forbidden in this lane. Nevertheless, since the inhabitants of this courtyard have another alternative, they are considered part of the courtyard through which they do not usually pass. The rationale is that through this decision, one group of people (the inhabitants of the lane who established a shituf) benefits (for their shituf is considered acceptable), and another group (the inhabitants of the courtyard in question) does not lose (for they are forbidden to carry regardless) [Eruvin 49a].
|
| 23. |
As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Shabbat 16:3, this is an area of 5000 square cubits. The Sages forbade carrying in such an area, even when it is surrounded by a proper partition (loc. cit.:1-2).
|
| 24. |
I.e., we assume that the entrance that is more important to them is the entrance to the enclosed area and not the entrance to the lane. Hence, the fact that they have an entrance to the lane is of no significance.
|
| 25. |
See Chapter 4, Halachah 13.
|
| 26. |
See also Halachah 24 and Chapter 4, Halachah 16.
|
| 27. |
See Chapter 2, Halachot 1-5.
|
| 28. |
Chapter 4, Halachah 1.
|
| 29. |
I.e., an eruv established within a courtyard will be seen by the children, and they will know that it is only because of this eruv that the restrictions against carrying are relaxed. If, however, there is only a shituf in the lane, it is unlikely to be noticed by the children, and they will not know about the restrictions established by our Sages (Eruvin 73b). (See, however, the notes on the following halachah.)
|
| 30. |
For the shituf requires the participation of all the inhabitants of the lane.
|
| 31. |
See Halachah 15.
|
| 32. |
I.e., if one person will give a colleague bread - other than the bread of the shituf - when asked (Ra'avad, Maggid Mishneh, based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Eruvin 6:8).
|
| 33. |
Rav Moshe HaCohen notes an apparent contradiction between this halachah and Chapter 1, Halachah 19, which states that if a shituf was established with bread, there is no need for eruvinwithin the courtyards, because the children will be aware of the collection of loaves of bread. He maintains that this leniency may be accepted at all times. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim387:1) accepts this view.
The Ramah mentions an even greater leniency. He maintains that we may rely on the shitufalthough eruvin were not established, even when the shituf was established with wine or other foods. His rationale is that in Talmudic times, the shituf was established by one member of each courtyard, who acted on behalf of all the inhabitants. At present, however, all the inhabitants of the lane contribute individually to the shituf.
This rationale is not accepted by the later authorities; Shulchan Aruch HaRav 387:1 and theMishnah Berurah 387:12 suggest following the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch.
|
| 34. |
The Rambam's ruling is based on his conception [Hilchot Shabbat 17:8; Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 6:8)] that a lane must have several courtyards and several houses open to it.
The Ra'avad, Rav Moshe HaCohen, and others object to the Rambam's ruling, explaining that it follows the opinion of Rav (Shabbat 131a). Nevertheless, the halachah ultimately follows the view of Shmuel (Eruvin 74a), who maintains that the lane and the courtyards are considered to be a single entity. According to this view, when a shituf has not been established, there is no difference whether or not eruvin have been established within the courtyards. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 388:1 and the Mishnah Berurah 388:4 rule according to this view.
The Mishnah Berurah adds that the stringency suggested by the Rambam applies only when the open side of the lane is adjusted with a pole or a beam. If, however, the open side is adjusted with a frame of an entrance, even the Rambam would agree that one is permitted to carry articles that were left in the lane at the beginning of the Sabbath.
|
| 35. |
See Chapter 3, Halachot 18-19.
|
| 36. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 10.
|
| 37. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 16.
|
| 38. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 9.
|
| 39. |
See Chapter 4, Halachah 1.
|
| 40. |
We have translated the Hebrew פתח as "opening," rather than "entrance," in light of the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 389:1) that a window is sufficient.
|
| 41. |
As reflected by Halachah 10, when a person has one entrance that is semi-private and another that is more public, the entrance that is more private is considered to be the one he will prefer. Since the gentile has an alternative of this nature, his presence does not cause carrying to be forbidden within the lane.
|
| 42. |
Because of its small size.
|
| 43. |
Significantly, these laws are directly opposite to those applying to a Jew, as mentioned in Halachah 10.
|
| 44. |
I.e., one might think that since they are joined together as a single entity, the leniency mentioned in the final clause of Halachah 16 would apply. This, however, is not the case, as the Rambam proceeds to state.
|
| 45. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 15.
|
| 46. |
This refers to a city surrounded by a wall that has gates, for in this way it is a private domain according to the Torah (Maggid Mishneh). Other authorities - and these are the views accepted by many today - accept the possibility of a city's being encompassed by an eruv consisting of wires or string that forms an imaginary wall. The acceptability of such an enclosure is discussed in Hilchot Shabbat 16:16 and notes.
|
| 47. |
I.e., in contrast to the situation mentioned in the following halachah, there is no need to set a certain area outside the eruv.
|
| 48. |
Since the city has only one entrance, it does not resemble a public domain, and the chance that people will develop a misconception is far less. Hence, no additional measure is necessary (Mishnah Berurah 292:5).
|
| 49. |
This represents the Rambam's interpretation of Eruvin 59a,b. The Rashba and the Ritba offer similar, but slightly different interpretations of the passage. Significantly, Rashi interprets the Hebrew עיר של רבים as referring to a city populated by more than 600,000. His view is cited inShulchan Aruch HaRav 392:1 and the Mishnah Berurah 392:7 as an explanation for the reason that this law is not practiced at present.
|
| 50. |
For the reasons explained in the following halachah.
|
| 51. |
Since the city resembles a public domain, allowing people to carry might create a misconception. Unless a portion of the city were set aside, it is possible that some might entirely lose awareness of the prohibition against carrying.
|
| 52. |
Or even several ladders (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 392:2).
|
| 53. |
Although at times a ladder is considered to be an entrance (e.g., Chapter 3, Halachah 2), this instance is judged by different criteria.
|
| 54. |
These individuals are less likely to be upset about being excluded from the eruv of the city. (SeeEruvin 60a.)
|
| 55. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 20.
|
| 56. |
The Maggid Mishneh (cited also by the Mishnah Berurah 392:34) notes that the Rambam's wording implies that if only a portion of the inhabitants of a city join in the shituf, we do not automatically assume that a person would prefer to be part of them. Perhaps he would prefer to be associated with those who were not included.
|
| 57. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
|
| 58. |
See Chapter 4, Halachah 13.
|
| 59. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 9; Chapter 4, Halachah 13; and Halachah 16 of the present chapter.
|
| 60. |
Today, when eruvin are made in cities where Jews and gentiles live together, the gentiles' domains are usually rented through an arrangement negotiated with the municipal authorities. Since these authorities have a certain dimension of control over all land under their jurisdiction, and can enter all homes with a court order, they are entitled to rent the domain for all the gentiles living in this area.
|
| 61. |
Merkevet HaMishneh explains that the Rambam's wording implies that the inhabitants must either join in the shituf or erect a pillar.
|
| 62. |
See Chapter 4, Halachah 16; and Halachah 11 of the present chapter.
|
| 63. |
The Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss on Halachah 19) and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim392:5) interpret this to be referring to a city that is surrounded by a wall with gates.
The Rambam's intent is interpreted to mean that if the pillar is erected in the middle of the public domain, it is not sufficient to divide one part of the city from the other.
If the city is not surrounded by a wall, it is not a private domain according to Torah law. It is possible to enclose a portion by using a Halachic conception of an enclosure, a tzurat hapetach, "a frame of an entrance," but the entire city may not be enclosed in this manner.
|
Bikkurim - Chapter 12
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment1 for every Jewish man2 to redeem the first [male]3issue of a donkey with a seh. If he does not desire to redeem it, it is a mitzvah for him to behead it,4 as [Exodus 13:13] states: "The first issue of a donkey you shall redeem with a seh.5 If you do not redeem it, you shall decapitate it."
Halacha 2
The seh with which it is redeemed is given to the priest, as [Numbers 18:15] states: "All first issues of the womb... and the firstborn of an impure animal you shall redeem."8
Halacha 3
The "impure animal" mentioned in the verse refers only to donkeys.9
Halacha 4
It is forbidden to benefit from the first issue of a donkey until it is redeemed. If it is sold before it is redeemed, the money received for it is forbidden.10 If it died before it was redeemed or it was decapitated, it should be buried, because it is forbidden to benefit from it even after its decapitation, since it was not redeemed. Therefore if he did not redeem it, but instead gave the first issue of the donkey itself to the priest, it is forbidden for the priest to benefit from it until he redeems it with a seh and takes the seh for himself11 or he decapitates it and buries it.
The priests are suspect regarding this matter.12 Hence, it is forbidden for an Israelite to give the first issue of a donkey to a priest unless the priest redeems it in his presence.
Halacha 5
When a person set aside [a seh] for the redemption of a donkey and it died before he gave it to the priest, he is not liable to replace it.13 Instead, he should give the corpse to the priest to benefit from.14 If the first issue of the donkey dies after it was redeemed, he should give the seh to the priest.15 It is permitted to benefit from [the donkey's corpse,] because it has been redeemed.
Halacha 6
Halacha 7
If he does not desire to redeem [the firstling donkey], he should decapitate it with a butcher's hatchet18 from behind,19 as [Exodus 13:13] states: "If you do not redeem it, you should decapitate it." One may not kill it with a staff, a reed, an axe, or a saw, only with a hatchet. One may not place it in a room and lock the door until it dies, for [the verse] states: "And you shall decapitate it."
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
One should not redeem [a firstling donkey] with a seh that resembles another species. If one redeems it in that manner, the redemption is effective.22 One may use a ben pekua23 for the redemption, but not a consecrated animal that was disqualified [and redeemed], for [Deuteronomy 15:22] equates such animals with "the deer and the hart." Just as a deer and a hart may not be used for this redemption,24 so too, a consecrated animal that was disqualified may not be used.
Halacha 10
One may redeem [a firstling donkey] with a seh, whether a male or female, whether blemished or unblemished, whether small or large.
Halacha 11
When a seh was purchased with money that came from the sale of produce of the Sabbatical year,25 it should not be used to redeem a donkey that is definitely a firstling.26 It may, however, be used to redeem a donkey whose firstling status is questionable.27
If [the owner of a firstling donkey] does not own a seh to redeem it, he may redeem it for its value,28 paying its worth to a priest.29 The Torah did not mention a seh to be stringent with him,30 but rather to be lenient with him, i.e., if he possessed a firstling donkey worth ten selaim, he could redeem it with a sehthat is worth a dinar.31 [The rationale is that the redemption of the firstling donkey] should not be considered more stringent than [the redemption of] consecrated property which may be redeemed with its monetary value.
Halacha 12
When does the above32 apply? When the value of the firstling donkey was threezuzim33 or more. If, however, its worth was less than three zuzim, it may be redeemed only with a seh or with three zuzim.34A generous person should not give less than a sela, a parsimonious person should give half a sela and an average person, three zuzim.
Halacha 13
When a person redeems a firstling donkey belonging to a colleague, the redemption is effective,35 but the donkey belongs to its owner.
Halacha 14
Priests and Levites36 are exempt from the redemption of a firstling donkey, as [Numbers 18:15] states: "The firstborn of man and the firstborn of an impure animal you shall redeem."37 All of those who are obligated to redeem a firstborn human are obligated to redeem the firstborn of an impure animal. Those who are exempt from redeeming a firstborn human38 are exempt from redeeming the firstborn of an impure animal.
Halacha 15
When a person purchases the fetus of a donkey belonging to a gentile or sells the fetus of his donkey to a gentile - although he is not allowed to do so39 - he is exempt from [redeeming] the firstborn. We do not penalize him for such an act.
If the gentile was a partner40 in the mother or the firstborn - even if he only owned a thousandth share - the animal is exempt.41 Should [the gentile own] only one limb or organ of the fetus or the mother42 - e.g., its forefoot or its hindfoot, even its ear, any limb or organ that if cut off would cause the animal to be disqualified as blemished - it is exempt from [the obligations of] a firstborn. If, however, the portion belonging to the gentile would be cut off, the animal would not be considered as blemished for the altar,43 he is obligated.44
Similarly, one who receives a donkey from a gentile to care for on the condition that they divide the offspring45 or a gentile received [a donkey] from a Jew on that condition, they are exempt from [the obligations of] the firstborn, as [indicated by Exodus 13:2]: "The first issue of the womb within the children of Israel, in humans and in animals." [Implied is that] it must entirely belong to an Israelite.
Halacha 16
When a convert converts and it is not known whether his donkey gave birth before he converted46 or afterwards,47 he is obligated to decapitate it48 or redeem it.49 If he redeems it with a seh, the seh belongs to the convert, [because we follow the principle]: When a person desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him.50
Halacha 17
Halacha 18
When a cow gives birth to an offspring resembling a donkey or a donkey gives birth to an offspring resembling a horse, it is exempt. [This is derived as follows. Twice53 the Torah states:] "The first issue of a donkey you shall redeem with aseh and the first issue of a donkey...." By mentioning "the first issue of a donkey" twice, [the Torah] indicates that both the mother and the offspring must [resemble] donkeys. If such an offspring has some of the identifying marks of a donkey, there is an obligation to redeem it.54
Halacha 19
When a donkey had not given birth before and it gives birth to two males, [the owner] should give a lamb to a priest.55 If it gives birth to a male and a female [and it is not known which was born first], a lamb should be set aside to remove its holiness so that it will be permitted to benefit from it, for perhaps the male was born first.
The lamb that is set aside belongs to the owner and not to the priest. [We follow the principle]: When a person desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him.56
Halacha 20
When two donkeys that have not given birth yet give birth to two males, [the owner] should give two lambs to a priest. [If they give birth to] a male and a female or two males and a female, he should give one lamb to the priest.57
Halacha 21
[If these donkeys] gave birth to two females and a male or [even] two males and two females, the priest does not receive anything.58 Moreover, [the owner] need not [even] set aside a lamb that he can keep for himself. [The rationale is that] there are many doubts involved: Maybe one gave birth to a male and the other gave birth to two females. Or perhaps one gave birth to a female and the other to a male and then a female or a female and afterwards a male. Similarly, there are many doubts when two males and two females were born.59
If there were two donkeys - one had given birth previously and one had not - and they gave birth to two males and they became intermingled, [the owner] should give one lamb to the priest.60 If they gave birth to a male and a female, he should separate a lamb for himself and he need not give it to the priest, because its status is doubtful.61 [Hence, we follow the principle]: When a person desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him.
Halacha 22
Similarly, when a person purchases a donkey from a gentile and it gives birth to a male, but it is not known whether it gave birth previously or not, he should redeem it with a seh - which he may keep - because its status is doubtful.
Halacha 23
When a person possesses ten lambs - each of them having been separated because of a first issue of a donkey of a doubtful status - they are considered as ordinary property in every context.62 They should be tithed like other animals.63 One of them should be separated as the tithes and the others remain his property, as they were previously.
Halacha 24
When an Israelite possesses at home ten donkeys whose status as firstlings is definite which he inherited from his maternal grandfather who was a priest who in turn inherited them from his maternal grandfather who was an Israelite, he should separate ten se'in for them.64 They, however, [may be kept] as his own65 and, hence, he is obligated to tithe them.66
Blessed be God who grants assistance.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 81) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 22) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 2. |
In contrast to the mitzvah of redeeming one's firstborn son, this obligation is incumbent on both males and females.
|
| 3. |
If, however, the first issue of the donkey is female, it need not be redeemed.
|
| 4. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 82) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 23) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Ra'avad objects to this being considered as a separate mitzvah. In Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., the Rambam explains that he considers the two as separate mitzvot, because Bechorot 13a refers to them as such and draws a parallel between these mitzvot and the mitzvot of yibbum and chalitzah which are accepted as separate mitzvot.
Bechorot 10b explains the rationale for this mitzvah, since the owner caused a priest a loss (by not redeeming the firstling donkey), the Torah decreed that he suffer financial loss. In his Moreh Nevuchim, loc. cit., the Rambam explains that this mitzvah is a safeguard to insure that the mitzvah to redeem the firstling donkeys is observed.
|
| 5. |
The Hebrew term seh can refer either to a sheep or a goat, as stated in Halachah 8.
|
| 6. |
I.e., its observance is not limited to Eretz Yisrael, nor to the time when the Temple is standing.
|
| 7. |
I.e., the initial preference is to redeem the animal rather than behead it.
|
| 8. |
The verse establishes an association between the redemption of a firstborn son and the redemption of a firstling donkey. Just as the money for the firstborn is given the priest, so to, theseh for the firstling donkey is given him (Radbaz). Nevertheless, as evident from Halachot 5-6, the association is not complete in all of its particulars.
|
| 9. |
The Rambam clarifies this because from a simple reading of the verse, one might infer that all the firstborn of impure animals must be redeemed. Although all firstborn humans must be redeemed and all firstborn kosher animals must be sacrificed and/or given to a priest, among non-kosher animals, it is only among donkeys that the firstborn is designated as unique and requiring redemption. In his Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. III, ch. 39, the Rambam explains that this mitzvah is also connected with the commemoration of the exodus when God slew the Egyptian firstborn. It is associated with donkeys and not other beasts, because donkeys are a necessity in an agricultural society. Rashi (Exodus 13:13) focused on different dimensions of this concept, stating that donkeys are used as an analogy for the Egyptians, and b) the donkeys assisted the Jews in their redemption, for they carried the wealth of Egypt upon them.
|
| 10. |
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, asking: "Why can he not give the money he received for the donkey to the priest? Why is it forbidden?" After all, it is permitted to redeem the donkey for its value (Halachah 11).
The Radbaz explains that if the person would desire to pay the donkey's worth to the priest he could. Here, however, he sold the donkey and once, it was sold the money he received is forbidden. Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 321:8) quotes the Rambam's ruling. The Rama states that if the seller notifies the buyer that it is the first issue of a donkey, stipulates that the buyer will redeem it with a seh, and states that he is selling him the difference between the value of the sehand the value of the donkey, the sale is permitted
|
| 11. |
I.e., the priest sets aside a seh and redeems the donkey with it. He then takes the seh as his own.
|
| 12. |
For they say: "Why should I redeem it when I am entitled to keep the seh with which I redeem it?" (Sifei Cohen 321:6).
|
| 13. |
As soon as the seh was set aside, the holiness of the donkey is transferred to it. Hence, when theseh dies, it is considered that the priest's property died and the owner is not under any further obligation (Rashi, Bechorot 9a).
|
| 14. |
For the seh already became the priest's property [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 1:4)].
|
| 15. |
Again since the redemption is already a fait accompli, the priest deserves the seh regardless of what happens to the donkey.
|
| 16. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 321:1) states that the mitzvah is "to redeem it immediately, so as not to postpone the observance of the mitzvah."
|
| 17. |
In this, we see a difference between the redemption of a firstling donkey and that of a firstborn son. For the son must be redeemed after 30 days, not before (Chapter 11, Halachah 17).
|
| 18. |
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 1:7).
|
| 19. |
This is implied by the Hebrew term erafto that is connected to the Hebrew oref, meaning "neck." One must decapitate the animal, severing its neck (ibid.).
|
| 20. |
The (Turei Zahav 321:3 notes that, as stated in Halachah 11, one may redeem the firstling donkey for its value. Hence, if one tells a priest that by giving him a calf or the like, he is redeeming the donkey for its value, the redemption is effective.
|
| 21. |
See Chapter 9, Halachah 5, and notes, with regard to the definition of this term.
|
| 22. |
For even if it does not appear to be a seh, it is of that species. Bechorot 12a raises this question and does not resolve it. Hence, as an initial preference, one should not use such an animal, but after the fact, it is acceptable (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).
The Rambam's opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 321:3), but the Tur and the Rama differ and maintain that the status of such a redemption is questionable.
|
| 23. |
This term refers to an animal that was being carried as a fetus when its mother was slaughtered and remained alive despite that slaughter (see Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 5:14). The Rambam's opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 321:4), but the Tur and the Rama differ and maintain that the redemption is invalid.
|
| 24. |
As stated in the previous halachah.
|
| 25. |
See Hilchot Shemitah VeYoval, ch. 6, which explains the laws governing the use of money received for the sale of the produce of the Sabbatical year in detail.
|
| 26. |
The sheep purchased with money from the sale of produce of the Sabbatical year is considered as the produce of the Sabbatical year itself. And the produce of the Sabbatical year should not be used for the purchase of a non-kosher animal (ibid. 6:10).
|
| 27. |
As stated in Halachah 21, when redeeming a donkey whose firstling status is questionable, it is necessary to separate a sheep, but one does not have to give it to the priest. Hence, using a sheep for this process is not considered analogous to the purchase of a non-kosher animal with the produce of the Sabbatical year.
|
| 28. |
See the Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 22) who concludes that when the owner does possess a seh, he must redeem the donkey with the seh rather than pay its value.
|
| 29. |
See the Or Sameach and the Minchat Chinuch (loc. cit.) who question whether, after the fact, the redemption of a firstling donkey is effective if one gave less than its worth. One might argue that the priest receiving the article could say: "For me, this is worth the value of the donkey." Indeed,Hilchot Arachin 7:8 states that when one redeems consecrated property for less than its value, the redemption is valid. This position, however, is not accepted by all authorities. Compare to Chapter 11, Halachah 7.
|
| 30. |
And require that a sheep be given, regardless of the difficulty involved.
|
| 31. |
A dinar is equivalent to one fourth of a sela.
|
| 32. |
That a firstling donkey should be redeemed for its value or for a seh.
|
| 33. |
A zuz is equivalent to a dinar.
|
| 34. |
The Rambam's ruling is based on his interpretation of Bechorot 11a. Rashi and the Ra'avad offer a different interpretation of that passage. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro questions the Rambam's ruling, stating that the Ra'avad's interpretation appears closer to the version of the Talmud we possess. Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 321:5), Rav Yosef Caro quotes the Rambam's view.
|
| 35. |
Note the Minchat Chinuch (loc. cit.) who questions whether the mitzvah is incumbent on the owner of the donkey and the person is thus acting as the owner's agent or whether the mitzvah to redeem it is incumbent on the Jewish people as a whole and any person has the right to observe. There would be a practical difference between these two views if the owner protested against the other person redeeming his firstling donkey.
|
| 36. |
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 321:19) states that this also applies to women of the priestly and Levitical families. Nevertheless, this applies only to the donkeys that they personally own. Those owned by their husbands are liable.
|
| 37. |
I.e., the initial preference is to redeem the animal rather than behead it.
|
| 38. |
And the priests and Levites are exempt from the redemption of their firstborn, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 9.
|
| 39. |
This refers to the second clause. He is forbidden to sell his firstling donkey as a fetus to a gentile, for by doing so, he exempts himself from the mitzvah of redeeming it and thus causes the priesthood a loss. There is, however, no prohibition against purchasing a firstling fetus owned by a gentile (Radbaz).
|
| 40. |
In general, it is forbidden to enter into a partnership with a gentile (Hilchot Shiluchim VeShutafim10:5). In particular, this applies in the present instance, for he is depriving the priesthood of the presents due them. Nevertheless, he is not penalized for doing so.
|
| 41. |
For, as the Rambam concludes, the firstling donkey must belong entirely to a Jew.
|
| 42. |
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 321:20) state that, in this regard, the laws that apply to a firstling donkey are the same as those applying to the firstborn of a kosher animal and they are discussed in sec. 320 which deals with that subject.
There the Tur asks why is it necessary for the Rambam to speak of the limbs of an animal when he already mentioned that any small percentage of a partnership in the animal disqualifies it. TheKessef Mishneh explains that in this clause, the Rambam is speaking about an instance where the gentile is not a partner in the entire animal. He owns only a portion of the particular limb or organ in question. Hence, it is necessary to clarify that even in such an instance, he is exempt.
|
| 43. |
I.e., if such a blemish were to exist in a kosher animal. These blemishes are mentioned in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach, ch. 2.
|
| 44. |
For the portion owned by the gentile is not significant.
|
| 45. |
This was a common practice in the Talmudic era. A person would give a colleague a donkey (or other animal) to raise. As payment for raising it, he is given a half share in the donkey's offspring. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 1:1).
|
| 46. |
In which case he would be exempt from redeeming its firstborn.
|
| 47. |
In which case he would be obligated.
|
| 48. |
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 321:18) does not mention the option of decapitation, implying that even in this instance, redemption is the preferable option.
|
| 49. |
This instance is different from that involving the presents of meat given to the priests (Chapter 9, Halachah 13). The rationale is that in this instance, the owner is forbidden to benefit from the firstling donkey unless he redeems it. Hence, he must redeem it rather than risk that transgression. Moreover, as the Rambam proceeds to explain, he does not suffer any loss through this redemption.
|
| 50. |
A priest who is claiming that he is entitled to the seh for the redemption would have to prove that the conversion took place before the donkey was born. The owner is allowed to keep the seh, for there is no holiness associated with it. The question is only one of monetary law and is governed by the principle stated by the Rambam.
|
| 51. |
We inform him, lest he think that the Jews are lax in the observance of sanctified aticles (Sifei Cohen 321:13).
|
| 52. |
For the mitzvah only applies to the Jewish people.
|
| 53. |
Exodus 13:13, 34:20.
|
| 54. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 315:6) is more lenient, stating that there is a doubt whether it must be redeemed.
|
| 55. |
Even though he does not know which one is the firstborn, one of them obviously is. Hence, an obligation exists.
|
| 56. |
A priest who is claiming that he is entitled to the seh for the redemption would have to prove that the male donkey was born first.
|
| 57. |
For it is only certain that one of the males was the firstborn. The female could have been born before the second one. See Chapter 11, Halachah 22. Although there is a possibility that the second donkey gave birth to a male first, there is no probability that it did so. Hence the Rambam does not require that a lamb be separated for it. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah321:14) maintain that since there is a possibility that the second male is also a firstborn, the owner should separate a lamb to remove the possibility of any holiness being attached to the donkey, but he may keep the lamb as his own.
|
| 58. |
Because there is no probability that the donkeys gave birth to a male first. In each instance, it is possible that the donkey gave birth to a female before the male.
|
| 59. |
The Ra'avad and other commentaries question the Rambam's logic and ruling, because this is not the usual instance of a sefek-sefeka. When the situation is analyzed, the only real question is: Was the male born after a female or not? Hence since there is a doubt it would seem appropriate for a lamb to be separated (and kept by the owner) to remove the possibility of the donkey being holy. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 321:14) follows the Rambam's view, while the Tur and the Rama require that a lamb be set aside. As Sifei Cohen 321:11 writes, since the owner will not suffer a loss by separating a lamb, why shouldn't he?
|
| 60. |
For one of the males is definitely a firstborn.
|
| 61. |
For perhaps the donkey that gave birth previously gave birth to the male.
|
| 62. |
The fact that originally, there was a claim against them is not significant. Since the owner is allowed to maintain possession, as stated in the above halachot, there is no difference between these lambs and the remainder of his property.
|
| 63. |
See Hilchot Bechorot, ch. 6, which describes this mitzvah. Since these lambs are ordinary property and are not consecrated, they must be tithed.
|
| 64. |
For since, they originally belonged to an Israelite, there is an obligation to redeem them.
|
| 65. |
His grandfather, the priest would not have to give the lambs he set aside to redeem them to another priest, because he himself is entitled to them. He bequeaths that right to his grandson, the Israelite. Hence he may keep them as his own.
|
| 66. |
For they are not consecrated.
|
Shemita - Chapter 1
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment to rest from performing agricultural work or work with trees1 in the Sabbatical year, as [Leviticus 25:2] states: "And the land will rest like a Sabbath unto God" and [Exodus 34:21] states: "You shall rest with regard to plowing and harvesting."2
When a person3 performs any labor upon the land or with trees during this year, he nullifies the observance of this positive commandment and violates a negative commandment,4as [Leviticus 25:4] states: "Do not sow your field and do not trim your vineyard."
Halacha 2
Halacha 3
Trimming is considered in the category of sowing.7 And harvesting fruit is considered in the category of harvesting grain. If so, why did the Torah single them out?8 To teach that one is liable [for lashes] for performing these two derivatives alone. For the other derivatives that involve working the land9 and the other major categories of labor that were not mentioned explicitly [by the Torah] in this context, one is not liable for lashes. He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
We do not plant even non-fruit-bearing trees in the Sabbatical year. Nor may one cut an abnormal outgrowth from a tree, remove dried leaves and branches, apply dust to the top of a tree,13 or smoke a tree so that worms [that infest it] die.14[Similarly,] one should not apply a foul-smelly potion to plants so that birds will not eat them when they are soft. One should not apply oil to unripened fruit, nor should one perforate them. 15 One should not bind plants,16 nor trim them, nor prepare a support for a tree of perform any other work with trees. If one performs any of these labors in the Sabbatical year, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 6
One may not light a fire in an overgrowth of reeds, because this is considered as working the land.17 We train a cow to plow only in sand.18 We do not test [the viability of] seeds in a flowerpot full of earth,19 but we may test them in a flowerpot full of dung.20 One may soak seeds in the Sabbatical year in order to plant them in the following year.21 We maintain aloe22 plants on top of the roof,23 but we do not water them.24
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
We may irrigate a beit hashilechin, i.e., a field that is sown [with grain] that is very arid, in the Sabbatical year.28 Similarly, we may cause water to flow from one tree to another in an orchard if there were ten trees dispersed in an area larger than that necessary to sow a se'ah [of grain].29 One should not, however, irrigate the entire orchard.30 If they are closer to each other than that, one may irrigate the entire orchard for them.31
Similarly, [when trees grow in] a field where they are planted distant from each other,32 we can sprinkle the earth with water for the sake of the trees that they will not be ruined.
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
Why were all these activities allowed? For if he will not irrigate [the field], the land will become parched and all the trees in it will die. Since the prohibition against these activities and the like is Rabbinic in origin, they did not impose their decrees in these instances.35 For according to Scriptural Law, a prohibition applies only to the two primary categories and their two derivatives, as explained.36
Halacha 11
When the number of those who impose their desires by force increased and the gentile kings required the Jews to supply food37 for their soldiers, [the Sages] permitted [the people] to sow only those crops that are necessary for the servants of the king alone.38 Similarly, if a person of force compelled someone to perform labor in the Sabbatical year without pay, for the service of the king or the like, he may do so.39
Halacha 12
When a person plants [crops] during the Sabbatical year whether in inadvertent or willful violation, he should uproot them, because the Jews are suspect with regard to [the prohibitions of the] Sabbatical year.40 If we would allow a person who [sowed] inadvertently to keep the crops, a person who [sowed] intentionally would say: "I did so inadvertently."41
Halacha 13
When one plows his field, breaks its ground,42 or fertilizes it43in the Sabbatical year so that it will be better to sow in the following year, we penalize him and [prohibit] him from sowing it in the following year. He may not hire it out to others. Instead, he must leave it fallow. If he dies, however, his son may sow it.44
14 When a person removes thorns from his field in the Sabbatical year to improve it for the following year or removes stones from it, even though he is forbidden to do so,45 we do not penalize him. He is permitted to sow it in the following year.
Halacha 15
[The following laws apply when a person] buries turnips, radishes, and the like46in the Sabbatical year. If some of their leaves were revealed, he need not be concerned.47 If not, it is forbidden.48 When someone buries wild onions or the like, he should place at least four kabbim in the height of a handbreadth49and place a handbreadth of earth above them. He should bury them in a place where people walk so that they will not grow.
It is permitted to rip off the protruding stalks of rice in the Sabbatical year,50 but one should not cut them off.
Halacha 16
At the outset, [the Rabbis] would say: A person may gather wood, stones, and grass from his field, provided he takes the larger ones51 alone, so that his intent is not to clear the land,52 but from his colleague's field, he may take small and larger pieces.53 When there was an increase in the number of transgressors, i.e., people who intended to clear their fields, but would excuse themselves, saying: "We are only taking the larger pieces," they forbade a person from gathering wood and stones from his own field, [permitting this] only from a colleague's field.54 Even then, [the leniency was granted] only when he does not do so in order that he exchange the favor,55 i.e., he does not tell his colleague: "See how much of a favor I did for you, for I have cleared your field."
Halacha 17
When a person's animal is standing in his field, he may gather [all types of grasses]56 and bring them to it, for [the presence of] his animal indicates his [intent].57 Similarly, if his cooking range is located there, he may gather everything58 and kindle it, for [the presence of] his range indicates his [intent].
Halacha 18
If a person cuts down a tree or two to use as wood,59 he may dig out their roots.60 If he cuts down three or more next to each other, he should not dig out their roots, because then he is improving his land.61 Instead, he should cut off the portion above the earth and leave the roots in the ground.
When does the above apply? In one's own field. In one's colleague's field, by contrast, it is permitted to dig out the roots.62
Halacha 19
Halacha 20
One who trims the ends of branches of vines and cuts down reeds, may cut them in his ordinary pattern with a hatchet, a sickle, or a saw, or with any other utensil he desires.65
Halacha 21
One should not chop wood from a wild fig tree from which wood has never been cut before66 in the same way as one cuts wood from it in other years, because trimming a tree is [one of the forbidden] tasks involved with trees, for through trimming the tree, it will grow and increase. If he needs its wood, he should trim it in an unusual manner.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 135) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 112) includes this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
There is a difference of opinion among the commentaries if the mitzvah is incumbent on the gavra(the person himself) or on the land (the cheftza, the object). The commentaries note that the Rambam's wording in this halachah indicates that the mitzvah is on the person, he should rest. Nevertheless, the wording he uses when enumerating the mitzvot - that "the land should rest" - puts the emphasis on the land.
|
| 2. |
The citation of this verse reflects a general principle in the Mishneh Torah: that the Rambam will occasionally favor the understanding of a verse proposed by the Jerusalem Talmud even though the Babylonian Talmud interprets it otherwise. To explain: the Babylonian Talmud (Mo'ed Kattan4a) inteprets this verse as a prohibition to work the land on the Sabbath. It is the Jerusalem Talmud (Sh'vi'it 1:3) which understands it as referring to the Sabbatical year.
From Chapter 4, Halachah 1, it appears that here the Rambam is speaking of harvesting for the sake of improving the land, not for gathering its crops. The intent appears to be that harvesting produce will enable the land to produce better produce in the future.
|
| 3. |
This mitzvah is incumbent both on men and women.
|
| 4. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 220) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 326) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 5. |
As indicated by Halachah 20 and notes, the intent here is trimming the top of the tree and not the end of its branches.
|
| 6. |
The term betzirah whose root is used in Leviticus 25:5 is usually employed specifically with regard to harvesting grapes. Nevertheless, in a wider sense, it refers to harvesting any fruit.
|
| 7. |
Because like sowing, trimming contributes to the growth of the tree (Radbaz).
|
| 8. |
In Leviticus 25:5: "The aftergrowth of your harvest you shall not reap and the grapes you had designated you shall not gather."
|
| 9. |
And performing work with trees.
|
| 10. |
Plowing is explicitly mentioned in the positive commandment for observing the Sabbatical year, but not in the prohibition.
Although Mo'ed Kattan 3a uses techniques of Biblical exegesis to show that other labors are forbidden, the Rambam considers these teachings merely as asmachteot, citing a verse as support for a concept forbidden by Rabbinic Law.
|
| 11. |
To improve the land, not because he needs the stones. See Chapter 2, Halachah 10.
|
| 12. |
Implants the head of a branch of a vine or tree in the ground so that roots will grow to improve its nurture.
|
| 13. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 2:2), the Rambam writes that this is beneficial for certain trees.
|
| 14. |
As will be explained (see Halachah 7), we are permitted to perform labor to maintain a tree's wellbeing. These activities, however, are intended to foster its growth.
|
| 15. |
Both of these activities speed their ripening (ibid.:5).
|
| 16. |
Bind their branches so that they grow upward rather than spread out (ibid.:6).
|
| 17. |
For this prepares the land on which they grow to be used to plant crops.
|
| 18. |
And not on land that could be used for crops in which instance, the plowing would benefit him.
|
| 19. |
For this resembles sowing them.
|
| 20. |
Because we do not usually sow in dung.
|
| 21. |
For this does not involve working with the land.
|
| 22. |
A fragrant herb, also used for medicinal purposes.
|
| 23. |
I.e., prevent them from being damaged. The Radbaz questions why the aloe plant is singled out; seemingly the same principle applies with regard to all plants. He explains that since the aloe grows on the roofs, it is in need of shade. Our Sages permitted a person to construct a shelter to protect the aloe from the sun. This is not considered as forbidden labor.
|
| 24. |
For that would promote their growth, not merely maintain them.
|
| 25. |
Chulin 78a states that this is intended to attract notice to the tree and cause people to pray that its fruit do not fall prematurely. This is permitted because it does not involve caring for the tree.
|
| 26. |
This weakens the tree's strength and thus prevents it from causing its fruit to fall prematurely (ibid.). Since it weakens the tree, it is permitted.
|
| 27. |
The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rashi (Mo'ed Kattan 3a) who explains that the words oder andkishkush are synonymous. The difference is only with regard to the type of plants.
|
| 28. |
For otherwise all the trees in the field will die, as stated in Halachah 10.
|
| 29. |
Hilchot Shabbat 16:3 defines an area in which a se'ah of grain is sown as 50 cubits by 50 cubits. This leniency is permitted to make sure that the trees do not die.
|
| 30. |
Since it is unnecessary to do that to provide the individual trees with water.
|
| 31. |
For that is the most effective way of watering the trees, since they are close to each other.
|
| 32. |
I.e., ten in an area larger than 50 cubits by 50 cubits. Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 2:10).
|
| 33. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Mo'ed Kattan 1:1).
|
| 34. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kelayim 5:4).
|
| 35. |
So the trees will not die.
|
| 36. |
In Halachot 2-3.
|
| 37. |
Our translation is based on the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard publish text follows a slightly different version.
|
| 38. |
This leniency was granted even though sowing is forbidden by Scriptural Law. It must, however, be emphasized that (as stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 9), from the later years of the First Temple period, the observance of the Sabbatical year only had the status of Rabbinic commandment. The Radbaz maintains that such leniency would be granted even if the Scriptural ordinance was in effect.
|
| 39. |
For since he is being threatened, it makes no difference whether the person threatening him is a king or an ordinary person. Since there is danger involved, leniency is granted (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).
The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that this leniency is granted only when the person does not receive payment for his activity. He is forbidden to take payment, even if he is being compelled for then a person could perform such labors and excuse himself, claiming that he was compelled to do so.
|
| 40. |
There are many who sow their fields and reap their crops. See Chapter 8 which lists many safeguards instituted for that reason.
|
| 41. |
Terumot 2:3 contrasts sowing on the Sabbath with sowing during the Sabbatical year, explaining that the Jews are not suspect to violate the Sabbath. Hence, the results of the inadvertent violation of the Sabbath laws are not forbidden.
|
| 42. |
This is the translation of the word nirah, based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 4:3, Pe'ah 2:1). The term differs from plowing in that it is a far less thorough activity. See Rashi's gloss to Jeremiah 4:3 which explains that it refers primarily to the removal of weeds, thorns, and the like.
|
| 43. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 4:2), the Rambam explains that this applies even if the field is fertilized by making it a corral for animals, so that their manure will fertilize it and improve its quality.
|
| 44. |
For the penalty is imposed on him personally, not on the land. Note the contrast to Chapter 3, Halachah 11.
|
| 45. |
As stated in Halachot 4 and 16.
|
| 46. |
In these eras, there was no refrigeration and vegetables would be preserved by placing them in the ground.
|
| 47. |
As long as the leaves are revealed, one is not planting in the ordinary manner (Radbaz). Burying the plants in this manner is permitted, because he does not desire that the plants grow in the earth; they are merely buried there [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 1:9)].
|
| 48. |
Because he appears to be planting them.
|
| 49. |
If they are not packed so densely, burying them resembles planting [ibid. (Sh'vi'it 5:2)].
|
| 50. |
Our translation is based on Rav Kappach's notes to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid. 2:10). There the Rambam explains the term yichsech, but does not explain the term mereis. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh interpret the latter term as meaning that it is permitted to sprinkle water on the rice plants. The contrast to the following clause supports Rav Kappach's interpretation.
|
| 51. |
Those that stick out and attract attention [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 6:11;Sh'vi'it 4:1)].
|
| 52. |
I.e., when clearing the land, one takes smaller stones and pieces as well as larger ones, so that the land will not have any foreign matter upon it.
|
| 53. |
For we do not suspect that he will be intending to clear his colleague's field.
|
| 54. |
It would appear that a person would be permitted to gather both larger and small pieces from his colleague's field. The Radbaz, however, grants this leniency only with regard to larger pieces.
|
| 55. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 4:1). There he emphasizes that the person clearing the field is expecting something in return.
|
| 56. |
Not only the large ones permitted in the previous halachah. Even though the person's field will be cleared in this manner, since this is not his intent, and the labor of clearing a field involves merely a Rabbinic prohibition, stringency was not enforced.
|
| 57. |
That he is seeking to provide his animal with food and not clear his field.
|
| 58. |
The Radbaz states that this leniency is granted only when the owner takes both the large and small pieces. If he takes only small pieces, it is forbidden because he is obviously intending to clear his field.
|
| 59. |
See Chapter 5, Halachot 17-18, which restricts cutting down trees for kindling once they have begun to grow fruit.
|
| 60. |
Even though it involves work with the land, since he desires the wood, it is permitted.
|
| 61. |
The place where three trees can grow is significant and can be used for planting. Thus by removing the stumps, it is as if he is clearing a field for himself [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 5:4)].
|
| 62. |
The intent is not that one has uninhibited license to cut down a colleague's tree even in the Sabbatical year. Instead, if the tree has been cut down, one may uproot the stump.
|
| 63. |
This law also applies to other species. See Sh'vi'it 4:5 and the gloss of the Ra'avad.
|
| 64. |
This is forbidden by Scriptural Law.
|
| 65. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 4:7), the Rambam explains that there is no need for a deviation in the way he trims the branches, because he is not intending to trim the tree. To explain his statements: Although trimming is one of the activities forbidden by Scriptural Law, this refers to trimming the top of the tree, not the ends of its branches (Tifferet Yisrael to the above mishnah).
|
| 66. |
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 5:5)].
|
| 67. |
For cutting these branches is not that beneficial to the tree (Bava Batra 80b).
|
| 68. |
Here, also, our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 5:5)], which quotes I Samuel 15:33 as support.
|
| 69. |
I.e., that the split will be healed. This is forbidden, because this would be improving the tree.
|
| 70. |
This is permitted, because this is maintaining the tree.
|
Shemita - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
A person should not remove waste materials from his courtyard and place them in his field in the Sabbatical year, because it appears that he is fertilizing his field so that it will be improved for him to sow it.1 If he did remove them, but made a waste heap, it is permitted.2
He should not make a waste heap in his field until the time when it is common to fertilize the fields as is done when tilling the land passes, i.e., when the bitter3[apples] become [very dried out and] knotted. He should not make a waste heap that contains less than 150 se'ah of waste, so that it will be obvious that it is a waste heap.4 If he wishes to add to it, he may. If he has a small amount [of waste matter placed in his field before the beginning of the Sabbatical year], he can continue to increase it [throughout the Sabbatical year]. One should not make more than three waste heaps in an area large enough to sow a se'ah of grain.5
Halacha 2
Halacha 3
When a person would place waste on a rock, dug out three handbreadths of the earth and then made a heap of waste, or built [a platform] three handbreadths high above the earth and placed the waste upon them, there is no required measure. Even if he made several waste heaps in an area large enough to sow a se'ah of grain, it is permitted. [The rationale is] it is obvious that his intent is not to improve the land,8 but rather to collect his waste.9
Halacha 4
A person is permitted to remove waste from a corral of sheep and place it in his field as [is permitted to] all those who collect waste.10
When a person makes a corral in his field in the Sabbatical year,11 he should not make it larger than an area it takes to sow two se'ah.12 [When it is that size,] he may bring his sheep into it. When they have fertilized the entire corral, he may leave one wall of the corral and make another corral on its side, [and then bring his sheep there]. In this manner, he can fertilize a portion of his field large enough to sow four se'ah.
Halacha 5
If, however, his entire field was only large enough to sow four se'ah, he should leave a portion [unfertilized], because of the impression that might be created.13[In this way,] everyone will know that the sheep deposited their wastes there and fertilized it and they will not say that the person fertilized his entire field in the Sabbatical year.
Halacha 6
A person should not open a quarry in his field14 at the outset in the Sabbatical year, lest it be said that he intended to improve his field by removing the rocks from it. If he began before the Sabbatical year and quarried from it 27 blocks - each block being one cubit by one cubit and one cubit high or larger - from a group of stones that were three cubits by three cubits and three cubits high, it is permitted to extract from it all one desires during the Sabbatical year.15
Halacha 7
[The following rules apply when there is] a stone wall that is ten handbreadths or more high and one desired to remove all the stones. If it contained ten or more stones, each one at least [large enough to require] two people to carry it, he may take them,16 for an observer will know that he is taking them because he needs the stones.17 If the wall was less than ten handbreadths high, there were less than ten stones or the stones were smaller [and did not require] two people to carry it, he may take them, but must leave [a row] a handbreadth high above the ground.18
Halacha 8
When does the above19 apply? When he intends to improve his field20 or he began to remove the stones in the Sabbatical year. If, however, he did not intend to improve his field21 or began removing them before the Sabbatical year,22 he may take everything he desires23 during the Sabbatical year, clearing away [the stones] until he reaches the earth. Similarly, if he was removing the stones from a colleague's field, even though he was a contractor,24 he may clear them away until he reaches the earth.25
Halacha 9
[The following rules apply when, in a field, there are] stones that would be dislocated by a plow or which were covered [by earth] and then uncovered. If there are two stones that are each large enough to require two people to carry them, it is permitted to remove them.26If they are smaller than this, he should not take them.27
Halacha 10
When a person removes stones from his field because he needs the stones [for construction], he should remove the upper ones and leave those in contact with the earth. Similarly, if he has a pile of pebbles or of stones in his field, he should take the upper one's and leave those in contact with the earth. If there is a large rock or straw beneath them, he may take all of them.28
Halacha 11
A person should not fill a groove in the ground with earth or level it with earth, because he is improving his land.29 He may, however, make a divider before the groove, [separating it from the remainder of his field].30 He may take any stone [in the groove] that he can pick up if he stretches out his hand while he is standing at the edge of the groove.31
Halacha 12
It is permitted to bring stones carried on one's shoulder - i.e., two or three are carried on one's shoulder at a time - from any place, whether from a colleague's field or from one's own field. Similarly, a contractor32 may bring stones, even small ones, from any place whether from the field he hired33 or from a field that he did not hire.
Halacha 13
[The following laws apply when there is] an open space [in a wall separating one's property from the public domain] that was filled with earth.34 If its [stones] do not create an obstacle block for people in the public domain, it is forbidden to rebuild it.35 If they create a stumbling block for people36 or it was not filled with earth, but instead open to the public domain,37 it is permitted to rebuild it.38
Halacha 14
It is forbidden for a person to build a wall between his field and his colleague's field in the Sabbatical year. He may, however, build a wall between his field and the public domain.39 [When he builds the wall,] he is permitted to dig deeply until he reaches a stone.40 He may remove the earth and gather it in his field41in the same manner as waste is gathered.42 Similarly, if a person dug out a cistern, a trench, or a storage cavity in the Sabbatical year, he may gather the earth in the same manner as all those who dig.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 4, fertilizing is a task forbidden by Rabbinic Law.
|
| 2. |
Because it does not appear that he is preparing to fertilize his field immediately.
|
| 3. |
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 3:1)]. There he explains that although matok, the name the Mishnah uses, means "sweet," this fruit has a bitter taste and that term is used as a euphemism. Some have identified this species with the colocynth, a wild gourd with a very bitter flavor. The Radbaz identifies it with a bitter species of grass.
|
| 4. |
Any thing smaller might convey the impression that he is fertilizing his field.
|
| 5. |
Hilchot Shabbat 16:3 defines an area in which a se'ah of grain is sown as 50 cubits by 50 cubits. In this instance as well, if he makes more than three waste heaps, it might appear that his intent is to fertilize the field.
|
| 6. |
I.e., we are not concerned that an onlooker might think that he is fertilizing his field.
|
| 7. |
I.e., create one very large waste heap that encompasses a greater area than the three waste heaps in a 2500 sq. cubit area.
|
| 8. |
By fertilizing it, for the waste is not in direct contact with the earth.
|
| 9. |
For use after the Sabbatical year.
|
| 10. |
I.e., according to the guidelines established in the previous halachot. Those halachot dealt with removing waste from one's home and courtyard. In this halachah, the Rambam is adding that the same rules also apply with regard to the waste from corrals. To establish this conceptual flow, the Rambam changes the order of the clauses in the mishnah (Sh'vi'it 3:4). The Radbaz offers this explanation to rebut the Ra'avad's objections.
|
| 11. |
The Ra'avad cites the Jerusalem Talmud (Sh'vi'it 3:4) which emphasizes that the person's intent should not be to fertilize his field, but to take care of his sheep. When he does that, he can have a portion of his field fertilized as a by-product.
|
| 12. |
100 by 50 cubits.
|
| 13. |
I.e., when an observer will see that the entire field was not fertilized, he will realize that the person did not fertilize it by hand, because then there would be no purpose in leaving part of it unfertilized.
|
| 14. |
The Radbaz explains that the Rambam's ruling applies whether the quarry is open or underground. There are, he explains, other opinions that maintain that if the quarry is open, there is no obligation to begin extracting the stones before the Sabbatical year.
|
| 15. |
Provided one's intent is genuinely to quarry stone and not to improve the field (Radbaz).
|
| 16. |
I.e., all the stones, even those smaller than the size specified.
|
| 17. |
When a person is taking many stones of this size, the effort involved clearly indicates that he is intending to use them for building and not merely to improve his field.
|
| 18. |
So that he will not have prepared his field by removing the stones.
|
| 19. |
That he must leave a row of stones a handbreadth high above the earth.
|
| 20. |
By leaving an additional area that he could sow in the following year.
|
| 21. |
The Radbaz asks: We see that our Sages forbade certain activities because of the impression that an observer might derive. If so, what does the owner's intent matter? An observer may think that he is intending to clear his field. For this reason, he explains that the owner must perform an activity that makes it obvious that he is intending to use the stones for building, for example, using them for construction that is presently being performed on his property.
|
| 22. |
This indicates that he was not using the Sabbatical year to perform whatever work that was possible in his field.
|
| 23. |
I.e., even small stones and even when he tears down a wall that is less than ten handbreadths high.
|
| 24. |
I.e., a person who hires out the field for his own purposes. See Halachah 12 and the Rambam's commentary to its source (Sh'vi'it 3:9).
|
| 25. |
Because he would not take the stones unless they would benefit him. Needless to say, one may not destroy a wall in a colleague's field at whim. Thus even when the owner knows that the wall is being torn down, as long as it is being torn down to be used for building, it is permitted to do so.
|
| 26. |
For, as above, the size of these stones indicates that they will be used for building. The implication is that not only is the person allowed to remove these two large stones, he is allowed to remove all the stones in the field (Radbaz). Needless to say, this leniency is granted only when he genuinely intends to use the stones for construction, not when he desires to clear his field.
One might ask: Why are only two stones required to be of this size in this instance, while in Halachah 8, ten large stones are required?
Among the answers given is that in this instance, since the stones are scattered over a larger area, their removal is less likely to be noticed by an observer. In Halachah 8, by contrast, since the stones are all located in one place, an observer will see that they have been removed (Pe'at HaShulchan).
|
| 27. |
Lest an observer think that he is intending to clear his field.
|
| 28. |
For if he desired to clear his field, he would take the large stone or straw that is beneath them as well.
|
| 29. |
And such work is forbidden in the Sabbatical year.
|
| 30. |
Our translation and the bracketed addition are based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 3:8).
|
| 31. |
If, however, he must descend into the groove to pick up a stone, it is forbidden to remove it, lest an impression be created that the person is seeking to improve his field and make the groove fit for sowing (ibid.).
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, offering a different interpretation of his source (Sh'vi'it, loc. cit.). [The Ra'avad's interpretation is paralleled by Rabbenu Shimshon's understanding of that mishnah.] The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer different explanations that reinforce the Rambam's understanding.
|
| 32. |
A person who had hired the field. See Halachah 8.
|
| 33. |
Even though he hired the field, it is not his own and we do not suspect that he will transgress to improve it. The Ra'avad understands Sh'vi'it 3:9, the Rambam's source differently, seeing it as interrelated to the concepts mentioned in the previous halachah.
|
| 34. |
I.e., rather than being rebuilt with stone.
|
| 35. |
For an onlooker will think that the person is rebuilding it for the purpose of improving his field and enabling him to sow it the following year. See the explanations in the notes to the following halachah.
|
| 36. |
For an observer will understand that he is rebuilding it to remove an obstacle for people at large. (Alternatively, when there are obstacles for people at large, we do not enforce restrictions instituted only because of the possibility that an observer will derive a mistaken impression.)
|
| 37. |
In this situation, by closing it, he is creating a divider between his field and the public domain.
|
| 38. |
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, maintain that since there is a gap in the fence separating his field from the public domain, he is allowed to rebuild it in all instances. The Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh note that the Jerusalem Talmud (the conclusion of ch. 3 of Sh'vi'it ) supports the Rambam's position.
|
| 39. |
Building a wall between one's own field and a colleague's is prohibited lest an onlooker think that one is preparing the land in order to sow one's field. Alternatively, we fear that the person may change his mind and sow the land (Radbaz). A person is, however, permitted to build a wall between his own field and the public domain to set off his property from the public domain. Alternatively, it is not common to sow the land next to the public domain, so there is no need for the above suspicions.
In the previous halachah, repairing a wall between one's field and the public domain is prohibited when the open space is filled with earth. Here, since it is entirely open, a wall may be built, as in the latter clause of that halachah.
|
| 40. |
Since he digs until a stone, but does not remove the stone, it is clear that his intent is not to improve his field, for one cannot sow on a stone.
|
| 41. |
But not in the public domain. See Sh'vi'it 3:10.
|
| 42. |
See Halachot 1-3.
|
• Wednesday, Iyar 17, 5775 · 06 May 2015
Iyar 17, 32nd day of the omer
Torah lessons: Chumash: B'har, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 83-87.
Tanya: Ch. 49. Even though (p. 255)...for the love of G-d. (p. 259).
Tzidkat'cha (p. 209) is not said.
Some recite the sh'ma in the morning, before services, to fulfill their obligation of reciting the sh'ma in its proper time; they should repeat (as usual in a non-communalsh'ma reading) the three words ani Hashem Elokeichem (p. 48), and conclude with the word emet. When reciting the sh'ma with the tefillin of Rabeinu Tam or Shimusha Raba, the three words are not repeated, but one does conclude with emet.
On Lag Ba'Omer, about 5604 (1844), the Tzemach Tzedek related this teaching of the Baal Shem Tov: It is written, "For you (Israel) shall be a land of desire, says the L-rd of Hosts"1. Just as the greatest scientists will never discover the limits of the enormous natural resources which the A-lmighty has sunk into the land ("everything came from the earth")2, neither will anyone ever find the limits of the great treasures which lie within Israel - G-d's "land of desire."
The Baal Shem Tov concluded: I want to make Israel yield the kind of produce which the A-lmighty's "land of desire" is capable of yielding.3
FOOTNOTES
1. Malachi 3:12.
2. Kohelet 3:20.
3. See Elul 2.
Daily Thought:
Inherited Faith
Our job is not to have faith. We have faith already, whether we want it or not. It comes in our blood from our ancestors, who gave their lives for it.
Our job is to transport that higher vision that gave them their faith down into our minds, into our personalities, into our words, into our actions in daily life. To make it part of our selves and of our world.
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment