Today's Laws & Customs:
• "The Three Weeks"
During the Three Weeks, from 17th of Tamuz to the 9th of Av, we commemorate the conquest of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Holy Temple and the dispersion of the Jewish people.
Weddings and other joyful events are not held during this period; like mourners, we do not cut our hair, and various pleasurable activities are limited or proscribed. (The particular mourning customs vary from community to community, so consult a competent halachic authority for details.)
Citing the verse (Isaiah 1:27) "Zion shall be redeemed with mishpat [Torah] and its returnees with tzedakah," the Rebbe urged that we increase in Torah study(particularly the study of the laws of the Holy Temple) and charity during this period.
Links:
The Three Weeks
Today in Jewish History:
• Passing of Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried (1886)
Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried (1804-1886) was born in Uzhhorod (Ungvar) in the Carpathian region of the Habsburg Empire (now Ukraine). When he was eight years old, Shlomo's father, Rabbi Yosef, passed way, and Ungvar's chief rabbi, Rabbi Tzvi Hirsh Heller, assumed legal guardianship of Shlomo. In 1830, he abandoned his work as a wine merchant and accepted the position of Rabbi of Brezovica (Brezevitz). In 1849, he returned to Ungvar to serve as a rabbinical judge. Realizing that the average Jew required a basic knowledge of practical halachah, Rabbi Ganzfried compiled the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, an abbreviated digest of Jewish law. To this day, the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch remains a classic halachic work, and it has been translated into many languages.
In addition to the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, he authored many works includingKesset HaSofer, a halachic primer for scribes, and Pnei Shlomo, a commentary on the Talmud.
Daily Quote:
I learned the meaning of love from a drunk. I once passed two drunks drinking in a gutter and overheard the following conversation between them:
Drunk #1: "I love you!"
Drunk #2: "No you don't."
Drunk #1: "Yes, yes, I do. I love you with all my heart."
Drunk #2: "No you don't. If you love me, why don't you know what hurts me?"[Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Barditchov]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Matot-Massei, 2nd Portion Numbers 31:13-31:54 with Rashi
• Chapter 31
13Moses, Eleazar the kohen, and all princes of the community went out to meet them, outside the camp. יגוַיֵּצְאוּ משֶׁה וְאֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וְכָל נְשִׂיאֵי הָעֵדָה לִקְרָאתָם אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה:
Moses, Eleazar the kohen… went out: because they saw the Israelite youths going out to grab the spoils. — [Sifrei Mattoth 42] ויצאו משה ואלעזר הכהן: לפי שראו את נערי ישראל יוצאים לחטוף מן הבזה:
14Moses became angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had returned from the campaign of war. ידוַיִּקְצֹף משֶׁה עַל פְּקוּדֵי הֶחָיִל שָׂרֵי הָאֲלָפִים וְשָׂרֵי הַמֵּאוֹת הַבָּאִים מִצְּבָא הַמִּלְחָמָה:
Moses became angry with the officers of the army: Those appointed over the army. [This comes] to teach you that when a generation is corrupt, the leaders are held responsible, for they have the power to protest. — [Sifrei Mattoth 43] ויקצף משה על פקודי החיל: ממונים על החיל, ללמדך שכל סרחון הדור תלוי בגדולים שיש כח בידם למחות:
15Moses said to them, "Did you allow all the females to live? טווַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם משֶׁה הַחִיִּיתֶם כָּל נְקֵבָה:
16They were the same ones who were involved with the children of Israel on Balaam's advice to betray the Lord over the incident of Peor, resulting in a plague among the congregation of the Lord. טזהֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם לִמְסָר מַעַל בַּיהֹוָה עַל דְּבַר פְּעוֹר וַתְּהִי הַמַּגֵּפָה בַּעֲדַת יְהֹוָה:
on Balaam’s advice: He said to them, "Even if you assemble all the multitudes of the world, you will not be able to overcome them. Are you more numerous than the Egyptians, who had six hundred chosen chariots? Come, and I will advise you. Their God hates immorality [thus, entice them to sin with your women…] as appears in [the chapter of] Cheilek (Sanh. 106a and in the Sifrei (Mattoth 43). בדבר בלעם: אמר להם אפילו אתם מכניסים כל המונות [האומות] שבעולם אין אתם יכולים להם, שמא מרובים אתם מן המצרים שהיו שש מאות רכב בחור. בואו ואשיאכם עצה. אלהיהם של אלו שונא זמה הוא וכו', כדאיתא בחלק (סנהדרין קו א) ובספרי:
They were the same ones: This shows that they recognized them [saying,] "This is the one who led so-and-so astray. — [Sifrei Zuta, Yalkut Shimoni] הן הנה: מגיד שהיו מכירין אותן. זו היא שנכשל פלוני בה:
17So now kill every male child, and every woman who can lie intimately with a man you shall kill. יזוְעַתָּה הִרְגוּ כָל זָכָר בַּטָּף וְכָל אִשָּׁה יֹדַעַת אִישׁ לְמִשְׁכַּב זָכָר הֲרֹגוּ:
Every woman who can lie intimately with a man: Capable of sexual intercourse, even though she may never have experienced it. They passed them all in front of the showplate, and the faces of those capable of intercourse turned green. — [Yev. 60b] וכל אשה יודעת איש: ראויה להבעל אף על פי שלא נבעלה. ולפני הציץ העבירום והראויה להבעל פניה מוריקות:
you shall kill: Why is this repeated? In order to make a pause in the text; so says R. Ishmael. For when I read, “kill every male child, and every woman who can lie intimately with a man… And all the young girls…” I would not know whether to kill them [the women of the first verse] with the males, or allow them to live along with the young [girls]. That is why it says [at the end of the verse] “you shall kill.” - [Sifrei Mattoth 45] הרוגו: למה חזר ואמר, להפסיק הענין, דברי ר' ישמעאל, שאם אני קורא הרגו כל זכר בטף וכל אשה יודעת איש וכל הטף בנשים וגו' איני יודע אם להרוג עם הזכרים או להחיות עם הטף, לכך נאמר הרגו:
18And all the young girls who have no experience of intimate relations with a man, you may keep alive for yourselves. יחוְכֹל הַטַּף בַּנָּשִׁים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדְעוּ מִשְׁכַּב זָכָר הַחֲיוּ לָכֶם:
19And you, encamp outside the camp for seven days; whoever killed a person or who touched a corpse shall cleanse himself on the third and seventh day, both you and your captives. יטוְאַתֶּם חֲנוּ מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כֹּל הֹרֵג נֶפֶשׁ וְכֹל | נֹגֵעַ בֶּחָלָל תִּתְחַטְּאוּ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי אַתֶּם וּשְׁבִיכֶם:
outside the camp: [This means] that they should not enter the courtyard [of the Mishkan]. מחוץ למחנה: שלא יכנסו לעזרה:
anyone who killed a person: R. Meir says, Scripture speaks of one who killed with a weapon susceptible to contamination, and it teaches that a vessel defiles a person when it is in contact with a corpse, as if he were actually in contact with the corpse itself. Or, I might think that [he becomes contaminated] even if he shot an arrow and killed him. Scripture therefore teaches, “or who touched a corpse,” equating the one who kills with the one who touches. Just as one who touches is [contaminated] through contact, so is the one who kills [contaminated] through contact. — [Sifrei Chukkath 48] כל הורג נפש: ר' מאיר אומר בהורג בדבר המקבל טומאה הכתוב מדבר, ולמדך הכתוב שהכלי מטמא אדם בחבורי המת, כאלו נוגע במת עצמו, או יכול אפילו זרק בו חץ והרגו, תלמוד לומר וכל הנוגע בחלל, מקיש הורג לנוגע, מה נוגע ע"י חבורו, אף הורג ע"י חבורו:
shall cleanse himself: with sprinkling water, as is the law with others who were defiled through contact with corpses. For even those who believe that gentile graves do notcontaminate [an Israelite] if they are under the same roof-as it says, “You my sheep, the sheep of My pasture; you are men” (Ezek.. 34:31) [and the Sages add,] only you are called “men” (Yev. 61a)-admit that gentiles contaminate through contact and carrying, for [the term] “men” is said only in reference to uncleanness caused by being in the same tent [namely, under one roof] as it says,“[This is the law for a man (אָדָם) who dies in a tent” (19:14). תתחטאו: במי נדה, כדין שאר טמאי מתים, שאף לדברי האומרים קברי גוים אינן מטמאין באהל, שנאמר (יחזקאל לד, לא) ואתן צאני צאן מרעיתי אדם אתם, אתם קרויין אדם ואין הגוים קרויין אדם, מודה הוא שהגוים מטמאין במגע ובמשא, שלא נאמר אדם אלא אצל טומאת אהלים, שנאמר (במדבר יט, יד) אדם כי ימות באהל:
you and your captives: Not that gentiles are susceptible to contamination and therefore require sprinkling, but just as you are members of the covenant, so too your captives, should they become contaminated after they enter the covenant [of God], they require sprinkling. — [Sifrei Mattoth 46] אתם ושביכם: לא שהנכרים מקבלין טומאה וצריכין הזאה, אלא מה אתם בני ברית, אף שביכם כשיבואו לברית ויטמאו, צריכין הזאה:
20All garments, leather articles, any goat product, and every wooden article shall undergo purification." כוְכָל בֶּגֶד וְכָל כְּלִי עוֹר וְכָל מַעֲשֵׂה עִזִּים וְכָל כְּלִי עֵץ תִּתְחַטָּאוּ:
and any goat product: This includes articles made from the horns, the hooves, and the bones. — [Chul. 25b] וכל מעשה עזים: להביא כלי הקרנים והטלפים והעצמות:
21Eleazar the kohen said to the soldiers returning from battle, "This is the statute that the Lord commanded Moses. כאוַיֹּאמֶר אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן אֶל אַנְשֵׁי הַצָּבָא הַבָּאִים לַמִּלְחָמָה זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה:
Eleazar the kohen…: Since Moses came to a state of anger, he came to err, for the laws of purging gentile vessels eluded him. A similar incident happened on the eighth day of the investitures [of the kohanim], as it says, “He [Moses] became angry with Eleazar and Ithamar” (Lev. 10: 16); he came to a state of anger, so he came to err. Similarly, in the episode of“Now listen, you rebels… and struck the rock” (20:10-11); through anger, he came to err. — [Sifrei Mattoth 48] ויאמר אלעזר הכהן וגו': לפי שבא משה לכלל כעס בא לכלל טעות, שנתעלמו ממנו הלכות גיעולי נכרים. וכן אתה מוצא בשמיני למלואים, שנאמר (ויקרא י, טז) ויקצוף על אלעזר ועל איתמר, בא לכלל כעס, בא לכלל טעות, וכן (במדבר כ, י - יא) בשמעו נא המורים ויך את הסלע, ע"י הכעס טעה:
which the Lord commanded [Moses]: He ascribed the ruling to his mentor. — [Sifrei Mattoth 48] אשר צוה ה' וגו': תלה ההוראה ברבו:
22Only the gold, the silver, the copper, the iron, the tin, and the lead כבאַךְ אֶת הַזָּהָב וְאֶת הַכָּסֶף אֶת הַנְּחשֶׁת אֶת הַבַּרְזֶל אֶת הַבְּדִיל וְאֶת הָעֹפָרֶת:
Only the gold etc.: Even though Moses warned you only about the laws of ritual uncleanness, you must further be warned of the laws concerning the purging [of contaminated vessels]. [The word] אַךְ “only” is an exclusive expression, that is to say, you are excluded from using vessels even after their purification from contamination by a corpse, until they have been purged from the absorption of the forbidden flesh of carrion. Our Rabbis said,“ Only the gold…” teaches you that one must remove its rust before one purges it. This is the meaning of אַךְ “only”-there should be no rust; “only” the metal itself in its original form. — [Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel, Yalkut Shimoni] אך את הזהב וגו': אף על פי שלא הזהיר לכם משה אלא על הלכות טומאה, עוד יש להזהיר לכם על הלכות גיעול. ואך לשון מיעוט, כלומר ממועטין אתם מלהשתמש בכלים אפילו לאחר טהרתן מטומאת המת, עד שיטהרו מבליעת איסור נבלות. ורבותינו אמרו אך את הזהב לומר שצריך להעביר חלודה שלו קודם שיגעילנו, וזהו לשון אך, שלא יהא שם חלודה, אך המתכת יהיה כמות שהוא:
23whatever is used in fire you shall pass through fire and then it will be clean; it must, however, [also] be cleansed with sprinkling water, and whatever is not used in fire you shall pass through water. כגכָּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יָבֹא בָאֵשׁ תַּעֲבִירוּ בָאֵשׁ וְטָהֵר אַךְ בְּמֵי נִדָּה יִתְחַטָּא וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָבֹא בָּאֵשׁ תַּעֲבִירוּ בַמָּיִם:
whatever is used in fire: For cooking anything. כל דבר אשר יבא באש: לבשל בו כלום:
shall pass through fire: It is purged in the manner it is used. If it is used in hot water, it must be purged in hot water, and if it is used for roasting, such as a spit or grill, it must be made to glow in fire. — [A.Z. 75b] תעבירו באש: כדרך תשמישו הגעלתו, מה שתשמישו ע"י חמין, יגעילנו בחמין, ומה שתשמישו ע"י צלי, כגון השפוד והאסכלה, ילבננו באור:
it must, however, [also] be cleansed with sprinkling water: According to its simple meaning, this sprinkling was to cleanse it from contamination by a corpse. He said to them,“The vessels require purging to cleanse them from the [absorption of] forbidden [food], and sprinkling to cleanse them of [spiritual] uncleanness [caused by a corpse].” Our Rabbis expounded from here that even to make them fit for use [after contamination] from forbidden food, ritual immersion was required for metal utensils. They expound מֵי נִדָּה written here to mean water fit for a menstruant [Heb. נִדָּה] to immerse herself in. How much is that? Forty 'seah.’- [A.Z. 75b] אך במי נדה יתחטא: לפי פשוטו חטוי זה לטהר מטומאת מת. אמר להם צריכין הכלים גיעול לטהרם מן האיסור, וחטוי לטהרן מן הטומאה. ורבותינו דרשו מכאן, שאף להכשירן מן האיסור הטעין טבילה לכלי מתכות. ומי נדה הכתובין כאן דרשו מים הראוים לטבול בהם נדה. וכמה הם, ארבעים סאה:
and whatever is not used in fire: Anything which is not used in fire such as ewers, cups, and jugs, all of which are used for cold [food] and did not absorb forbidden food. — [A.Z. 75b] וכל אשר לא יבא באש: כל דבר שאין תשמישו ע"י האור, כגון כוסות וצלוחיות שתשמישן בצונן ולא בלעו איסור:
shall be passed through water: He immerses them and that is sufficient. This refers only to metal utensils. — [A.Z. 75b, Sifrei Mattoth 50] תעבירו במים: מטבילן ודיו ודוקא כלי מתכות:
24You shall wash your garments on the seventh day and become [ritually] clean; afterwards, you may enter the camp." כדוְכִבַּסְתֶּם בִּגְדֵיכֶם בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וּטְהַרְתֶּם וְאַחַר תָּבֹאוּ אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה:
the camp: The camp of the Shechinah, for one who is defiled by the dead is not banned from the Levite camp or the Israelite camp. — [Pes. 67a] אל המחנה: למחנה שכינה, שאין טמא מת טעון שילוח ממחנה לויה וממחנה ישראל:
25The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, כהוַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
26"Take a count of the plunder of the captive people and animals, you, together with Eleazar the kohen and the paternal leaders of the community. כושָׂא אֵת רֹאשׁ מַלְקוֹחַ הַשְּׁבִי בָּאָדָם וּבַבְּהֵמָה אַתָּה וְאֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וְרָאשֵׁי אֲבוֹת הָעֵדָה:
Take a count of: Heb. שָׂא אֶת ראשׁ, take the tally. שא את ראש: קח את החשבון:
27And you shall divide the plunder equally between the warriors who went out to battle and the entire congregation. כזוְחָצִיתָ אֶת הַמַּלְקוֹחַ בֵּין תֹּפְשֵׂי הַמִּלְחָמָה הַיֹּצְאִים לַצָּבָא וּבֵין כָּל הָעֵדָה:
Divide the plunder equally between the warriors…: Half for these and half for those. וחצית את המלקוח בין תפשי המלחמה וגו': חציו לאלו וחציו לאלו:
28And you shall levy a tax for the Lord from the soldiers who went out to battle: one soul out of every five hundred, from the people, from the cattle, from the donkeys, and from the sheep. כחוַהֲרֵמֹתָ מֶכֶס לַיהֹוָה מֵאֵת אַנְשֵׁי הַמִּלְחָמָה הַיֹּצְאִים לַצָּבָא אֶחָד נֶפֶשׁ מֵחֲמֵשׁ הַמֵּאוֹת מִן הָאָדָם וּמִן הַבָּקָר וּמִן הַחֲמֹרִים וּמִן הַצֹּאן:
29You shall take from their half and give it to Eleazar the kohen as a gift to the Lord. כטמִמַּחֲצִיתָם תִּקָּחוּ וְנָתַתָּה לְאֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן תְּרוּמַת יְהֹוָה:
30From the half belonging to the children of Israel you shall take one part out of fifty of the people, of the cattle, of the donkeys, of the sheep, and of all animals, and you shall give them to the Levites, the guardians of the Mishkan of the Lord." לוּמִמַּחֲצִת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל תִּקַּח | אֶחָד | אָחֻז מִן הַחֲמִשִּׁים מִן הָאָדָם מִן הַבָּקָר מִן הַחֲמֹרִים וּמִן הַצֹּאן מִכָּל הַבְּהֵמָה וְנָתַתָּה אֹתָם לַלְוִיִּם שֹׁמְרֵי מִשְׁמֶרֶת מִשְׁכַּן יְהֹוָה:
31Moses and Eleazar the kohen did as the Lord had commanded Moses. לאוַיַּעַשׂ משֶׁה וְאֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה:
32The plunder, which was in addition to the spoils that the army had spoiled, consisted of six hundred and seventy five thousand sheep. לבוַיְהִי הַמַּלְקוֹחַ יֶתֶר הַבָּז אֲשֶׁר בָּזְזוּ עַם הַצָּבָא צֹאן שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף וְשִׁבְעִים אֶלֶף וַחֲמֵשֶׁת אֲלָפִים:
The plunder which was in addition to the spoil…: Because they were not commanded to levy a tax from the movable objects, but only from the [living] plunder, Scripture expresses it in this way: The plunder which was included in the allocation and in the tax-which remained over after the spoils of the movable property were plundered by the soldiers for themselves, and were therefore not included in the allocation- [was as follows:] the number of sheep etc. ויהי המלקוח יתר הבז: לפי שלא נצטוו להרים מכס מן המטלטלין אלא מן המלקוח, כתב את הלשון הזה ויהי המלקוח שבא לכלל חלוקה ולכלל מכס, שהיה עודף על בז המטלטלין אשר בזזו עם הצבא איש לו, ולא בא לכלל חלוקה מספר הצאן וגו':
33Seventy two thousand cattle. לגוּבָקָר שְׁנַיִם וְשִׁבְעִים אָלֶף:
34Sixty one thousand donkeys. לדוַחֲמֹרִים אֶחָד וְשִׁשִּׁים אָלֶף:
35As for the people, of the women who had no experience of intimate relations with a man, all souls were thirty two thousand. להוְנֶפֶשׁ אָדָם מִן הַנָּשִׁים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדְעוּ מִשְׁכַּב זָכָר כָּל נֶפֶשׁ שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלשִׁים אָלֶף:
36The half that was the portion of those who went out to battle: the number of sheep was three hundred and thirty seven thousand, five hundred. לווַתְּהִי הַמֶּחֱצָה חֵלֶק הַיֹּצְאִים בַּצָּבָא מִסְפַּר הַצֹּאן שְׁלשׁ מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף וּשְׁלשִׁים אֶלֶף וְשִׁבְעַת אֲלָפִים וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת:
37The tax to the Lord from the sheep was six hundred and seventy five. לזוַיְהִי הַמֶּכֶס לַיהֹוָה מִן הַצֹּאן שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת חָמֵשׁ וְשִׁבְעִים:
38Thirty six thousand cattle, of which the tax to the Lord was seventy two. לחוְהַבָּקָר שִׁשָּׁה וּשְׁלשִׁים אָלֶף וּמִכְסָם לַיהֹוָה שְׁנַיִם וְשִׁבְעִים:
39Thirty thousand and five hundred donkeys, of which the tax to the Lord was sixty one. לטוַחֲמֹרִים שְׁלשִׁים אֶלֶף וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת וּמִכְסָם לַיהֹוָה אֶחָד וְשִׁשִּׁים:
40Sixteen thousand people, of which the tax to the Lord was thirty two people. מוְנֶפֶשׁ אָדָם שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר אָלֶף וּמִכְסָם לַיהֹוָה שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלשִׁים נָפֶשׁ:
41Moses gave the tax which was a gift to the Lord, to Eleazar the kohen, as the Lord had commanded Moses. מאוַיִּתֵּן משֶׁה אֶת מֶכֶס תְּרוּמַת יְהֹוָה לְאֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת מֹשֶׁה:
42And from the half allotted to the children of Israel, which Moses had divided from the men who had gone into the army. מבוּמִמַּחֲצִית בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר חָצָה משֶׁה מִן הָאֲנָשִׁים הַצֹּבְאִים:
And from the half allotted to the children of Israel, which Moses had divided: on behalf of the community, for he took it for them from the men who had gone out to war. וממחצית בני ישראל אשר חצה משה: לעדה והוציאה להם מן האנשים הצובאים:
43The community's half [consisted of] three hundred and thirty seven thousand, five hundred sheep. מגוַתְּהִי מֶחֱצַת הָעֵדָה מִן הַצֹּאן שְׁלשׁ מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף וּשְׁלשִׁים אֶלֶף שִׁבְעַת אֲלָפִים וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת:
The community’s half [consisted of]: such and such. ותהי מחצת העדה: כך וכך:
44Thirty six thousand cattle. מדוּבָקָר שִׁשָּׁה וּשְׁלשִׁים אָלֶף:
45Thirty thousand five hundred donkeys. מהוַחֲמֹרִים שְׁלשִׁים אֶלֶף וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת:
46And sixteen thousand people. מווְנֶפֶשׁ אָדָם שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר אָלֶף:
47Moses took one part out of fifty from the half of the children of Israel, the people and the animals, and gave them to the Levites, the guardians of the Lord's sanctuary. מזוַיִּקַּח משֶׁה מִמַּחֲצִת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הָאָחֻז אֶחָד מִן הַחֲמִשִּׁים מִן הָאָדָם וּמִן הַבְּהֵמָה וַיִּתֵּן אֹתָם לַלְוִיִּם שֹׁמְרֵי מִשְׁמֶרֶת מִשְׁכַּן יְהֹוָה כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת מֹשֶׁה:
Moses took etc.: ויקח משה וגו' :
48The officers appointed over the army's thousands, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, approached Moses. מחוַיִּקְרְבוּ אֶל משֶׁה הַפְּקֻדִים אֲשֶׁר לְאַלְפֵי הַצָּבָא שָׂרֵי הָאֲלָפִים וְשָׂרֵי הַמֵּאוֹת:
The officers: Heb. הַפְּקֻדִים, those appointed. הפקודים: הממונים:
49They said to Moses, "Your servants counted the soldiers who were in our charge, and not one man was missing from us. מטוַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל משֶׁה עֲבָדֶיךָ נָּשְׂאוּ אֶת רֹאשׁ אַנְשֵׁי הַמִּלְחָמָה אֲשֶׁר בְּיָדֵנוּ וְלֹא נִפְקַד מִמֶּנּוּ אִישׁ:
not…missing: Heb. ולֹא נִפְקַד, there is not one missing. The Targum [Onkelos] renders לָא שְׁגָא which in Aramaic also means ‘missing,’ as in “I would suffer its loss (אֲחַטֶּנָּה)” (Gen. 31:39) which the Targum renders, “what was missing (שַׁגְיָא) from the count.” Similarly, “for your seat will be vacant (יִפָּקֵד)” (I Sam. 20:18)-the place where you sit will be missing, the one who usually sits there. Similarly, וַיִפָּקֵד מְקוֹם דָּוד “David’s place was vacant” (ibid. 25); his place was missing, and no one was sitting there. ולא נפקד: ולא נחסר ותרגומו ולא שגא, אף הוא בלשון ארמי חסרון, כמו (בראשית לא, לט) אנכי אחטנה, תרגומו דהות שגיא ממנינא, וכן (שמואל א' כ, יח) כי יפקד מושבך, יחסר מקום מושבך, איש הרגיל לישב שם. וכן (שם כ, כז) ויפקד מקום דוד, נחסר מקומו ואין איש יושב שם:
50We therefore wish to bring an offering for the Lord. Any man who found a gold article, be it an anklet, a bracelet, a ring, an earring, or a body ornament, to atone for our souls before the Lord. נוַנַּקְרֵב אֶת קָרְבַּן יְהֹוָה אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר מָצָא כְלִי זָהָב אֶצְעָדָה וְצָמִיד טַבַּעַת עָגִיל וְכוּמָז לְכַפֵּר עַל נַפְשֹׁתֵינוּ לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה:
anklet: Heb. אֶצְעָדָה, bangles for the foot. אצעדה: אלו צמידים של רגל:
bracelet: Heb. וְצָמִיד, [bangles] for the hand. וצמיד: של יד:
earring: Heb. עָגִיל, earrings. עגיל: נזמי אוזן:
body ornament: Heb. וְכוּמָז, a form for the female genitalia, to atone for their sinful thoughts concerning the Midianite women. — [Shab. 64a] וכומז: דפוס של בית הרחם לכפר על הרהור הלב של בנות מדין:
51Moses and Eleazar the kohen took all the gold articles from them. נאוַיִּקַּח משֶׁה וְאֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַזָּהָב מֵאִתָּם כֹּל כְּלִי מַעֲשֶׂה:
52The total of the gift of gold which they dedicated to the Lord [amounted to] sixteen thousand, seven hundred and fifty shekels; this was from the commanders of the thousands and the commanders of the hundreds. נבוַיְהִי | כָּל זְהַב הַתְּרוּמָה אֲשֶׁר הֵרִימוּ לַיהֹוָה שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר אֶלֶף שְׁבַע מֵאוֹת וַחֲמִשִּׁים שָׁקֶל מֵאֵת שָׂרֵי הָאֲלָפִים וּמֵאֵת שָׂרֵי הַמֵּאוֹת:
53The soldiers had seized spoils for themselves. נגאַנְשֵׁי הַצָּבָא בָּזְזוּ אִישׁ לוֹ:
54Moses and Eleazar the kohen took the gold from the commanders of the thousands and hundreds and brought it to the Tent of Meeting, as a remembrance for the children of Israel before the Lord. נדוַיִּקַּח משֶׁה וְאֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַזָּהָב מֵאֵת שָׂרֵי הָאֲלָפִים וְהַמֵּאוֹת וַיָּבִאוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד זִכָּרוֹן לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה:Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapter 119, Verses 97-176
• Verses 97-176
97. O how I love Your Torah! All day it is my discussion.
98. Your commandments make me wiser than my enemies, for they are ever with me.
99. From all my teachers I have gained wisdom, for Your testimonies are my discussion.
100. I will be more perceptive than elders, because I have guarded Your precepts.
101. I have restrained my feet from every evil path, that I might keep Your word.
102. I have not turned away from Your judgments, for You have instructed me.
103. How sweet are Your words to my palate, [sweeter] than honey to my mouth!
104. From Your precepts I gain understanding, therefore I hate every path of falsehood.
105. Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
106. I have sworn-and I will fulfill it-to keep Your righteous judgments.
107. I am afflicted to the extreme; grant me life, O Lord, according to Your promise.
108. Accept with favor, O Lord, the offerings of my lips, and teach me Your laws.
109. My soul is in danger always, yet I have not forgotten Your Torah.
110. The wicked laid a snare for me, yet I have not strayed from Your precepts.
111. I have taken Your testimonies as an eternal heritage, for they are the joy of my heart.
112. I have inclined my heart to perform Your statutes, forever, to the last.
113. I despise vain thoughts, but I love Your Torah.
114. You are my refuge and my shield; I place hope in Your promise.
115. Turn away from me, you evildoers, and I will keep the commandments of my God.
116. Support me according to Your promise, and I will live; let me not be shamed because of my hope.
117. Sustain me, and I will be saved, and I will be engrossed in Your statutes always.
118. You trample all who stray from Your statutes, for their ploy is a lie.
119. You have purged all the wicked of the earth like dross, therefore I love Your testimonies.
120. My flesh bristles from fear of You, and I am in awe of Your judgments.
121. I practiced justice and righteousness; leave me not to my oppressors.
122. Guarantee Your servant goodness; let not the wicked exploit me.
123. My eyes long for Your salvation, and for the word of Your righteousness.
124. Treat Your servant according to Your kindness, and teach me Your statutes.
125. I am Your servant; grant me understanding, that I may know Your testimonies.
126. It is time to act for the Lord; they have abrogated Your Torah.
127. Therefore I love Your commandments more than gold, even fine gold.
128. Therefore I affirmed all Your precepts; I have hated every path of falsehood.
129. Your testimonies are wondrous, therefore does my soul guard them.
130. Your opening words illuminate, enlightening the simple.
131. I opened my mouth and swallowed, because I craved Your commandments.
132. Turn to me and favor me, as is [Your] law for those who love Your Name.
133. Set my steps in Your word, and let no iniquity rule over me.
134. Deliver me from the oppression of man, and I will keep Your precepts.
135. Let Your face shine upon Your servant, and teach me Your statutes.
136. My eyes shed streams of water, because they do not keep Your Torah.
137. Righteous are you, O Lord, and Your judgments are upright.
138. You commanded Your testimonies in righteousness and great faithfulness.
139. My zeal consumes me, because my enemies have forgotten Your words.
140. Your word is very pure, and Your servant cherishes it.
141. I am young and despised, yet I do not forget Your precepts.
142. Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your Torah is truth.
143. Trouble and anguish have taken hold of me, yet Your commandments are my delight.
144. Your testimonies are righteous forever; give me understanding, that I may live.
145. I call out with all my heart; answer me, O Lord; I will keep Your statutes.
146. I call out to You; save me, and I will observe Your testimonies.
147. I rose before dawn and cried out; my hope is in Your word.
148. My eyes preceded the night watches, that I may discuss Your word.
149. Hear my voice in keeping with Your kindness; O Lord, grant me life as is Your practice.
150. Those who pursue mischief draw near; they are far from Your Torah.
151. You are near, O Lord, and all Your commandments are truth.
152. From the beginning I discerned from Your testimonies that You had established them forever.
153. Behold my affliction and deliver me, for I have not forgotten Your Torah.
154. Wage my battle and redeem me; grant me life for the sake of Your word.
155. Salvation is far from the wicked, for they seek not Your statutes.
156. Your mercies are great, O Lord; grant me life as is Your practice.
157. My pursuers and my enemies are many, yet I did not turn away from Your testimonies.
158. I saw traitors and I quarreled with them, because they do not keep Your words.
159. Behold how I love Your precepts; grant me life, O Lord, according to Your kindness.
160. The beginning of Your word is truth, and forever are all Your righteous judgements.
161. Princes have pursued me without cause, but it is Your word my heart fears.
162. I rejoice at Your word, like one who finds abundant spoil.
163. I hate falsehood and abhor it, but Your Torah I love.
164. Seven times a day I praise You, because of Your righteous judgments.
165. There is abundant peace for those who love Your Torah, and there is no stumbling for them.
166. I hoped for Your salvation, O Lord, and I performed Your commandments.
167. My soul has kept Your testimonies, and I love them intensely.
168. I have kept Your precepts and Your testimonies, for all my ways are before You
169. Let my prayer approach Your presence, O Lord; grant me understanding according to Your word.
170. Let my supplication come before You; save me according to Your promise.
171. My lips will utter praise, for You have taught me Your statutes.
172. My tongue will echo Your word, for all Your commandments are just.
173. Let Your hand be ready to help me, for I have chosen Your precepts.
174. I long for Your salvation, O Lord, and Your Torah is my delight.
175. Let my soul live, and it will praise You, and let Your judgment help me.
176. I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek out Your servant, for I have not forgotten Your commandments.
Tanya: Igeret HaTeshuva , beginning of Chapter 10• Lessons in Tanya
• Monday, Tammuz 26, 5775 · July 13, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Igeret HaTeshuva , beginning of Chapter 10
The theme of the previous chapter was teshuvah ila'ah and how it finds expression in the “cleaving of spirit to Spirit” — through Torah study, tzedakah and acts of lovingkindness.
והנה תשובה עילאה זו, דאתדבקותא דרוחא ברוחא על ידי תורה וגמילות חסדים
This higher level of teshuvah, the cleaving of spirit to Spirit through the study of Torah and the performance of acts of kindness,
היא בבחינת המשכה מלמעלה למטה
is a matter of eliciting from Above.
Neither Torah study nor acts of lovingkindness elevate a person solely as a result of his own initiative and Divine service. Rather, he is aided from Above to reach an infinitely higher level than he would have attained alone.
להיות דבר ה' ממש בפיו
So that the word of G‑d shall actually be in one's mouth,
this too is a Divine gift.
וכמו שכתוב: ואשים דברי בפיך
As Scripture states,1 “I have placed My words in your mouth.”
Torah study thus accomplishes much more than what man could attain on its own.
Similarly,2
וימינו תחבקני, בגמילות חסדים
“His right hand embraces me,” through man's acts of kindness,
דחסד דרועא ימינא וכו'
for3 “kindness is the [Supernal] right arm….”
With every act of lovingkindness one draws down Divine benevolence: one is embraced by a far loftier level of holiness than he could possibly aspire to by dint of his own spiritual service.
אבל אדם התחתון צריך לילך ממדרגה למדרגה ממטה למעלה
But mortal man must ascend from stage to stage
היא בחינת תשובה עילאה ואתדבקות רוחא ברוחא בכוונת הלב בתפלה
towards this higher level of teshuvah and this “cleaving of spirit to Spirit” through the heart's devoted worship,
ובפרט בקריאת שמע וברכותיה
particularly during Shema and its blessings,
כדי לומר ואהבת וגו' בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך וגו' באמת לאמיתו
so that he might in perfect truth say during the recitation of the Shema,4 “You shall love [the L-rd your G‑d] with all your heart and with all your soul…..”
וכן: והיו הדברים האלה וגו' ודברת בם וגו'
Likewise:5 “These words [which I command you today] shall be [upon your heart]….. And you shall speak of them…..”
All the above verses speak of the study of Torah.6
להיות דבר ה' בפיו באמת
The word of G‑d must truly be in his mouth, [which is the case when one's mouth serves as a vessel for G‑d's word]7
ואין אמת וכו'
and “there is no truth [but Torah].”8
וכן לקיים כל המצות
He must also perform all the mitzvot,
כמו שכתוב: אשר קדשנו במצותיו
as it is written,9 “He has sanctified us with His commandments.”
כמו הרי את מקודשת לי
This [sanctification] has the same sense as in the phrase,10 “You are sanctified unto me” — i.e., separate from all others and wholly sanctified unto G‑d through the performance of His commandments.
היא בחינת קדש העליון
This is the level of Kodesh HaElyon (“Supernal Holiness”), which one draws upon himself through the performance of the mitzvot.
לשון פרישות והבדלה
“Kodesh” translated “holiness” connotes something apart, or transcendent,
שאינו יכול להתלבש תוך עלמין
that cannot be contained within the created worlds, permeating each of them with Divine life-force commensurate with its particular capacity,
משום דכולא קמיה כלא חשיב
since11 “everything is considered as naught before Him.”
Relative to this transcendent level, the differing levels of spirituality of the various created beings are of no consequence.
אלא בבחינת סובב כל עלמין
Rather, this is a level [of holiness] that transcends [lit., “encompasses”] all worlds, and hence affects them all equally from afar, so to speak;
הוא רצון העליון ברוך הוא וכו'
this is [the level of] the Supreme Will, and so on, which is drawn down into this world through the performance of mitzvot,
כמו שכתוב: בלקוטי אמרים פרק מ"ו
as discussed in the first part of Tanya, Likutei Amarim, chapter 46.
וגם אחר התפלה אומרים: אליך ה' נפשי אשא
After prayer as well, we say,12 “To You, O G‑d, I lift my soul,” referring to the initiative of the worshiper below in raising his soul upward to its Source,
דהיינו לאתדבקא רוחא ברוחא כל היום וכו'
so that through the performance of mitzvot spirit will cleave to Spirit throughout the day…..
וכל זה: על ידי ההתבוננות בגדולת אין סוף ברוך הוא
All this is brought about through meditation on the grandeur of the Infinite One,
בהעמקת הדעת בשתים לפניה ובפסוקי דזמרה, כנודע
concentrating the mind deeply during the two blessings preceding Shema and during the preparatory hymns of praise known as pesukei dezimrah, as is known.
Meditating in this fashion gives birth to a love for G‑d, which is translated into the study of the Torah and the performance of mitzvot. This form of Divine service is teshuvah ila'ah that takes the direction called milmata lemala; it works its way upward from the initiative taken by the enterprising worshiper who elevates himself by his own bootstraps.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Yeshayahu 51:16. |
| 2. | Shir HaShirim 2:6. |
| 3. | Introduction to Tikkunei Zohar. |
| 4. | Devarim 6:5. |
| 5. | Ibid. 6:6-7. |
| 6. | Note of the Rebbe: “`For Scripture speaks [here] of the study of the Torah' (Berachot 13b). See [Tanya,] Part I, end of chapter 49.” |
| 7. | Tanna devei Eliyahu Zuta, ch. 21. |
| 8. | Note of the Rebbe: “See [Tanya,] conclusion of ch. 37.” |
| 9. | From the blessing recited before the performance of certain mitzvot. |
| 10. | Kiddushin 5b; from the betrothal ceremony. |
| 11. | Zohar I, 11b. |
| 12. | Tehillim 25:1. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Monday, Tammuz 26, 5775 · July 13, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 111
The Finl Purification Process of the Metzora
"And it shall be on the seventh day he shall shave"—Leviticus 14:9.
On the seventh day following the implementation of the first stage of his purification process, the Metzora brings special sacrifices in the Temple, shaves his body and does all else that is prescribed in the Torah for this procedure—and then his purification process has been completed.
The Final Purification Process of the Metzora
Positive Commandment 111
Translated by Berel Bell
The 111th mitzvah is that the metzora is commanded to have his hair shaven. This is the second purification procedure,1 as explained in the end of tractate Negaim.2
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement3 (exalted be He), "On the seventh day, he shall shave."
We already mentioned previously4 the statement of our Sages, "Three are required to shave, and their shaving is a mitzvah — the nazir, the metzora, and the Levites."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Negaim.
Now we will explain why the shaving of the metzora and his bringing the sacrifices5 [that complete his purification] are counted as separate mitzvos, while the shaving of the nazir and his sacrifices were counted as just one mitzvah.6
In the case of the metzora, there is no connection between his shaving and his sacrifices. The goal which is accomplished through shaving is different from the one reached through bringing sacrifices. This is because the metzora's purification is dependent on his shaving [unlike the nazir]. In the sixth chapter of tractate Nazir,7 our Sages explained, "What is the difference between a nazir and a metzora? This one's (the nazir's) purification is dependent on the number of days, and the metzora's is dependent on his shaving."
Once the metzora has shaved and completed the second stage of purification, he no longer conveys tumah like a sheretz,8 as explained in the end of tractate Negaim. He remains in a state of being m'chusar kippurim [lacking complete atonement and forbidden form consuming sacrifices] like others who are mechusarei kippurim [until they bring their offerings], as explained there.
Therefore, the goal of his shaving is to purify him from conveying tumah like a sheretz, [which is accomplished] whether or not he brings the offerings. The goal of bringing the offerings, however, is to complete his atonement, like other mechusarei kapparah, i.e. a zav, a zavah, and a yoledes.
We explained previously9 the Sages statement,10 "There are four categories of mechusarei kapparah," and explained there that the nazir is not included among them. This is because all his actions together, i.e. shaving and bringing offerings, allow him to drink wine.11 One is not sufficient without the other, the shaving connected to the sacrifice and the sacrifice to the shaving.12 Both together accomplish the single goal of allowing him those things which were prohibited during his Nazirite period. Our Sages said in the sixth chapter of tractate Nazir,13 "One who shaved and brought the offering, and later found it to be invalid — his shaving is invalid and all his sacrifices are ineffective." This shows that the shaving is conditional upon the sacrifices and vice-versa.
It is also explained in Tosefta,14 "A nazir whose time period has ended may not shave, drink wine, or become tameh meis" until he finishes the complete tiglachas taharah procedure as explained in the sixth chapter of Nazir, i.e. shaving by the door of the Ohel Moed,15 throwing his hair under the pot, and bringing the sacrifices, as explained in Scripture.
You will find that in most passages, our Sages refer to his bringing the sacrifices as tiglachas ["shaving"]. We see this clearly from the language used in most cases in the Mishneh,16 "One who says, 'I am a Nazir and it is my responsibility to shave a Nazir,' " [the latter phrase] meaning that he will bring the sacrifices and offer them on someone else's behalf. This shows that tiglachas is an expression referring to bringing the sacrifices. The reason for this is that they are part of it [i.e. the tiglachas procedure], as we explained, and everything together removes the Nazirite status and allows him to drink wine. Tiglachas tumah, however, is part of the mitzvah, as we explained previously.17
FOOTNOTES
1.There are two distinct purification procedures, each counting as a separate mitzvah — P110 and P111.
In brief, the first procedure, P110, is as follows (see Hilchos Tumas Tzora'as Ch. 11 at length): one slaughters a bird over a bowl of well water and then buries the bird. One then wraps a piece of crimson wool around pieces of cedar and hyssop, and holds the live bird together with them. These four (the bird, cedar, hyssop, and wool) are then dipped in the bowl containing the water and the blood of the first bird. The water is then sprinkled on the metzora and the bird sent free. A kohen then shaves the metzora completely from head to toe. After this, the metzora is allowed to re-enter the city and no longer renders objects tameh by sitting above them, or merely entering the house. However, he still renders people and objects tameh by touching them.
The second procedure, P111, takes place once seven days have passed. This consists of the kohen shaving the metzora again, and immersing both him and his clothing in a mikvah.
2.Chapter 14.
3.Lev. 14:9.
4.P93.
5.P77.
6.P93.
7.44b.
8.I.e. to render people and objects tameh.
9.P75.
10.Kerisus 8b.
11.Those who are mechusarei kapparah are lacking only the sacrifices.
12.This is the opinion of R. Eliezer in Nazir 46a. But in Hilchos Nezirus 8:5, the Rambam rules like the Sages who hold that the shaving does not invalidate the sacrifice.
13.46b.
14.See Nazir 15a. Kapach, 5731, footnote 28.
15.I.e. when the door is open. See Kapach, 5731, note 30.
16.Nazir 11b.
17.See P93.
Ishut - Chapter Five
Halacha 1
When a man consecrates a woman with an object from which it is forbidden to derive benefit - e.g., a mixture of milk and meat, chametz on Pesach, or other similar objects from which it is prohibited to derive benefit - she is not consecrated.1 [This ruling applies] even if the prohibition against deriving benefit from the object is merely Rabbinic in origin2 - e.g., chametz during the sixth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan.
Halacha 2
If a man transgresses and sells an article from which it is forbidden to derive benefit, and consecrates [a woman] with the money [he receives] for it, thekiddushin are valid. [There is one] exception. If a person consecrates a woman with the money [received] for a false deity, the kiddushin are not valid. For it is forbidden to derive benefit from the money received for a false deity, just as [it is forbidden to derive benefit from] the false deity itself.3
When [a man] consecrates [a woman] with the dung of cows [consecrated to] a false deity, the kiddushin are not valid. For it is forbidden to derive benefit from anything produced by entities [consecrated to] a false deity, as [Deuteronomy 13:18] states: "Let nothing that is condemned cling to your hand."
If, by contrast, [a man] consecrates [a woman] with the dung of an ox condemned to be stoned,4 the kiddushin are binding. Although it is forbidden to derive benefit from an ox condemned to be stoned, this prohibition does not apply to its dung. For the dung is considered of negligible importance when compared to the ox.
Halacha 3
When [a man] consecrates [a woman] with the produce of the Sabbatical year,5with the ashes of the Red Heifer, or with water that was drawn for the purpose of sprinkling [the ashes of the Red Heifer],6 the kiddushin are valid.
[The following rules apply when a man] consecrates [a woman] with property dedicated to the Temple. If he was unaware [that the property had been dedicated], the kiddushin are valid. He must give the value [of the dedicated property] and an [additional fifth] to the Temple treasury and bring a guilt offering, as is required of all those who unwittingly make mundane use of property dedicated to the Temple.7 If he consecrated the woman knowing [that the property was dedicated], she is not consecrated.8
Halacha 4
When [a man] consecrates [a woman] with the produce of the second tithe - whether unknowingly or knowingly - the kiddushin are not valid. For unless a person redeems [this produce], it does not belong to him to use for his other purposes, since with regard to [this] tithe, [Leviticus 27:30] states: "It is God's."9
Halacha 5
When a priest consecrates [a woman] with his share of offerings of the most sacred nature or [his share of] offerings of lesser sanctity, she is not consecrated. For one was permitted merely to eat these sacrifices.
When, by contrast, a priest consecrates [a woman] with the great terumah, theterumah taken from the tithe or with the first fruits, the kiddushin are binding. [This same ruling applies] when a Levite consecrates [a woman] with [produce from] the first tithe, or an Israelite consecrates [a woman] with [produce from] the tithe of the poor.10
Halacha 6
The gifts [required to be separated from produce] that have not been separated are considered as if they have already been separated. Therefore, when an Israelite inherited produce from his maternal grandfather who was a priest, and none of the required gifts had been separated from that produce, he may separate the terumah and the tithes [and keep the portions to be given to the priests as his own]. It is as if he inherited the terumah and the tithes from his maternal grandfather. Therefore, if he consecrates a woman with them, she is consecrated. Although they are not fit for [the Israelite] to eat, he has the right to sell them to someone for whom they are fit.
When, by contrast, an Israelite consecrates [a woman] with terumah that he separates from his grain heap, the kiddushin are not effective. For he does not have the right to sell this terumah; he possesses merely the privilege of giving it to the priest of his choice. This privilege is not considered to be money.
Halacha 7
[The following rules apply when] a person consecrates a woman [with property that] he robbed, stole or took against its owner's will. If the owner has despaired of the return of the article,11 and it is known12 that [the man] acquired it through the owner's despair, the consecration is effective. If not, it is not valid.
Halacha 8
When a person enters a colleague's home and takes an object, food or the like, and consecrates a woman, she is not consecrated. [This ruling applies] even when the owner comes and says, "Why did you not give her a more valuable article than the one you gave her?" He is making this statement only to prevent the person from being shamed [and it does not reflect his true intent]. Since the man consecrated [a woman] with property belonging to a colleague without the colleague's knowledge, this is robbery, and the woman is not consecrated.
If [the man] consecrated [the woman] with an article that the owner would not object [to its being taken] - e.g., a date or a nut - the status of the kiddushin is in doubt.13
Halacha 9
When a person owns merchandise in partnership with a colleague and divides the merchandise without his colleague's knowledge, using it to consecrate [a woman], the kiddushin are not valid. [The rationale is that for the division of a partnership's assets to be effective,] an evaluation by the court is necessary. One [partner] may not take what he wants as his own and leave [the remainder for his colleague].
Halacha 10
[The following rules apply when] a person robbed or stole an article from a woman or took it without her consent, and afterwards consecrated her with the article that he took from her, saying: "Behold, you are consecrated to me with this." If the two were already engaged, and she took the article in silence, she is consecrated.14If, however, there was never an engagement between them, she is not consecrated, even if she remained silent when he gave her [the stolen articles] as kiddushin.15 If, however, she explicitly agreed [to the kiddushin], she is consecrated.
Halacha 11
Similar [concepts apply when a man] entrusts an article to [a woman] for safekeeping and tells her: "Take care of this article," and afterwards tells her: "Behold, you are consecrated with it." If he told her this before she took [possession of] the article, and she took it in silence, she is consecrated. If, however, he made his second statement after she had accepted the article for the purpose of safekeeping, and she remained silent, [the kiddushin] are not valid. For whenever [a woman] remains silent after money has been given, [thekiddushin] are not valid. If, however, she explicitly agreed, she is consecrated, even though she made the statement after accepting the article.16
Halacha 12
[The following rules apply when a man] pays a debt that he owed [a woman] and [upon paying it,] says: "You are consecrated with it." If the two were engaged, [the man made the statement] before she accepted the money, and she accepted it in silence, she is consecrated. If they were not engaged, she is not consecrated unless she explicitly agrees.
If he states [his desire to consecrate her] after she accepted payment of the debt, she is not consecrated, even if she explicitly agrees. For nothing has been given her; she merely took what was rightfully hers. The debt he owed was repaid when she took the money, and she cannot demand repayment again.
Halacha 13
When [a man] consecrates [a woman] with a debt, even with [a debt that is recorded] in a promissory note,17 she is not consecrated.
What is implied? [The woman] owed [the man] a dinar; if he tells her, "Behold, you are consecrated to me with the dinar that you owe me," she is not consecrated. [The rationale is that] a loan is given to be spent, and there is nothing that presently exists for her to derive benefit from [and to accept askiddushin]. For she has [- or it is as if she has - ]18 already spent that dinar and has derived benefit from it already.
Halacha 14
[A different rule applies when] he has given her a loan [and received] collateral for it. If he consecrates her with the loan and returns the collateral,19 she is consecrated. For she derives benefit from the collateral from that time onward, and thus, [as a result of the kiddushin,] she has derived benefit.
Halacha 15
When [a man] consecrates [a woman] with the benefit [derived from] a loan, the consecration is valid.
What is implied? The consecration is binding if he lends her 200 zuz [at the time of the kiddushin] and tells her: "Behold, you are consecrated to me through the benefit [you receive] by my extending the length of this loan for you. It may be in your possession for so many days, and I will not demand payment until this date." For she is receiving benefit now [from the opportunity] to use the loan until the end of the time period fixed.
Halacha 16
If [the man] tells [the woman]: "Behold, you are consecrated to me with thisp'rutah and with the debt that you owe me," she is consecrated. Similarly, if he tells her, "[Behold, you are consecrated...] with the debt that you owe me and with this p'rutah, the consecration is binding.22
Halacha 17
When [a man] is owed a debt by a third party, and he tells [a woman] in the presence of the third party: "Behold, you are consecrated to me by virtue of the debt that I am owed by this person," the consecration is binding.23
Halacha 18
Halacha 19
[The following rule applies when a man] tells [a woman]: "Behold, you are consecrated to me in consideration of my speaking to the ruling authorities on your behalf." Although [the man] indeed spoke to the ruling authorities on her behalf - [and his words had an effect,] causing them to refrain from prosecuting her, she is not consecrated unless he gives her a p'rutah of his own.
[The rationale is that] the benefit that she received from his speaking [on her behalf] is regarded as a loan,26 and when one consecrates [a woman] with a loan, the kiddushin are not binding.
Halacha 20
[The following rule applies when a man] tells [a woman]: "Behold, you are consecrated to me [in return] for the work that I will perform on your behalf." Although [the man] indeed performs [the work he promised], she is not consecrated unless he gives her a p'rutah of his own.
[The rationale is that] a worker earns his wages [continuously] from [the time he] begins [working] until the end. As he performs a portion of the work, he earns an [equivalent] portion of his wages. Thus, [in the above situation, the man's] wages are considered to be a debt that she [owes him].27 And when one consecrates [a woman] with a loan, the kiddushin are not binding.
Halacha 21
[The following rule applies when a woman] tells [a man]: "Give so and so a present, and I will be consecrated to you." If he tells her, "Behold, you are consecrated to me for the sake of the present I gave upon your request," thekiddushin are binding.28 Although she [personally] did not receive anything, she derived benefit from the fact that her will was carried out, and the other derived benefit because of her.
Similarly, if she told him, "Give a dinar to so and so as a present, and I will be consecrated to him," the kiddushin are binding29 provided the person who receives the present tells [the woman]: "Behold, you are consecrated to me by virtue of the pleasure [you derived] from the present that I received at your request."
Halacha 22
[To cite a similar instance: A man] tells [a woman]: "Take this dinar as a present and become consecrated to so and so"; the kiddushin are binding provided that the other person tells her: "Behold, you are consecrated to me by virtue of the benefit you received on my behalf," despite the fact that he himself did not give her anything.30
[The following rule applies when a woman] tells [a man]: "Take this dinar as a present and I will become consecrated to you"; he receives the present and tells her "Behold, you are consecrated to me by virtue of the pleasure [you received] in my accepting a present from you." If he is an important person, she is consecrated.31 For she derives satisfaction from the fact that he has benefited from her, and for the sake of this satisfaction, she consecrates herself to him.
Halacha 23
When [a man] tells a woman: "Become consecrated to me with a dinar. [Take this article] as security until I give you the dinar," she is not consecrated to him. For she did not receive the dinar, and the security was not given to her for it to be her own.32
If the man has in his possession security that he was given for a debt that a third party owes him, and he gives a woman the security as kiddushin, the consecration is binding although [the security] does not belong to him. For a creditor has certain rights with regard to the ownership of security.33
Halacha 24
When [a man] tells a woman: "Behold, you are consecrated to me with thisdinar on condition that you return it to me," she is not consecrated, regardless of whether or not she returns it. For if she does not return it, his condition will not be met. And if she returns it, she will not have derived any benefit, for she will not have received anything.34
Halacha 25
[These rulings were issued with regard to the following instances:] [A man] gave [a woman] a wreath of myrtle or the like and told her: "Behold, you are consecrated to me with this." She accepted it, but [protested,] saying: "But it is not worth a p'rutah." He responded, "Become consecrated with the four zuz that are hidden in the wreath."
Halacha 26
[The following rules apply when a man] tells a woman: "Become consecrated to me with this date. Become consecrated to me with this one. Become consecrated to me with this one." If one of them is worth a p'rutah, she is consecrated. If not, the kiddushin are merely of doubtful status,37 [their viability stemming only from] the possibility that one of the dates would be considered to be worth a p'rutah in another place.
Halacha 27
[Different rules apply if] he told her: "Become consecrated to me with this one, with this one and with this one." If together, they are all worth a p'rutah, she is consecrated. If not, the status of the kiddushin is doubtful.
[Different rules apply if] she eats [the dates] one after another as he gives them to her: If the last date is worth a p'rutah, she is consecrated. If not, the status of the kiddushin is doubtful. For the dates that she ate are considered to be a loan, and when [a man] consecrates [a woman] with a loan, the kiddushin are not valid. Thus, the status of the kiddushin [depends] solely on [the worth of] the final date.
Halacha 28
If he tells her: "Behold, you are consecrated with these," the kiddushin are binding if all the dates together are worth a p'rutah. [This applies] even when she eats [the dates] one after another as he gives them to her. She is consecrated, for she is eating her own property.
Halacha 29
[The following rules apply when a man] tells a woman: "Behold, you are consecrated to me with this cup." If it is filled with water, the consecration [depends on the combined value of] the cup itself and its contents. If it is filled with wine, the consecration [depends on the value of] the cup itself, but not its contents. If it is filled with oil, the consecration [depends on the value of] the contents, but not of the cup itself.38
Therefore, if the oil was not worth a p'rutah, the status of the kiddushin is doubtful. If the oil is worth a p'rutah, she is definitely consecrated; no attention is paid to [the value of] the cup.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Since it is forbidden to derive benefit from the article, according to the Torah, it has no value whatsoever. For a woman to be consecrated, she must receive an article worth a p'rutah.
|
| 2. |
The Maggid Mishneh and the Tur (Even HaEzer 28) understand the Rambam as saying that all articles that are forbidden to be used by Rabbinic decree cannot establish a bond of kiddushin. Rav Yosef Karo (in the Kessef Mishneh) differs and explains that the example given by the Rambam specifies the scope of the ruling. Only when a Rabbinic commandment has its source in a prohibition from the Torah are the kiddushin of no effect.
From the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim 2:1), his view is clearly that even if the prohibition is entirely Rabbinic in origin, the kiddushin are not binding.
In the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 28:21), Rav Yosef Karo follows the opinion of Rabbenu Asher, who states that if the article is forbidden by force of Rabbinic decree, and that prohibition has no source in the Torah, the kiddushin are binding. If the prohibition has its source in the Torah, the status of the kiddushin is in doubt.
(The rationale for this ruling is that since, according to Scriptural law, the article is worth money, and the woman accepts it as kiddushin, the criteria for kiddushin have been met.)
The Beit Shmuel 28:52 justifies the Maggid Mishneh's interpretation of the Rambam's view, explaining that since in practice the article is worthless because of the Rabbinic decree, the woman has not been given an article of value, and the kiddushin are not binding. In support, he cites another example: The man must own the article he gives as kiddushin. If he acquired that article through a kinyan (contractual act) that is Rabbinic in origin and is not accepted by Scriptural law, the kiddushin are binding.
Kin'at Eliyahu explains that the difference between these two views can be explained using the concepts of cheftza (the article) and gavra (the person). The Rambam's perspective puts the emphasis on the person, the woman receiving the kiddushin. She must receive an object from which she can derive benefit. Hence, since the Rabbis forbade deriving benefit from such an object, the kiddushin are not binding.
Rabbenu Asher, by contrast, puts the emphasis on the article given as kiddushin. For kiddushin to be effective, an article that is worth a p'rutah must be given. Since according to Scriptural law the article has intrinsic worth, the fact that our Sages forbade using it is not relevant in this context.
|
| 3. |
See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:9.
|
| 4. |
For goring a person. (See Exodus 21:28.)
|
| 5. |
Although the produce of the Sabbatical year is ownerless, once a person takes possession of it, it becomes his private property and has value. Hence, it can be used to consecrate a woman.
|
| 6. |
As the Rambam states in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Kiddushin 2:10, based on Kiddushin58a), it is forbidden to receive money for consecrating or sprinkling the water of the ashes of the Red Heifer. One may, however, take payment for drawing the water and transporting it. Thus, the woman can derive this benefit from the water and/or ashes she is given.
|
| 7. |
See Hilchot Me'ilah 1:3.
|
| 8. |
For dedicated property that was consciously used for a person's private purposes retains its sacred nature and does not enter the possession of the person to whom it was given. (SeeHilchot Me'ilah 6:3.)
|
| 9. |
We are required to eat the produce of the second tithe in Jerusalem or redeem it and use the money to buy food to be eaten in Jerusalem. Although one derives personal benefit from eating this produce, it is not considered to be one's own property.
|
| 10. |
In all the latter instances, although the person receives the produce in question because of the Torah's decree - and with regard to terumah, it still possesses a dimension of ritual sanctity - once he has received it, it is regarded as his personal property entirely, and he may use it as he pleases. Hence, it is fit to be used to consecrate a woman.
|
| 11. |
A thief or robber cannot normally become the legal owner of an article through the owner's despair alone. The article must be given to a third party or undergo a change before it is considered to have left its original owner's property. Nevertheless, in this instance, since the woman receiving can legally acquire the article - for she is a third party - the kiddushin are effective (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 12. |
The Rambam's intent is that if the witnesses to the consecration know that the article was stolen, they must know that the owner of the article has despaired of its return. If they do not have such knowledge, they cannot serve as witnesses. Hence, the kiddushin are invalid, for it is as if they were performed without being observed by witnesses (Noda Biy'hudah, Even HaEzer, Volume II, Responsum 77).
|
| 13. |
The commentaries have questioned this ruling, for it appears to be the Rambam's own addition. The Noda Biy'hudah (Even HaEzer, Volume I, Responsum 59) states that it would appear that this refers to a situation in which the owner is present and does not object. Nevertheless, since none of the sages of the earlier generations offered this interpretation, he is not willing to do so.
The Edut BiY'hosef (Volume II, Responsum 77) states that this ruling depends on those in the previous halachah. Since kiddushin are valid after the owner relinquishes his ownership of stolen property by despairing of its return, they are valid in the present instance. Since the owner does not object to the person's taking the object, he is considered to have relinquished his ownership. A similar interpretation is found in the Chatam Sofer, Even HaEzer, Responsum 85.
The Beit Shmuel 28:45 states that the doubt is that perhaps the owner indeed objects. TheChatam Sofer explains that the doubt concerns the object's worth. Although it is not of significant value in the place of the kiddushin, maybe it is valuable in another locale, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 19.
|
| 14. |
We interpret her silence as implying that she granted him the stolen object as a present and accepted it as kiddushin (Rashi, Kiddushin 52b). There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis whether or not he is obligated to return the value of the stolen property to her. The Rashba maintains that he is not required, while Rabbenu Nissim states that he is. (See the Ramah and commentaries, Even HaEzer 28:2.)
|
| 15. |
For she merely accepted her own property.
|
| 16. |
Since she acknowledged the kiddushin, the situation becomes parallel to that mentioned in Halachah 18.
|
| 17. |
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 28:7) notes that if the promissory note is worth a p'rutah and he returns it, there are opinions that maintain that the consecration is binding.
|
| 18. |
I.e., even if she has not actually spent the money, from the time she received the loan, the money is hers and not the lender's, and he cannot consecrate her with it (Beit Yosef, Even HaEzer 28). See also Beit Shmuel 28:19.
|
| 19. |
Tosafot, Kiddushin 19a, states that the kiddushin are effective even if the collateral is not returned. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 28:11) appears to favor the Rambam's view, it also quotes the other opinion.
|
| 20. |
Since in addition to the eventual repayment of the debt, the person also receives the benefit of consecrating the woman, it is regarded like interest. The Rabbis (Meiri, Ma'aseh Rokeach) explain that the Rambam's wording is precise. The expression "like interest" implies that it is not actually considered to be taking interest, as forbidden by Scriptural law.
|
| 21. |
The Rambam is referring to Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, who interprets the passage from Kiddushin6b as referring to a person who extends the length of a loan at the time that payment is due. The Rambam does not accept that interpretation, because it is not logical that extending the length of the loan would be more effective than forfeiting the debt entirely (Maggid Mishneh).
Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's view is also followed by Rashi and the Ra'avad. The Shulchan Aruch(Even HaEzer 28:9) quotes the Rambam's interpretation (for even the opinions that differ agree that such kiddushin are binding). In the law that follows, it also quotes the opinion of Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi. Although the opinion of the Rambam is mentioned, the other view is favored. The Ramah, however, considers the status of the kiddushin to be doubtful because of the Rambam's view.
|
| 22. |
Although the man mentions the debt, since he also gives her a p'rutah, we assume that she considers the money that she actually receives together with the loan. Therefore, the kiddushinare binding (Kiddushin 46a).
|
| 23. |
As stated in Hilchot Mechirah 6:8, when such a statement is made in the presence of all the concerned parties, our Sages accepted it as a formal means of transferring the debt. This law shows that even when money is transferred through means ordained by Rabbinic and not Scriptural law, the kiddushin are binding according to Scriptural law.
There are opinions that maintain that the woman is not consecrated. These opinions maintain that even after such a transfer has been made, the original creditor can nullify a debt that has been transferred through such a process. Since there is a possibility that the debt will be nullified, they maintain that the woman will not make the commitment required by kiddushin. (See Rabbenu Nissim and the Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 28:13 and commentaries.)
|
| 24. |
Our translation is based on the Yemenite manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The wording of the standard printed text is somewhat confusing. It could be rendered: "If ap'rutah's worth of the article remains..." - i.e., even if the article is lost or stolen, if a p'rutah's worth remains - the consecration is binding. See the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 28:6) and commentaries.
|
| 25. |
If, however, the entrusted object or borrowed article has been lost, stolen or destroyed, even if the woman is obligated to reimburse the man for its value, that obligation is considered similar to other debts, and the woman cannot be consecrated through it.
Although the entrusted object or borrowed article was located in the woman's property at the time of the kiddushin, since she was not the legal owner, she is considered to have received sufficient benefit to make the kiddushin effective.
|
| 26. |
Speaking on her behalf is considered equivalent to working for her. Hence, an equation is established between this law and the following halachah.
|
| 27. |
I.e., it is not as if the man's entire wage becomes due at the time he completes his work. Instead, for each moment of work, he earns a corresponding amount of his wages. This money is considered as a loan which is not due until the end of his employment. Thus he is in fact consecrating the women with a loan.
|
| 28. |
Kiddushin 7a compares this situation to that of a guarantor who becomes liable to pay a loan if the borrower cannot. In both instances, the benefit received by another person causes the person who made the commitment (the guarantor or the woman) to incur an obligation.
The Maggid Mishneh (4:4) and others compare this law to Chapter 4, Halachah 4, but explain that there is a difference between the two cases. In Chapter 4, the man does not respond to the woman's suggestion, while in this halachah, he makes a clear statement acknowledging the woman's offer of kiddushin. The Ramah (Even HaEzer 29:2) puts the emphasis on the fact that in this halachah, the woman initially made this suggestion, even before the man proposed thekiddushin. In the previous law, by contrast, her statement was made in response to his proposal, and her facetious intent becomes clear.
|
| 29. |
Kiddushin 7a derives this law by making a twofold comparison: to a guarantor (as in the law explained in the first portion of the halachah) and to a Canaanite servant. To explain: The servant becomes free when other people give his master money for that purpose, even though he himself gives nothing at all. Similarly, the person receiving the present acquires the woman as a wife even though he did not give anything for that purpose himself. Although there is a difference between the two - because the servant's owner receives money for the sake of freeing him and the woman does not receive any money herself - the comparison to a guarantor resolves that difficulty, as explained above.
|
| 30. |
Kiddushin, ibid., derives this law from a comparison to a Canaanite servant, as explained above.
|
| 31. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 27:9) states that clarification is necessary to determine what is meant by "an important person." Because of the doubt involved, it is proper to require a divorce if the woman desires to become consecrated to another man (Chelkat Mechokek 27:21).
|
| 32. |
Thus, it is as if she has received nothing. Therefore, she is not consecrated.
|
| 33. |
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 28:12) quotes the Tur as stating that this law applies only when the security was taken at the time the loan was given. Otherwise, the kiddushin are not binding.
|
| 34. |
From the Rambam's wording, it appears that there is no reason to say that the woman has been consecrated. Rabbenu Asher and others maintain that according to Scriptural law, the consecration is valid, for a present of this nature is considered to be a valid transaction. It is merely that the Rabbis nullified these kiddushin lest they resemble chalifin (barter).
The difference between these two approaches is that the Rambam puts the emphasis on the benefit the woman receives (or does not receive). Hence in this situation, since the woman did not receive any benefit, the kiddushin are not binding. Rabbenu Asher, by contrast, puts the emphasis on whether or not the man performed a valid act of transfer. Since he did, the kiddushin would be binding, were it not for our Sages' decree (Or Sameach).
|
| 35. |
I.e., at the time the money was given, she was not aware of it, and afterwards to be consecrated she must explicitly express her consent. Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi differs and maintains that in such an instance there is a doubt whether or not the kiddushin are binding, and the more stringent ruling must be followed in every instance. His view is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 28:5).
|
| 36. |
As stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 19 above.
|
| 37. |
In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo raises a question on this ruling, noting that Kiddushin 46a interprets this law as following the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon. In similar instances (see Hilchot Sh'vuot 7:10 and Hilchot Nedarim 4:11), the Rambam rejects Rabbi Shimon's reasoning.
In his gloss on Hilchot Nedarim, the Kessef Mishneh resolves that issue, explaining that we find that there is a mishnah in the tractate of Kiddushin (stated without mentioning the name of the author) that follows Rabbi Shimon's view, and a mishnah in the tractate of Nedarim that follows the opposing view. One of the principles of Talmudic law is that a mishnah is taught without mentioning its author to show that it is accepted by the majority of the Sages. Accordingly, one may presume that since the Rambam saw that the redactor of the Mishnah chose to follow Rabbi Shimon's reasoning in one instance and to differ with it in another, the Rambam followed suit.
|
| 38. |
Since the water is of little value, it is considered to have no independent importance. Hence, its value is considered together with that of the cup. The wine is not of negligible value, but - in the Talmudic era - it was worth less than the cup containing it. Hence, the wine is given independent importance and is not considered together with the cup. The oil - in the Talmudic era - was considered to be very valuable, more valuable than the cup containing it. Moreover, oil is not necessarily all used at one time. Therefore, it is apparent that the cup is subservient to the oil, and it is the value of the oil that is the determining factor.
|
Tum'at Tsara`at - Chapter 11
Halacha 1
The purification of a person afflicted with tzara'at is a positive commandment and his shaving is also a positive commandment.
How is a person who had been afflicted by tzara'at purified? He should bring a new earthenware container - the Received Tradition teaches that it must be new. A fourth of a log of "living water" that is fit to be sanctified as water for the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer is placed in it. This measure is a Rabbinic institution.
Two sparrows that are kosher must be brought for the sake of purifying atzara'at affliction, as Leviticus 14:4 states: "For the one who is to be purified will be taken...." He should slaughter the healthier of the two over the water in the earthenware vessel and squeeze out the blood until it is apparent over the water. He then digs a hole and buries the slaughtered bird in the presence of the afflicted person. This is one of the points received through the Oral Tradition.
He takes a cedar branch - the mitzvah is that it be a cubit long and a fourth the thickness of a bedpost. And he takes a hyssop whose name is not described by an additional term, as we explained, that is not less than a handbreadth long, and a crimson strand weighing a shekel. If one used the dye for another purpose, it is disqualified, as is the rule regarding dyeing wool with blue dye to use for tzitzit. All of these measures are laws transmitted to Moses at Sinai.
A priest takes the three items mentioned above together with the living fowl. All these four items are fundamental requirements. When the cedar branch and the hyssop have been peeled, they are invalid. The hyssop should be bound together with the cedar branch with the crimson thread. The tips of the wings and the tips of the tail of the living bird should be held close to them and the four should be dipped in the water in the container and the blood floating on top of it. He then sprinkles with them seven times on the back of the hand of the afflicted person and sends away the fowl.
How does he send the fowl away? He stands in the town and casts it outside the wall. He does not turn its head to the sea, to the town, or to the desert, asibid.:53 states: "Outside the city, towards the field." If he sends away and it returns, he should send it away again, even 100 times.
Afterwards, the priest shaves the afflicted person. How does he shave him? He passes a razor over all his skin that is visible including his underarms and pubic region until his entire flesh is smooth like a squash, as ibid.:9 states: "He shall shave all of his hair." If so, why does the verse mention his beard and his eye-brows? To include everything like them and to exclude the hair in the nose, because it is not visible.
Afterwards, he "launders" his garments, immerses himself, and becomes pure with regard to conveying impurity when he enters a building or to the article on which he lies or sits. He may enter within the town's wall. He counts seven days. During them, he is forbidden to engage in physical intimacy, as alluded to byibid.:8: "outside his tent." This teaches that he is forbidden physical intimacy. A woman afflicted by tzara'at, by contrast, is permitted physical intimacy.
Halacha 2
For the duration of these seven days, he is still considered as a primary source of impurity and imparts impurity to people and to utensils when touching them, but not when being carried by them. This is indicated by Leviticus 14:9 which states: "And it shall be on the seventh day,... he shall launder his garments...." This teaches that before then, he imparted impurity to his garments. Just as he would impart impurity to his garments by touching them, so too, he would impart impurity to a person when touching him, for any source of impurity that imparts impurity to garments, imparts impurity to humans.
On the seventh day, the priests shaves him a second time like the first. He "launders" and immerses himself, thus becoming pure with regarding to imparting impurity to others. He is like all those who immersed and will become pure in the evening. He may partake of the second tithe. After nightfall, he may partake of terumah. Once he brings his atonement offerings, he may partake of sacrificial foods, as we explained.
Halacha 3
When he shaves these two times, he must shave only with a razor. If he shaves with something other than a razor or left two hairs, his actions are of no consequence. The shavings should be performed only by a priest. If he left two hairs in the first shaving and shaved them off in the second shaving, he is considered to have performed only one shaving.
The entire day is acceptable for the shaving of a person afflicted by tzara'at.
Halacha 4
The shaving of a person afflicted by tzara'at, his immersion, and sprinkling the blood of the slaughtered bird upon him are not dependent on each other. Each of the other actions involved in his purification are dependent on each other.
Halacha 5
The slaughter of the fowl, the shaving, and the sprinkling of the blood must be performed during the day. The remainder of the actions may be performed either during the day or at night. The above three must be performed by males. The remainder may be performed by men or by women. The above three must be performed by priests. The remainder may be performed by priests or Israelites.
Halacha 6
The purification of a person afflicted by tzara'at is carried out in Eretz Yisraeland in the Diaspora, while the Temple is standing and in the era when the Temple is not standing.
It is a mitzvah for the priest who deemed the person impure to perform his purification as indicated by Leviticus 13:59 which states: "to purify him or deem him impure."
Every one is acceptable to perform the purification of a person afflicted bytzara'at, even a zav or one who is impure due to contact with a corpse may perform this purification. One person afflicted with tzara'at may not perform the purification for another. Two people afflicted with tzara'at should not be purified at the same time, for mitzvot should not be performed in bundles.
Halacha 7
The cedar branch, the hyssop, and the scarlet cord that were used to purify one person afflicted with tzara'at may be used to purify others. Similarly, it is permitted to use a fowl that was sent away to purify other people afflicted withtzara'at and it is permitted to be eaten. It is, however, forbidden to benefit from the fowl that was slaughtered. From when is it forbidden? From the time that it was slaughtered.
When it was slaughtered, but there was no hyssop, cedar branch, or scarlet cord, it is nevertheless, forbidden to benefit from the slaughtered fowl. The rationale is that slaughter which is not befitting is still considered as slaughter. A person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the slaughtered fowl violates a positive commandment and a negative commandment. For Deuteronomy 14:12states: "These are what you may not eat from them." According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that the wording also includes the fowl that was slaughtered in this purification process. And it is written ibid.:11: "You shall eat all pure fowl." This is a positive commandment. From it, however, one can infer a prohibition: that other species may not be eaten. When a prohibition is derived from a positive commandment, it is considered as a positive commandment.
Halacha 8
The two fowl may not be taken from the fowl of a condemned city, nor from fowl exchanged for idols, nor from fowl that killed a person. The optimum way of performing the mitzvah is for the two fowl to be alike in appearance, size, and value, and to be purchased at the same time. Nevertheless, even if they are not alike, or one purchased one on one day and the other on the next, it is acceptable.
If one purchased two fowl for the sake of the purification of a man, it is acceptable to use them for the purification of a woman. Conversely, two purchased for the purification of a woman are acceptable to be used them for the purification of a man. If they were taken to purify an afflicted house, they are acceptable to be used for purifying a person. If they were taken to purify a person, they are acceptable to be used for purifying an afflicted house. These concepts may be inferred from Leviticus 14:4 which states: "For the one who is to be purified will be taken...."
Halacha 9
If one of them was slaughtered and discovered not to be a sparrow, another one should be taken for the second. It is permitted to partake of the one that was slaughtered. If the one was slaughtered and discovered to be tereifah, another one should be taken for the second. It is permitted to benefit from the one that was slaughtered.
Halacha 10
If the blood was spilled, the fowl that would have been sent away is left until it dies. If the fowl to be sent away dies before the sprinkling, the blood is poured out and two other fowl are taken.
Tum'at Tsara`at - Chapter 12
Halacha 1
The minimum measure for a tzara'at affliction for garments is a gris like an affliction for humans. An affliction smaller than a gris is pure. There are three distinguishing marks for the afflictions of garments: intense green, intense red, and the spreading of the affliction. All three are explicitly mentioned in the Torah.
"Intense green" refers to a dark green hue, like the wings of a peacock or the leaves of a date palm. "Intense red" refers to a dark red hue, a deep red, like fine scarlet thread. These two signs can be combined with each other.
When an affliction is intense green or red, the garment is placed in isolation. If this sign remains for two consecutive weeks, the garment is deemed impure and burnt. Similarly, if the size of the affliction increases, the garment is deemed impure and burnt.
What is implied? When an intense green or an intense red affliction is visible on a garment, it should be isolated for seven days. On the seventh day, it should be inspected. If it expanded, it is deemed definitively impure and burnt. If its appearance remained unchanged, but it did not increase in size or it increased, but its color faded from the two colors because of which it was isolated, or its color became more intensely red or green, but it did not increase in size, the place of the blemish should be washed, and the garment isolated for a second seven day period. At the end of the second week, i.e., the thirteenth day, it should be assessed. If it turned to a third color, the garment should be washed and it is pure. If the color of the blemish changed from its original hue, i.e., initially, it was intense green, and it became intense red, or initially, it was intense red and then it became intense green, the place of the blemish should be ripped out and a patch sewn in the place that was ripped out. The remainder of the garment is released from the inspection process. It should be laundered a second time, immersed in the mikveh and then it is pure.
If, at the time of the second inspection, the blemish retained the appearance for which it was initially isolated, it should be deemed definitively impure and should be burnt in its entirety.
Halacha 2
When a blemish that was intense green increased in size, but the new portion was intense red, or it was intense red and increased, but the increase was green, it is considered as an increase.
Halacha 3
When in the midst of a blemish, there was a portion of the garment that was unsoiled and unblemished and then the blemish spread into it, the blemish is not considered to have increased in size. It must increase outward. An increase within the blemish itself is not considered as an increase, not for a blemish on a person's body, nor for one on garments or on buildings.
Halacha 4
If a blemish spreads to the place immediately adjacent to it, even the slightest spread is considered a sign of impurity. If a blemish appears on a distant place on the garment or one returns after the initial blemish disappeared or was removed, it must be a gris in size.
What is implied? If a garment was isolated and then another blemish the size of a gris emerged some distance from the blemish for which it was isolated, it is considered to have spread and it is burned. If the second blemish is less than agris, no attention is paid to it. Similarly, when a blemished portion was removed from a garment as explained and then a blemish the size of a gris returned, it should be burnt. Similarly, if a blemish increased in size after the garment was released from the inspection process, the garment should be burnt.
Halacha 5
When a person washes a blemish at the end of the first week as we explained, one should also wash part of the garment that is adjacent to it, as implied byLeviticus 13:54: "that on which the blemish is found." Whenever blemishes on a garment must be washed, we use the seven detergents that are used when checking a bloodstain, as explained with regard to nidah impurity.
Halacha 6
The following laws apply when the blemished portion of a garment was torn out and a patch sewn in its place, as we explained. If a blemish the size of a grisreturned to a different place on the garment, the patch may be removed and saved, while the remainder of the garment must be burnt. If the blemish returned and appeared on the patch, the entire garment must be burnt.
Halacha 7
The following rules apply when a person takes a patch of cloth from a garment that was isolated and sews it on a pure garment. If a blemish became manifest on the initial garment again, the patch should be burnt together with it. If the blemish appears again on the patch, the first garment must be burnt and the patch obligates the garment on which it is sewn to be assessed for signs of impurity. If the blemish remains unchanged for two weeks or increases in size, the entire second garment is burnt.
Halacha 8
When a garment comes initially entirely intense green or intense red, it should be isolated for one week after another. If the blemish remains unchanged for two weeks, the garment should be burnt. If, however, a garment was isolated because of a blemish and the blemish spread over the entire garment, causing it to become entirely intense green or intense red or the garment was released from the inspection process and after it was released, the blemish returned entirely intense green or intense red, it is pure.
If a blemish was washed and it spread, the garment should be burnt.
Halacha 9
When the loose strands of the fabric of a garment extend beyond the fabric of the weave, e.g., a coarse woolen blanket, and a blemish appears in those strands, the blanket is not impure unless the blemish appears in the fabric and the weave itself.
The terms used by Leviticus 13:55 with regard to garment bikarachto andbigabachto mean the following: Karachto refers to worn out garments;gabachto, to new ones.
Halacha 10
Colored garments do not contract impurity due to blemishes of tzara'at. This applies whether they were dyed by human activity or naturally colored. To contract such impurity, they must be white. If the warp of a garment was colored and its woof, white, or if its woof was colored and its warp, white, everything follows its appearance.
When there is a knit that is less than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, it does not contract impurity due to blemishes of tzara'at.
Halacha 11
When a cloth was woven less than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths and a blemish was discovered on it and afterwards, one increased its size and made it more than three by three, it is pure.
Halacha 12
When a person sews patches together, each one being less than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, and makes a garment from them, it can contract impurity due to blemishes. The rationale is that sewing is like weaving and it is considered as one garment.
Halacha 13
If a garment was made from many patches, some colored and some, white, and a tzara'at blemish was discovered on a white patch, it should be isolated. If the blemish remains unchanged for two weeks, the entire garment is deemed impure and burnt. Similarly, if the blemish spreads to another white patch, the blemish is considered to have increased in size even though a colored patch intervenes between them.
If the garment was entirely colored except for one line, even if only a gris, it should be isolated if a blemish appears on it. For if it remains with the original color, without increasing its intensity or fading for two weeks, the garment should be burnt.
Tum'at Tsara`at - Chapter 13
Halacha 1
The only garments that contract impurity due to tzara'at blemishes are wool and linen garments, cloths where the warp or woof is made of wool or linen, and any leather utensil, whether hard or soft. Even leather that is colored naturally is susceptible to impurity because of blemishes. Felt is considered like garments and is susceptible to impurity because of blemishes. Tents are susceptible to impurity because of blemishes whether they are made from wool or linen or they are leather.
Halacha 2
All garments of wool and linen are susceptible to impurity except those belonging to gentiles. When a person purchases a garment from gentiles, iftzara'at appears on it, it should be viewed as if for the first time. When a garment is made from mixed species - wool and linen - it can incur impurity because of tzara'at blemishes.
Halacha 3
The following rules apply when camels' wool and sheep's wool were spun together: If the majority is camels' wool, it does not contract impurity because of blemishes. If the majority is sheep's wool, it does. If equal amounts are used, it can incur impurity. The same laws apply when flax and hemp are mixed together.
The wool of a sheep born from a goat does not contract impurity because of blemishes. When the warp of a garment was linen and its woof, hemp, or its warp hemp and its woof, linen, it does not contract impurity because of blemishes. Similarly, if its warp or woof was linen or wool and the remainder goat's hair or the like, it does not contract impurity because of blemishes.
Halacha 4
A hide that was not processed does not contract impurity because of blemishes. Similarly, a hide that is an unformed mass before implements were made from it, does not contract impurity because of blemishes. This can be inferred fromLeviticus 13:52 which speaks of "leather articles." Nevertheless, all leather articles - whether flat or receptacles - are susceptible to impurity because of blemishes.
Halacha 5
The hides of sea-animals do not contract impurity because of blemishes. If anything that grows on the earth was connected to such a hide, even a strand or string of wool or flax or the hide of an animal or a beast that was processed to any degree, and an implement was made, tzara'at blemishes can cause it to contract impurity, provided it was connected to it in a manner that garments are connected with regard to impurity.
Halacha 6
All utensils that are fit to contract other types of impurity - even though they are not fit to contract the impurity that results when a zav treads on them, because they are not meant to be lied upon or sat upon - are susceptible to impurity because of blemishes. To cite examples: a ship's sail, a curtain, a barber's sheet, a mantle for scrolls, a belt and laces for shoes and sandals that are agris wide. These all contract impurity because of blemishes. Needless to say, other articles do, e.g., pillows and cushions.
A leather drinking pouch and a carrying case should be inspected in their ordinary fashion. A blemish is considered to have increased in size when it spreads from their inner side to their outer side or from their outer side to their inner side. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations with regard to all two-sided leather utensils.
Halacha 7
When a sheet is creased, its creases are straightened out and then its blemishes are inspected.
Halacha 8
The thread for the warp and the woof - whether of wool or of linen - are susceptible to impurity because of blemishes immediately after it has been spun even though the linen has not been whitened, nor the wool soaked in hot water.
How much thread must be on a ball of thread for it to contract impurity because of blemishes? Enough to weave a cloth three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths from it, both the warp and the woof. This applies whether it was all warp threads or all woof threads. If the ball of thread was collected from separate threads, it is not susceptible to impurity because of blemishes.
Halacha 9
The following law applies when a) there are two balls of thread connected to each other with a thread, b) part of the warp thread is wound over the top frame of the loom and part over the bottom frame of the loom, or c) one side of a cloak is connected to the other with one strand. If a blemish is discovered on one of these entities, the other is pure even though the strand connects them.
If a blemish is discovered in the weaving thread and in the warp that has not yet been woven, even though a portion of the blemish exists on the cloth and a portion on the warp, it is impure. If, however, the blemish appears on the unwoven warp alone, the woven cloth is pure. If the blemish appears on the woven portion alone, the unwoven warp is pure.
If a blemish appears on a wrapping blanket, the strands protruding from it should be burnt with it. If the blemish appears on the strands, the wrapping blanket is pure. If the blemish spreads from the strands to the wrapping blanket, the wrapping blanket is impure.
Halacha 10
When a blemish is discovered in a cloak, its borders may be saved. Even if the border is made of wool or linen, it can be saved and should not be burnt.
Halacha 11
When a garment that was isolated because of a blemish was dyed or sold to a gentile, it is pure. Similarly, if it became mixed with others, they are all deemed pure. If the owner cut it up and made it into small strands, each one less than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, it is pure and it is permitted to benefit from it. If one of the strands was three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths and the blemish was discovered on it, it alone is impure.
Halacha 12
When a garment that had been definitively deemed impure became mixed with others, they are all considered impure and must be burned. This applies even if one is mixed with several thousands. Similarly, even if it was cut up into strands, there are all impure and it is forbidden to benefit from them.
Halacha 13
With regard to ritual impurity, a garment or a leather utensil or threads for the warp or the woof that were isolated or deemed impure is considered a primary category of ritual impurity and is analogous to a person who contracted tzara'atin all respects. It imparts impurity when touched, when carried, when brought into a building, and imparts impurity to couches and seats on which it is placed even if they are under a stone.
What is implied? When one brings even an olive-sized portion of a garment or a leather utensil or threads for the warp or the woof that were blemished into a building that is ritually pure, everything in the building - humans and utensils - become primary derivatives of impurity. Similarly, if there is a couch or a seat located under a stone and one places an olive-sized portion on the stone, the couch or the seat becomes impure.
Halacha 14
When a cloth is three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths even though it does not possess the mass of an olive-sized portion, it renders a house that was pure impure when brought inside. If it was the size of several olive-sized portions, once an olive-size portion is brought into a building that is pure, it renders it impure.
Although all the measures are halachot transmitted to Moses at Sinai there is an allusion in the Torah to the concept that an olive-sized portion of a blemished garment conveys impurity. For Leviticus 14:54-55 states: "For all blemishes of tzara'at, for a netek, for the tzara'at of garments and of houses." An association is made between blemishes affecting humans and those affecting garments and houses. Now a person afflicted by tzara'at is equated with a human corpse, as Numbers 12:12 states: "Let her not be as a corpse." Hence, just as the minimum measure for a portion of a human corpse that imparts impurity is an olive-sized portion, the minimum measure for these is an olive-sized portion.
Halacha 15
Blemished garments are sent outside a city, whether it is surrounded by a wall or not. This reflects a stringency relevant to garments over humans.
• Monday, Tammuz 26, 5775 · 13 July 2015
"Today's Day"
Thursday Tamuz 26 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Matot-Massai, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 119, 97 to end.
Tanya: How is the (p. 369) ...as is known.) (p. 371).
In Torah-study the person is devoted to the subject that he wishes to understand and comes to understand. In davening the devotion is directed to what surpasses understanding.
In learning Torah the Jew feels like a pupil with his master; in davening - like a child with his father.
Daily Thought:
Pushed by the Barriers
Nothing limits you, no force that holds you captive—other than a fiction of your imagination.
So you will say, “What, then, of the forces of nature? Of the constraints of a human body? Of the hard reality that slams against me when I attempt to stride through the barriers of life?”
Yes, they are there. But they are not what they seem to be.
They are not there simply to oppose you, but to carry you. As your soul pulls forward, those barriers force her inward, towards her deepest and strongest self.[Maamar Natata Lirei’echa 5737.]
___________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment