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 Aharon Berachia of Modina (1639)
Rabbi Aharon Berachia ben Moshe of Modina (? - 1639) was an Italian Kabbalist and a student of Rabbi Menachem Azariah of Fano. At the request of the Burial Society at Mantua, he instituted rites for them. The author of many Kabbalistic works, he is perhaps best known for his work Ma'abar Yabbok, which contains mystical dissertations on purity and holiness. He also wrote additional prayers to be offered for the sick and the dead, as well as a code of conduct for their treatment. Many of the prayers recited at the gravesites of the deceased were composed by him.
Tradition has it that an angel called a "maggid" would come and study with him, similar to the angel that would visit Rabbi Yosef Caro.
Daily Quote:
These [trust] in chariots and these in horses, but we mention the name of G‑d our G‑d. They kneel and fall, but we rise and gain strength. G‑d save us; may the King answer us on the day we call.[Psalms 20:8-10]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Matot-Massei, 1st Portion Numbers 30:2-31:12 with Rashi
• Chapter 30
2Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel, saying: This is the thing the Lord has commanded. בוַיְדַבֵּר משֶׁה אֶל רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר זֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה:
the heads of the tribes: He honored the chieftains by teaching them first, and only later the rest of the Israelites. How do we know that he did so with other statements? For it says, “[Moses called to them] and Aaron and all the princes of the community returned to him, and Moses would speak to them. Afterwards, all the children of Israel would draw near” (Exod. 34:31-32). [If so,] why did [Scripture] see fit to mention it here? It is to teach us that annulment of vows may be performed by a single expert, and if no single expert is available, it may be annulled by three laymen. Alternatively, perhaps Moses related this passage to the princes alone? However, here it says, “This is the word,” and in [the chapter dealing with] sacrifices slaughtered outside the Temple confines it [also] says, “This is the word” (Lev. 17:2). Just as there it was said to Aaron, his sons and all the Israelites, as it says, “Speak to Aaron, etc.” (Lev. 17:2), so in this case was it said to all of them. — [Ned. 78a] ראשי המטות: חלק כבוד לנשיאים ללמדם תחלה ואחר כך לכל בני ישראל. ומנין שאף שאר הדברות כן, תלמוד לומר (שמות לד, לא - לב) וישובו אליו אהרן וכל הנשיאים בעדה וידבר משה אליהם ואחרי כן נגשו כל בני ישראל. ומה ראה לאומרה כאן, למד שהפרת נדרים ביחיד מומחה ואם אין יחיד מומחה מפר בשלשה הדיוטות. או יכול שלא אמר משה פרשה זו אלא לנשיאים בלבד, נאמר כאן זה הדבר, ונאמר בשחוטי חוץ (ויקרא יז, ב) זה הדבר, מה להלן נאמרה לאהרן ולבניו ולכל בני ישראל, שנאמר דבר אל אהרן וגו', אף זו נאמרה לכולן:
This is the thing: Moses prophesied with, “So says the Lord, 'At the dividing point of the night… ’” (Exod. 11:4), and the prophets prophesied with [the phrase] “So says the Lord.” But Moses surpassed them, for he prophesied with the expression, “This is the thing.” Another interpretation: “This is the thing” is exclusive, informing us that a sage [revokes a vow] with the expression הַתָּרָה,“release” and the husband through the expression הִפָרָה “revocation,” as Scripture has here. If they exchange [these terms] there is neither a release nor a revocation. — [Sifrei Mattoth 2] זה הדבר: משה נתנבא (שמות יא, ד) בכה אמר ה' כחצות הלילה, והנביאים נתנבאו בכה אמר ה', מוסף עליהם משה שנתנבא בלשון זה הדבר. דבר אחר זה הדבר מיעוט הוא, לומר שהחכם בלשון התרה ובעל בלשון הפרה, כלשון הכתוב כאן, ואם חלפו אין מותר ואין מופר:
3If a man makes a vow to the Lord or makes an oath to prohibit himself, he shall not violate his word; according to whatever came out of his mouth, he shall do. גאִישׁ כִּי יִדֹּר נֶדֶר לַיהֹוָה אוֹ הִשָּׁבַע שְׁבֻעָה לֶאְסֹר אִסָּר עַל נַפְשׁוֹ לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ כְּכָל הַיֹּצֵא מִפִּיו יַעֲשֶׂה:
a vow: By saying, “It shall be prohibited just like a sacrifice, that I will not eat, or I will not do a certain thing.” One might think that even if he swears to eat carrion, I apply to him “according to whatever came out of his mouth, he shall do.” Scripture therefore states,“to prohibit”-to prohibit what is permitted, but not to permit what is prohibited. — [Sifrei Mattoth 7] נדר: האומר הרי עלי קונם שלא אוכל או שלא אעשה דבר פלוני, יכול אפילו נשבע שיאכל נבלות אני קורא עליו ככל היוצא מפיו יעשה, תלמוד לומר לאסור אסר את המותר, ולא להתיר את האסור:
he shall not violate his word: Heb. לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ, like לֹא יְחַלֵּל דְּבָרוֹ“he shall not profane his word,” he shall not treat his word as being unholy. — [Sifrei Mattoth 8] לא יחל דברו: כמו לא יחלל דברו, לא יעשה דבריו חולין:
4If a woman makes a vow to the Lord, or imposes a prohibition [upon herself] while in her father's house, in her youth, דוְאִשָּׁה כִּי תִדֹּר נֶדֶר לַיהֹוָה וְאָסְרָה אִסָּר בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ בִּנְעֻרֶיהָ:
while in her father’s house: Under her father’s jurisdiction, even if she is not [actually] in his house. - [Sifrei Mattoth 12] בבית אביה: ברשות אביה ואפילו אינה בביתו:
in her youth: Neither a minor nor an adult [above the age of twelve and a half], since a minor’s vows are invalid, and an adult is not under her father’s jurisdiction to revoke her vows. What is considered a minor? Our Rabbis said: A girl of eleven years and a day-her vows are examined. If she knew in whose name she vowed, or in whose name she consecrated something, her vow stands. From the age of twelve years and one day, she does not need to be tested. — [Niddah 45b] בנעוריה: ולא קטנה ולא בוגרת, שהקטנה אין נדרה נדר והבוגרת אינה ברשותו של אביה להפר נדריה. ואי זו היא קטנה, אמרו רבותינו בת אחת עשרה שנה ויום אחד נדריה נבדקין. אם ידעה לשם מי נדרה ולשם מי הקדישה נדרה נדר. בת שתים עשרה שנה ויום אחד אינה צריכה להבדק:
5if her father heard her vow or her prohibition which she has prohibited upon herself, yet her father remains silent, all her vows shall stand, and any prohibition that she has imposed upon herself shall stand. הוְשָׁמַע אָבִיהָ אֶת נִדְרָהּ וֶאֱסָרָהּ אֲשֶׁר אָסְרָה עַל נַפְשָׁהּ וְהֶחֱרִישׁ לָהּ אָבִיהָ וְקָמוּ כָּל נְדָרֶיהָ וְכָל אִסָּר אֲשֶׁר אָסְרָה עַל נַפְשָׁהּ יָקוּם:
6But if her father hinders her on the day he hears it, all her vows and her prohibitions that she has imposed upon herself shall not stand. The Lord will forgive her because her father hindered her. ווְאִם הֵנִיא אָבִיהָ אֹתָהּ בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ כָּל נְדָרֶיהָ וֶאֱסָרֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר אָסְרָה עַל נַפְשָׁהּ לֹא יָקוּם וַיהֹוָה יִסְלַח לָהּ כִּי הֵנִיא אָבִיהָ אֹתָהּ:
But if her father hinders her: Heb. הֵנִיא, if he prevented her from [fulfilling] the vow, that is to say, he revoked it. I would not know what this term of הַנָאָה [in the verse, הֵנִיא] means. However, when it says,“But if her husband hinders her on the day he heard it, he has revoked” (verse 9), I conclude that הִנָאָה means revocation. Literally, it is a term implying prevention and removal. Similarly,“Why do you discourage [lit., turn away (תְנִיאוּן) the people’s hearts]?” (32:7), and,“may the oil of the anointment of my head not turn my head away (יָנִי) ” (Ps. 141:5); similarly,“thus you will come to know My alienation (תְּנוּאֲתִי)” (14:34), that you have turned away from Me. ואם הניא אביה אותה: אם מנע אותה מן הנדר, כלומר שהפר לה. הנאה זו איני יודע מה היא, כשהוא אומר ואם ביום שמוע אישה יניא אותה והפר, הוי אומר הנאה זו הפרה. ופשוטו לשון מניעה והסרה וכן (במדבר לב, ז) ולמה תניאון, וכן (תהלים קמא, ה) שמן ראש אל יני ראשי, וכן (במדבר יד, לד) וידעתם את תנואתי, את אשר סרתם מעלי:
and the Lord will forgive her: To what case does the verse refer? To a woman who took a nazarite vow, and her husband heard and revoked it for her without her knowledge. She then transgressed her vow by drinking wine and becoming unclean through contact with corpses-such [a woman] requires forgiveness even though it was revoked. And if those which have been revoked require forgiveness, all the more so those which have not been revoked. — [Sifrei Mattoth 17] וה' יסלח לה: במה הכתוב מדבר באשה שנדרה בנזיר ושמע בעלה והפר לה והיא לא ידעה ועוברת על נדרה ושותה יין ומטמאה למתים, זו היא שצריכה סליחה, ואף על פי שהוא מופר. ואם המופרים צריכים סליחה, קל וחומר לשאינן מופרים:
7But if she is [betrothed] to a man, with her vows upon her or by an utterance of her lips which she has imposed upon herself, זוְאִם הָיוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ וּנְדָרֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ אוֹ מִבְטָא שְׂפָתֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר אָסְרָה עַל נַפְשָׁהּ:
If she is [betrothed] to a man: Heb. וְאִם הָיֹה תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ. This [refers to] a betrothed woman [i.e., אֲרוּסָה, the first stage of marriage, when the marriage ceremony has been performed, but the couple does not yet live together], or perhaps it refers to a married woman [נְשׂוּאָה, who lives already with her husband]? When [Scripture] says, “if she vowed in her husband’s house” (verse 11) it speaks of a married woman, so this must refer to a betrothed woman, and it comes to distinguish her [the betrothed woman from the married woman] in that both her father and husband [must] revoke her vows. If the father revoked it, but the husband did not revoke it, or if the husband revoked it, but the father did not revoke it, it is not revoked, and it goes without saying that if one of them upheld it. — [Ned. 67a] ואם היו תהיה לאיש: זו ארוסה או אינו אלא נשואה, כשהוא אומר ואם בית אישה נדרה, הרי נשואה אמור וכאן בארוסה, ובא לחלוק בה, שאביה ובעלה מפירין נדריה. הפר האב ולא הפר הבעל או הפר הבעל ולא הפר האב, הרי זה אינו מופר, ואין צריך לומר אם קיים אחד מהם:
with her vows upon her: which she had vowed while in her father’s house, but her father had not heard them, so they were neither revoked nor upheld. — [Sifrei Mattoth 20] ונדריה עליה: שנדרה בבית אביה ולא שמע בהן אביה ולא הופרו ולא הוקמו:
8and her husband hears it but remains silent on the day he hears it, her vows shall stand, and her prohibition which she has imposed upon herself shall stand. חוְשָׁמַע אִישָׁהּ בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ וְהֶחֱרִישׁ לָהּ וְקָמוּ נְדָרֶיהָ וֶאֱסָרֶהָ אֲשֶׁר אָסְרָה עַל נַפְשָׁהּ יָקֻמוּ:
and her husband heard…: Here you have the case that if the husband upholds it, it stands. - [Sifrei Mattoth 21] ושמע אישה וגו': הרי לך שאם קיים הבעל שהוא קיים:
9But if her husband hinders her on the day he heard it, he has revoked the vow she had taken upon herself and the utterance which she had imposed upon herself, and the Lord will forgive her. טוְאִם בְּיוֹם שְׁמֹעַ אִישָׁהּ יָנִיא אוֹתָהּ וְהֵפֵר אֶת נִדְרָהּ אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיהָ וְאֵת מִבְטָא שְׂפָתֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר אָסְרָה עַל נַפְשָׁהּ וַיהֹוָה יִסְלַח לָהּ:
he has revoked the vow she had taken upon herself: I might think that even if the father had not revoked it [it is revoked]? Scripture therefore teaches,“in her youth, while in her father’s house” (verse 17); throughout her youth she is under her father’s jurisdiction. — [Sifrei Mattoth 31] והפר את נדרה אשר עליה: יכול אפילו לא הפר האב, תלמוד לומר בנעוריה בית אביה, כל שבנעוריה ברשות אביה היא:
10As for the vow of a widow or a divorced woman, whatever she prohibited upon herself will remain upon her. יוְנֵדֶר אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה כֹּל אֲשֶׁר אָסְרָה עַל נַפְשָׁהּ יָקוּם עָלֶיהָ:
whatever she prohibited upon herself will remain upon her: since she is neither under the jurisdiction of her father nor of her husband. Scripture refers to a widow from marriage, but if she is widowed from betrothal, as soon as her betrothed [husband] has died, she reverts to the jurisdiction of her father. — [Ned. 70a] כל אשר אסרה על נפשה יקום עליה: לפי שאינה לא ברשות אב ולא ברשות בעל, ובאלמנה מן הנשואין הכתוב מדבר, אבל אלמנה מן האירוסין, מת הבעל נתרוקנה וחזרה לרשות האב:
11But if she vowed in her husband's house, or imposed a prohibition upon herself with an oath. יאוְאִם בֵּית אִישָׁהּ נָדָרָה אוֹ אָסְרָה אִסָּר עַל נַפְשָׁהּ בִּשְׁבֻעָה:
But if she made a vow in her husband’s house: Scripture refers to a married woman (נְשׂוּאָה). - [Sifrei Mattoth 25, Ned. 67a] ואם בית אישה נדרה: בנשואה הכתוב מדבר:
12and her husband heard and remained silent, and did not hinder her, all her vows shall stand, and every prohibition she imposed upon herself shall stand. יבוְשָׁמַע אִישָׁהּ וְהֶחֱרִשׁ לָהּ לֹא הֵנִיא אֹתָהּ וְקָמוּ כָּל נְדָרֶיהָ וְכָל אִסָּר אֲשֶׁר אָסְרָה עַל נַפְשָׁהּ יָקוּם:
13If her husband revokes them on the day he hears them, anything issuing from her lips regarding her vows or self imposed prohibitions shall not stand; her husband has revoked them and the Lord shall forgive her. יגוְאִם הָפֵר יָפֵר אֹתָם | אִישָׁהּ בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ כָּל מוֹצָא שְׂפָתֶיהָ לִנְדָרֶיהָ וּלְאִסַּר נַפְשָׁהּ לֹא יָקוּם אִישָׁהּ הֲפֵרָם וַיהֹוָה יִסְלַח לָהּ:
14Any vow or any binding oath of self affliction, her husband can either uphold it or revoke it. ידכָּל נֵדֶר וְכָל שְׁבֻעַת אִסָּר לְעַנֹּת נָפֶשׁ אִישָׁהּ יְקִימֶנּוּ וְאִישָׁהּ יְפֵרֶנּוּ:
Any vow or any binding oath of self-affliction: Since it says that the husband may revoke, I might think this includes all vows? Scripture therefore says, “of self-affliction”-he can revoke only vows of self-affliction. They are delineated in Tractate Nedarim (79a). כל נדר וכל שבועת אסר וגו': לפי שאמר שהבעל מפר, יכול כל נדרים במשמע, תלמוד לומר לענות נפש, אינו מפר אלא נדרי ענוי נפש בלבד. והם מפורשים במסכת נדרים (דף עט א):
15However, if her husband remained silent from day to day, he has upheld all the vows and prohibitions she has assumed; he has upheld them since he remained silent on the day he heard it. טווְאִם הַחֲרֵשׁ יַחֲרִישׁ לָהּ אִישָׁהּ מִיּוֹם אֶל יוֹם וְהֵקִים אֶת כָּל נְדָרֶיהָ אוֹ אֶת כָּל אֱסָרֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיהָ הֵקִים אֹתָם כִּי הֶחֱרִשׁ לָהּ בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ:
from day to day: So that you should not say that [he has the power to revoke] for a twenty-four hour period, it says, “from day to day” to inform you that he may revoke only until nightfall. — [Ned. 76b] מיום אל יום: שלא תאמר מעת לעת, לכך נאמר מיום אל יום, ללמדך שאין מפר אלא עד שתחשך:
16If he revokes them after having heard [them], he shall bear her iniquity. טזוְאִם הָפֵר יָפֵר אֹתָם אַחֲרֵי שָׁמְעוֹ וְנָשָׂא אֶת עֲוֹנָהּ:
after having heard them: After he heard and upheld [them], by saying,“I approve of it” and then he retracted and revoked it, even on that very day. — [Sifrei Mattoth 30] אחרי שמעו: אחרי ששמע וקיים, שאמר אפשי בו, וחזר והפר לה אפילו בו ביום:
he shall bear her iniquity: He takes her place. We learn from here that if someone causes his fellow to stumble, he bears his punishments in his place. — [Sifrei Mattoth 30] ונשא את עונה: הוא נכנס תחתיה. למדנו מכאן שהגורם תקלה לחבירו הוא נכנס תחתיו לכל עונשין:
17These are the statutes which the Lord commanded Moses concerning a man and his wife, a father and his daughter, in her youth, while in her father's house. יזאֵלֶּה הַחֻקִּים אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ בֵּין אָב לְבִתּוֹ בִּנְעֻרֶיהָ בֵּית אָבִיהָ:
Chapter 31
1The Lord spoke to Moses saying, אוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
2"Take revenge for the children of Israel against the Midianites; afterwards you will be gathered to your people." בנְקֹם נִקְמַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֵת הַמִּדְיָנִים אַחַר תֵּאָסֵף אֶל עַמֶּיךָ:
against the Midianites: But not against the Moabites, for the Moabites were involved in the matter out of fear, since they were afraid of being plundered by them, because all it says is, “do not provoke them into battle” (Deut. 2:9), but the Midianites were angered over a dispute which did not concern them (See Sifrei Mattoth 33). Another interpretation: Because of the two good doves [virtuous proselytes] whom I have [in mind] to bring forth from them, [namely] Ruth the Moabitess and Naamah the Ammonitess (I Kings 14: 21). - [B.K. 38b] מאת המדינים: ולא מאת המואבים, שהמואבים נכנסו לדבר מחמת יראה שהיו יראים מהם, שיהיו שוללים אותם, שלא נאמר אלא (דברים ב, ט) אל תתגר בם מלחמה. אבל מדינים נתעברו על ריב לא להם. דבר אחר מפני שתי פרידות טובות שיש לי להוציא מהם, רות המואביה ונעמה העמונית:
3So Moses spoke to the people, saying, "Arm from among you men for the army, that they can be against Midian, and carry out the revenge of the Lord against Midian. גוַיְדַבֵּר משֶׁה אֶל הָעָם לֵאמֹר הֵחָלְצוּ מֵאִתְּכֶם אֲנָשִׁים לַצָּבָא וְיִהְיוּ עַל מִדְיָן לָתֵת נִקְמַת יְהֹוָה בְּמִדְיָן:
Moses spoke: Although he heard that his death depended on the matter, he did it joyfully, without delay. — [Sifrei Mattoth 34, Mid. Tanchuma Mattoth 3, Num. Rabbah 22:2] וידבר משה וגו': אף על פי ששמע שמיתתו תלויה בדבר עשה בשמחה ולא איחר:
arm: Heb. הֵחָלְצוּ, as the Targum [Onkelos renders זְרִיזוּ], in the sense of “armed for battle” (verse 5), armed with weapons. — [See Sifrei Mattoth 34] החלצו: כתרגומו לשון חלוצי צבא מזויינים:
men: Righteous men. Similarly, “choose men for us” (Exod. 17:9), and“men who are wise and renowned” (Deut. 1:15). - [Mid. Tanchuma Mattoth 3, Sifrei Mattoth 36, Num. Rabbah 22:2] אנשים: צדיקים, וכן (שמות יז, ט) בחר לנו אנשים, וכן (דברים א, טו) אנשים חכמים וידועים:
the revenge of the Lord: For anyone opposing Israel is reckoned as opposing the Holy One, blessed is He. — [See Mid. Tanchuma Mattoth 3, Num. Rabbah 22:2] נקמת ה': שהעומד כנגד ישראל, כאלו עומד כנגד הקב"ה:
4A thousand for each tribe, a thousand for each tribe, from all the tribes of Israel you shall send into the army." דאֶלֶף לַמַּטֶּה אֶלֶף לַמַּטֶּה לְכֹל מַטּוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל תִּשְׁלְחוּ לַצָּבָא:
from all the tribes: including the tribe of Levi. — [Sifrei Mattoth 35] לכל מטות ישראל: לרבות שבט לוי:
5From the thousands of Israel one thousand was given over for each tribe, twelve thousand armed for battle. הוַיִּמָּסְרוּ מֵאַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶלֶף לַמַּטֶּה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר אֶלֶף חֲלוּצֵי צָבָא:
was given over: Heb. וַיִּמָּסְרוּ. [The passive form is used] to inform you of the virtues of the Israelite shepherds [leaders]-how cherished they were by Israel. When they had not yet heard of his death, what did he say? “Just a little longer and they will stone me” (Exod. 17:4). But as soon as they heard that Moses’ demise was contingent upon the revenge against Midian, they refused to go, until they were given over against their will. — [Sifrei Mattoth 36, Mid. Tanchuma Mattoth 3, Num. Rabbah 22:3] וימסרו: להודיעך שבחן של רועי ישראל כמה הם חביבים על ישראל, עד שלא שמעו במיתתו מה הוא אומר (שמות יז, ד) עוד מעט וסקלוני, ומששמעו שמיתת משה תלויה בנקמת מדין, לא רצו ללכת עד שנמסרו על כרחן:
6Moses sent them the thousand from each tribe to the army, them along with Phinehas the son of Eleazar the kohen to the army, with the sacred utensils and the trumpets for sounding in his possession. ווַיִּשְׁלַח אֹתָם משֶׁה אֶלֶף לַמַּטֶּה לַצָּבָא אֹתָם וְאֶת פִּינְחָס בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן לַצָּבָא וּכְלֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ וַחֲצֹצְרוֹת הַתְּרוּעָה בְּיָדוֹ:
them along with Phinehas: This shows that Phinehas equaled them all (Sifrei Mattoth 34). Why did Phinehas go, and Eleazar did not go? The Holy One, blessed is He, said, “The one who began the mitzvah by killing Cozbi the daughter of Zur, should finish it” (Mid. Tanchuma Mattoth 3). Another interpretation: He sought the vengeance of Joseph, his maternal grandfather, for it says, “And the Medanites sold him” (Gen. 37:36) (Sifrei Mattoth 34, Sotah 43a). How do we know that the Phinehas’s mother was [descended] from Joseph? Because it says,“[Eleazar the son of Aaron took himself one] of the daughters of Putiel (פּוּטִיאֵל)” (Exod. 6:25) [meaning] of the descendants of Jethro, who fattened (פִּטֵּם) calves for idolatry, and from the descendants of Joseph, who made light of (פִּטְפֵּט) his passion and prevailed over it [when he was tempted by Potiphar’s wife]. Another interpretation: He was [the kohen] anointed for war. — [Sotah 43a] אותם ואת פינחס: מגיד שהיה פינחס שקול כנגד כולם. ומפני מה הלך פינחס ולא הלך אלעזר. אמר הקב"ה מי שהתחיל במצוה, שהרג כזבי בת צור, יגמור. דבר אחר שהלך לנקום נקמת יוסף אבי אמו, שנאמר (בראשית לז, לו) והמדנים מכרו אותו. ומנין שהיתה אמו של פנחס משל יוסף, שנאמר (שמות ו, כה) מבנות פוטיאל, מזרע יתרו שפיטם עגלים לעבודה זרה ומזרע יוסף שפטפט ביצרו. דבר אחר שהיה משוח מלחמה:
the sacred utensils: The holy Ark (Sifrei Mattoth 34, Num. Rabbah 22:4) and the golden showplate (Mid. Aggadah), since Balaam was with them and through sorcery was able to make the Midianite kings fly, and he flew along with them, he [Phinehas] showed them the showplate on which God’s Name was engraved, and they fell down [to earth]. For this reason it says, concerning the Midianite kings, “upon their slain” (verse 8), for they fell from the air on top of those slain. Likewise, it says in the book of Joshua (13:22) in connection with Balaam,“upon (sic) their slain.” - [Mid. Tanchuma Mattoth 4] וכלי הקדש: זה הארון והציץ. שהיה בלעם עמהם ומפריח מלכי מדין בכשפים, והוא עצמו פורח עמהם. הראה להם את הציץ, שהשם חקוק בו, והם נופלים, לכך נאמר על חלליהם במלכי מדין, שנופלים על החללים מן האויר, וכן בבלעם כתיב (יהושע יג, כב) אל חלליהם:
in his possession: Heb. בְּיָדוֹ, lit. in his hand, [here] in his possession. Similarly,“taking all his land from his possession (מִיָּדוֹ) ” (Num. 21: 26). - [Sifrei Mattoth 37] בידו: ברשותו וכן (במדבר כא, כז) ויקח את כל ארצו מידו:
7They mounted an attack against Midian, as the Lord had commanded Moses, and they killed every male. זוַיִּצְבְּאוּ עַל מִדְיָן כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה וַיַּהַרְגוּ כָּל זָכָר:
8And they killed the Midianite kings upon their slain: Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian, and Balaam the son of Beor they slew with the sword. חוְאֶת מַלְכֵי מִדְיָן הָרְגוּ עַל חַלְלֵיהֶם אֶת אֱוִי וְאֶת רֶקֶם וְאֶת צוּר וְאֶת חוּר וְאֶת רֶבַע חֲמֵשֶׁת מַלְכֵי מִדְיָן וְאֵת בִּלְעָם בֶּן בְּעוֹר הָרְגוּ בֶּחָרֶב:
the five kings of Midian: Do I not see that the verse lists five [kings]? Why was it necessary [for Scripture] to say “five”? But it is to teach you that they were all equally involved in the conspiracy, and they all received the same punishment. Balaam went there [to Midian] to receive his reward for the twenty-four thousand that had fallen from Israel as a result of his advice, and now he left Midian to meet the Israelites, and he offered them harmful advice. He said to them, “If, when you were six hundred thousand, you could not overcome them, and now with twelve thousand, you come to fight?” They gave him his just deserts-in full, without depriving him in the least. — [Sifrei Mattoth 40] חמשת מלכי מדין: וכי איני רואה שחמשה מנה הכתוב, למה הוזקק לומר חמשת, אלא ללמדך ששוו כולם בעצה והושוו כולם בפורענות. בלעם הלך שם ליטול שכר עשרים וארבעה אלף שהפיל מישראל בעצתו, ויצא ממדין לקראת ישראל ומשיאן עצה רעה. אמר להם אם כשהייתם ששים רבוא לא יכולתם להם, ועכשיו בי"ב אלף אתם באים להלחם. נתנו לו שכרו משלם ולא קפחוהו:
with the sword: He came against Israel and exchanged his craft for theirs. For they are victorious only with their mouths, through prayer and supplication, and he came and adopted their craft to curse them with his mouth. So they too came against him by exchanging their craft for the craft of the nations, who come with the sword, as it says [concerning Esau],“And you shall live by your sword” (Gen. 27:40). - [See Mid. Tanchuma Balak 8] בחרב: הוא בא על ישראל, והחליף אומנתו באומנותם, שאין נושעים אלא בפיהם ע"י תפלה ובקשה. ובא הוא ותפש אומנותם לקללם בפיו, אף הם באו עליו והחליפו אומנותם באומנות האומות, שבאין בחרב, שנאמר (בראשית כז, מ) ועל חרבך תחיה:
9The children of Israel took the Midianite women and their small children captive, and they plundered all their beasts, livestock, and all their possessions. טוַיִּשְׁבּוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת נְשֵׁי מִדְיָן וְאֶת טַפָּם וְאֵת כָּל בְּהֶמְתָּם וְאֶת כָּל מִקְנֵהֶם וְאֶת כָּל חֵילָם בָּזָזוּ:
10They set fire to all their residential cities and their castles. יוְאֵת כָּל עָרֵיהֶם בְּמוֹשְׁבֹתָם וְאֵת כָּל טִירֹתָם שָׂרְפוּ בָּאֵשׁ:
their castles: Heb. בְּטִירֹתָם, the place of their notaries (נוֹטֵירִין), [or the place of their palaces (פַּלְטֵירִין)] which is an expression denoting the residence of the priests, knowledgeable in their laws. Another interpretation: The residence of their lords, for the Targum renders“the lords of the Philistines” פְלִשְׁתִּים) (סַרְנֵי (I Sam. 6:4) as טוּרְנֵי פְלשְׁתָּאֵי. - [See Sifrei Mattoth 41] טירתם: מקום פלטרין שלהם, שהוא לשון מושב כומרים יודעי חוקיהם. דבר אחר לשון מושב שריהם, כמו שמתורגם סרני פלשתים טורני פלשתאי:
11They took all the booty and all the plunder of man and beast. יאוַיִּקְחוּ אֶת כָּל הַשָּׁלָל וְאֵת כָּל הַמַּלְקוֹחַ בָּאָדָם וּבַבְּהֵמָה:
They took all the booty: This teaches us that they were virtuous and righteous, and were not suspect of theft, to appropriate the booty without permission, for it says, “ all the booty” (Sifrei Mattoth 42). In tradition, [i.e., in the Prophets and the Writings] Scripture explicitly refers to them, [for it says,]“your teeth are like a flock of ewes…” (Song 6: 6)-even your warriors; they are all righteous. — [See Rashi on Song 6:6] ויקחו את כל השלל וגו': מגיד שהיו כשרים וצדיקים ולא נחשדו על הגזל לשלוח יד בבזה שלא ברשות, שנאמר את כל השלל וגו', ועליהם מפורש בקבלה שניך כעדר הרחלים וגו', אף אנשי המלחמה שביך כולם צדיקים:
booty: Heb. שָׁלָל, movable objects such as garments and ornaments. שלל: הן מטלטלין של מלבוש ותכשיטין:
spoil: Heb. בָּז denotes plunder of movable objects which are not ornaments. בז: הוא ביזת מטלטלין שאינם תכשיטין:
plunder: Heb. מַלְקוֹחַ, man and beast, but when“captives” (שְׁבִי) is mentioned together with“plunder” (מַלְקוֹחַ) , the “captives” refers to people and the “plunder” to animals. מלקוח: אדם ובהמה. ובמקום שכתוב שבי אצל מלקוח, שבי באדם ומלקוח בבהמה:
12They brought the captives, the plunder, and the booty to Moses and to Eleazar the kohen and to the entire community of Israel in the camp, in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho. יבוַיָּבִאוּ אֶל משֶׁה וְאֶל אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַשְּׁבִי וְאֶת הַמַּלְקוֹחַ וְאֶת הַשָּׁלָל אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה אֶל עַרְבֹת מוֹאָב אֲשֶׁר עַל יַרְדֵּן יְרֵחוֹ:Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapter 119, Verses 1-96
• Verses 1-96
David composed this prominent psalm in alphabetical sequence-eight verses for each letter. Every verse contains one of the following words (referring to different aspects of Torah): Way; Torah; Testimony; Precept; Commandment; Statement (translated here as Word or Promise); Word; Judgement (or Laws); Righteousness; Statute. Replete with morals and prayers, this psalm should be recited daily, as a powerful preparation for the service of God. (In verses beginning with one of the letters of the mnemonic PeReTZ BeN DaMaH, the word "עדותיך" is pronounced "eidvotecha.")
1. Fortunate are those whose way is artless, who walk with the Torah of the Lord.
2. Fortunate are those who keep His testimonies, who seek Him with all their hearts.
3. Indeed, they have not done iniquity; they walk in His ways.
4. You have commanded Your precepts to be observed diligently.
5. My wish is that my ways be directed to keep Your statutes.
6. Then I will not be ashamed, when I behold all Your commandments.
7. I will give thanks to You with uprightness of heart, when I learn Your righteous judgments.
8. I will keep Your statutes; do not utterly forsake me
9. How can a young man keep his way pure? By observing Your word.
10. With all my heart I have sought You; do not let me stray from Your commandments.
11. I have harbored Your word in my heart, that I might not sin against You.
12. Blessed are You, O Lord; teach me Your statutes.
13. With my lips I have declared all the judgments of Your mouth.
14. I have rejoiced in the way of Your testimonies, as I would with all riches.
15. I will speak of Your precepts, and gaze upon Your ways.
16. I will delight in Your statutes; I will not forget Your word.
17. Deal kindly with Your servant, that I may live to keep Your word.
18. Unveil my eyes, that I may behold wonders from Your Torah.
19. I am a sojourner on earth; do not hide Your commandments from me.
20. My soul is crushed with a longing for Your judgments every moment.
21. You have rebuked the accursed scoffers, those who stray from Your commandments.
22. Remove insult and contempt from me, for I have kept Your testimonies.
23. Though princes sat and spoke against me, Your servant speaks of Your statutes.
24. Indeed, Your testimonies are my delight; they are my counsellors.
25. My soul cleaves to the dust; revive me in accordance with Your word.
26. I have spoken of my ways, and You answered me; teach me Your statutes.
27. Make me understand the way of Your precepts, and I will speak of Your wonders.
28. My soul drips away out of grief; sustain me according to Your word.
29. Remove from me the way of falsehood, and graciously endow me with Your Torah.
30. I have chosen the way of faith; Your judgments have I laid before me.
31. I held fast to Your testimonies, O Lord; put me not to shame.
32. I will run on the path of Your commandments, for You will broaden my heart.
33. Teach me, O Lord, the way of Your statutes, and I will keep it to the last.
34. Grant me understanding and I will keep Your Torah; I will observe it with all my heart.
35. Direct me in the path of Your commandments, for that is my desire.
36. Incline my heart to Your testimonies, and not to greed.
37. Avert my eyes from seeing vanity; by Your ways give me life.
38. Fulfill for Your servant Your promise, which brings to the fear of You.
39. Remove my shame which I fear, for Your judgments are good.
40. Behold, I have longed for Your precepts; give me life in Your righteousness.
41. And let Your kindness come to fruition for me, O Lord, Your salvation as You promised.
42. I will offer a retort to those who taunt me, for I trust in Your word.
43. Do not at all remove the word of truth from my mouth, for I hope [to fulfill] Your judgments.
44. I will keep Your Torah continually, for ever and ever.
45. And I will walk in spacious paths, for I seek Your precepts.
46. I will speak of Your testimonies before kings, and I will not be ashamed.
47. And I will delight in Your commandments, which I love.
48. I will lift up my hands to Your commandments, which I love, and I will speak of Your statutes.
49. Remember the word [promised] to Your servant, by which You gave me hope.
50. This is my comfort in my affliction, for Your word has given me life.
51. [Though] the wicked ridicule me severely, I have not strayed from Your Torah.
52. When I remember Your judgments of old, O Lord, I take comfort.
53. Trembling seized me because of the wicked, those who forsake Your Torah.
54. Your statutes have been my songs in the house of my wanderings.
55. At night I remembered Your Name, O Lord, and I kept Your Torah.
56. All this came to me because I kept Your precepts.
57. The Lord is my portion; I pledged to keep Your words.
58. I pleaded before You with all my heart: have compassion upon me according to Your word.
59. I contemplated my ways, and returned my feet to Your testimonies.
60. I hurried and did not delay to keep Your commandments.
61. Bands of wicked men plundered me, [but] I did not forget Your Torah.
62. At midnight, I rise to thank You for Your righteous judgments.
63. I am a friend to all who fear You, and to those who keep Your precepts.
64. Your kindness, O Lord, fills the earth; teach me Your statutes.
65. You have dealt goodness to Your servant, O Lord, in accord with Your promise.
66. Teach me the goodness and wisdom of the [Torah's] reasons, for I believe in Your commandments.
67. Before I afflicted myself, I would blunder; but now I observe Your word.
68. You are good and benevolent; teach me Your statutes.
69. The wicked have smeared me with lies, [when in truth] I keep Your precepts with all my heart.
70. Their hearts grew thick as fat; but as for me, Your Torah is my delight.
71. It is for my good that I was afflicted, so that I might learn Your statutes.
72. The Torah of Your mouth is better for me than thousands in gold and silver.
73. Your hands have made me and prepared me; grant me understanding, that I may learn Your commandments.
74. Those who fear You will see me and rejoice, because I hoped in Your word.
75. I know, O Lord, that Your judgments are just; righteously have You afflicted me.
76. Let Your kindness be my comfort, as You promised to Your servant.
77. Let Your mercies come upon me, that I may live, for Your Torah is my delight.
78. Let the scoffers be shamed, for they have maligned me with falsehood; but I will meditate upon Your precepts.
79. May those who fear You return to me, and those who know Your testimonies.
80. May my heart be perfect in Your statutes, so that I not be shamed.
81. My soul longs for Your salvation; I hope for Your word.
82. My eyes long for Your promise, saying, "When will You comfort me?”
83. Though I became [dried out] like a wineskin in smoke, I did not forget Your statutes.
84. How many are the days of Your servant? When will You execute judgment upon my pursuers?
85. The wicked have dug pits for me, in violation of Your Torah.
86. All Your commandments teach truth, [yet] they pursue me with lies, help me!
87. They nearly consumed me upon the earth, but I did not forsake Your precepts.
88. As befits Your kindness, grant me life, and I will keep the testimony of Your mouth.
89. Forever, O Lord, Your word stands firm in the heavens.
90. Your faithfulness persists for all generations; You established the earth, and it stands.
91. They stand ready today [to execute] Your judgments, for all are Your servants.
92. Had Your Torah not been my delight, I would have perished in my affliction.
93. Never will I forget Your precepts, for through them You have sustained me.
94. I am Yours; save me, for I have sought Your precepts.
95. The wicked hope to destroy me, but I meditate upon Your testimonies.
96. To every goal I have seen a limit, but Your commandment is immensely broad.
Tanya: Igeret HaTeshuva , Chapter 9• Lessons in Tanya
• Sunday, Tammuz 25, 5775 · 12 July 2015
• Daily Tanya
• Igeret HaTeshuva , Chapter 9
The Alter Rebbe explained at the conclusion of the previous chapter that through teshuvah ila'ah, the higher level of repentance, the soul is totally cleansed and purified. It then ascends and cleaves to G-d with the same degree of unity that it enjoyed before it descended into the body. Furthermore, the Alter Rebbe quoted the Zohar to the effect that teshuvah ila'ah involves studying Torah with awe and love of G-d.
In the fourth chapter, however, he explained that teshuvah ila'ah involves reinstating the higher letter hei of the Tetragrammaton. What possible connection does this have with studying Torah out of love and fear of G-d, when these two spiritual emotions are related to the letter vav?
In order to resolve this seeming anomaly, the Alter Rebbe will now explain that the love and fear discussed in the present chapter are generated intellectually: they result from meditation upon G-d's greatness, and are thus the offspring of Binah. It is specifically this kind of love and fear that unites the hei and the vav — the intellect with the resulting emotions.
וביאור הענין, כמו שכתוב בזוהר הקדוש ותיקונים בכמה מקומות
The explanation of this subject — which levels of love and fear are related to the upperhei — is as discussed frequently in the Zohar and Tikunnim
דבינה איהי תשובה עילאה
that Binah is the higher level of teshuvah,
והאם רובצת על האפרוחים וכו'
“the mother crouching over the chicks….1”
I.e., Binah is the mother of her offspring — the love and fear of G-d.
דהיינו שעל ידי שמתבונן בגדולת ה' בהעמקת הדעת
One ought to meditate profoundly and with concentration on the greatness of G-d
ומוליד מרוח בינתו דחילו ורחימו שכליים
and through his comprehension arouse a sense of intellectual awe and love
ובטוב טעם ודעת
on rational grounds.
כענין שנאמר: לאהבה את ה' אלקיך משום כי הוא חייך וגו'
This love is that of the verse,2 “To love the L-rd your G-d…. because He is your life….” — a love based on a reason.
ולא די לו באהבה טבעית המסותרת לבד וכו'
He will not be content with the endowed, latent love alone….
This is concealed in the heart of every Jew and needs but to be revealed; such a worshipper, though, creates instead a love of G-d through his own intellectual endeavor.
וכן ביראה ופחד
So too with fear and terror of G-d
או בושה וכו' כנודע
or shame…. as is known.
This is a deeper form of awe in which one feels abashed in G-d's presence, hence fearing to rebel against Him by sinning.
When one's spiritual emotions of love and fear are born in the mind, then]:
אזי נקראת האם רובצת על האפרוחי' וכו'
this is termed “the mother crouching over the chicks….” Binah has given birth and hovers over her offspring — the love and fear of G-d.
והנה עיקר האהבה היא אתדבקות רוחא ברוחא
Ahavah, the love of G-d, is primarily the cleaving of spirit to Spirit,3
כמו שכתוב: ישקני מנשיקות פיהו וגו' כנודע
as the verse expresses it,4 “He kisses me with the kisses of his mouth….”
A physical kiss unites the inner breath or spirit of two individuals. Similarly, the internal aspects of the soul and G-dliness are united through the “breath” or speech of Torah, through good deeds, and more specifically through the concentrated study of Torah, as explained in Part I, Chapter 45.
ועל זה נאמר: ובכל נפשך
With regard to this [cleaving of spirit to Spirit] the verse says5 [that “you shall love the L-rd your G-d….] with all your soul,”
שהם הם כל חלקי הנפש, שכל ומדות ולבושיהם מחשבה דיבור ומעשה, לדבקה כולן בו יתברך
which means that the love is to be so intense that all aspects of the soul — intellect and emotions, and their garbs of thought, speech and deed — are to cleave to G-d.
דהיינו: המדות במדותיו יתברך מה הוא רחום וכו'
This means that man's emotive faculties are to be bound up with His6 — “As He is merciful [so should you be merciful]…”
Thus when a person acts kindly out of the attribute of compassion, for example. this emotive faculty of his is bound up with G-d's.
והשכל בשכלו וחכמתו יתברך
So, too, man's intellect adheres to G-d's intellect and wisdom;
הוא עיון התורה דאורייתא מחכמה נפקא
this refers to the concentrated study of Torah, for7 “the Torah issues from Wisdom.”
וכן המחשבה במחשבתו יתברך
So, too, is man's thought [to be united] with G-d's,
והדיבור בדבר ה' זו הלכה
and his speech [is to be unified with]8 “the word of G-d, which is the Halachah,”
וכמו שכתוב: ואשים דברי בפיך
as in the passages which speak of the Torah:9 “I have placed My word in your mouth,”
ודברי אשר שמתי בפיך
and10 “My words that I have placed in your mouth.”
והמעשה הוא מעשה הצדקה
Man's deeds [shall likewise be united with His deeds] through works of charity,
להחיות רוח שפלים
to revive the spirit of the crestfallen,
Acting thus unites man with His Maker, for He too provides life and “revives the spirit” of created beings",
כמו שכתוב: כי ששת ימים עשה ה' וגו' כנודע במקום אחר
as the verse states11 “For six days G-d wrought….,” as is explained elsewhere.
The expression used concerning G-d's activity during the Six Days of Creation — a verb expressing action and doing — indicates that the Divine powers had to descend even to the nethermost level of mere action, in order to create and vitalize the inconsequential beings of creation.
וזו היא אתדבקות דרוחא ברוחא, בתכלית הדביקות ויחוד, כשהיא מחמת אהבה וכו'
This is the cleaving of spirit to Spirit — the ultimate attachment and union that result from love….
Ultimate union with G-d through Torah study is attained only when it is the result of love. Thus, while it is true that when one studies Torah simply out of one's acceptance of the Yoke of Heaven he also achieves a measure of the cleaving of spirit of Spirit, this cannot compare to the degree of attachment that is attained when the same study is motivated by a love of G-d. Hence, sinceteshuvah ila'ah is a manifestation of the soul's ultimate attachment with G-d, it follows that “Teshuva ila'ah means engaging in the study of Torah in awe and love of the Holy One, blessed be He,” as the Zohar teaches.
ולפי שפגם הברית בהוצאת זרע לבטלה
Since the violation of the covenant through wasteful emission,
ואין צריך לומר בעריות, או שאר איסורי ביאה דאורייתא או דרבנן
to say nothing of incestuous relations, or other unions prohibited by the Torah or the Sages
(כי חמורים דברי סופרים וכו')
(12 for13 “the words i.e. the prohibitions of the Sages are more grave [than even the words i.e., the prohibitions of the Torah]”),
פוגם במוח
causes a blemish in the mind,
לכן תיקונו הוא, דיתעסק באורייתא דמחכמה נפקא
therefore his rectification is secured by engaging in the study of the Torah, which derives from Wisdom.
This explains why it was stated in Chapter 4 that only teshuvah ila'ah — “engaging in the study of the Torah in awe and love of the Holy One, blessed be He” — is effective in remedying this sin.
וזהו שכתוב בתנא דבי אליהו: אדם עבר עבירה ונתחייב מיתה למקום, מה יעשה ויחיה
We threfore find in Tana devei Eliyahu:14 "A man commits a sin and is liable to death before Al-mighty (for the above-mentioned sin carries with it the punishment of death by Divine agency); what shall he do and live?
אם היה רגיל לקרות דף אחד יקרא ב' דפים, לשנות פרק אחד ישנה ב' פרקים וכו'
If he was accustomed to studying one page [of Written Law], let him study two; if he was accustomed to studying one chapter [of the Oral Law], let his study two chapters…."
Why is sin punishable by death by Divine agency, such as the sin of wasteful emission, rectifiable by an increase in Torah study?
והיינו: כמשל חבל הנפסק וחוזר וקושרו
This resembles a rope that is severed and then reknotted:
שבמקום הקשר הוא כפול ומכופל
the site of the knot is twofold and fourfold thicker than the rest of the rope.
וככה הוא בחבל נחלתו וכו'
So it is with the “rope of [G-d's] heritage,” with the soul's bond with its Source.
If this relationship was severed by sin, then repentance must reknot the cord doubly and fourfold. And this is accomplished through the study of the Torah.
וזהו שאמר הכתוב: בחסד ואמת יכופר עון וכו'
Thus Scripture states,15 “Through kindness and truth is sin forgiven …..,”
ואין אמת אלא תורה
and16 “there is no truth but Torah….”
Thus it is through the study of Torah that sin is forgiven.
ועון בית עלי בזבח ומנחה הוא דאינו מתכפר, אבל מתכפר בתורה וגמילות חסדים
Similarly, on the statement in Scripture17 that “the sin of the house of Eli will not be atoned by sacrifices and offerings,” the Gemara comments: “By sacrifices and offerings will the sin of the House of Eli not be atoned, but it will be atoned through the study of Torah and through good deeds,”
כדאיתא בסוף פרק קמא דראש השנה
as explained at the end of the first chapter18 of Rosh HaShanah.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Devarim 22:6. |
| 2. | Ibid. 30:20. |
| 3. | Note of the Rebbe: “There are many differences between the way in which the `cleaving of spirit to Spirit' is explained here, and earlier on in chapter 49 [of Part I].” |
| 4. | Shir HaShirim 1:2. |
| 5. | Devarim 6:5. |
| 6. | Yerushalmi, Peah 1:1, et al. |
| 7. | Zohar I, 85a. |
| 8. | Shabbat 138b. |
| 9. | Yeshayahu 51:16. |
| 10. | Ibid. 59:12. |
| 11. | Shmot 20:11. |
| 12. | Parentheses are in the original text. |
| 13. | Cf. Sanhedrin 88b. |
| 14. | Cf. Vayikra Rabbah, beginning. of chapter 25. |
| 15. | Mishlei 16:6. |
| 16. | Cf. Berachot 5b. |
| 17. | I Shmuel 3:14. |
| 18. | In his glosses on Tanya, the Rebbe notes that the Alter Rebbe's reference to “the end of the first chapter” is somewhat problematic, for this statement appears four pages before the end of that chapter, on page 18a. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
• Sunday, Tammuz 25, 5775 · 12 July 2015
• Daily Mitzvah - P110
• Sunday, Tammuz 25, 5775 · July 12, 2015• Today's Mitzvah• A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 110
Purification from Tzaraat
We are commanded that the purification process for tzaraat, whether the sort that afflicts humans or the sort that afflicts houses, should be through the procedure detailed in the Torah. This procedure includes the taking of [a piece of wood from a] cedar tree, hyssop, crimson thread, two birds, and well water. Then we do with these items all that the Torah prescribes, after which the individual or the house is purified.
[For the human metzora,] this is the first step of the purification process. [See Positive Commandment 111 for the second and final step.]
Positive Commandment 110
Purification from Tzaraat
We are commanded that the purification process for tzaraat, whether the sort that afflicts humans or the sort that afflicts houses, should be through the procedure detailed in the Torah. This procedure includes the taking of [a piece of wood from a] cedar tree, hyssop, crimson thread, two birds, and well water. Then we do with these items all that the Torah prescribes, after which the individual or the house is purified.
[For the human metzora,] this is the first step of the purification process. [See Positive Commandment 111 for the second and final step.]
Purification from Tzaraat
Purification from Tzaraat
Positive Commandment 110
Translated by Berel Bell
The 110th mitzvah is that we are commanded that the purification of a metzora must follow the procedure given in Scripture,1 i.e. using cedar wood, hyssop, crimson wool, two birds, and well water in the manner described there. The same procedure is used to purify both people and houses, as explained in Scripture.
We have therefore explained2 that there are three procedures in the Torah to purify one who is tameh, one general and two which apply to specific types of tumah. The general one is purification [by immersion] in water [which is valid for a mikvah]. Any person who is tameh becomes tahor only after immersing in water. The second category is mei niddah [water mixed with ashes of the red heifer], which is specifically for those who have become tameh through contact with a dead body. The third category is that of cedar wood, hyssop, crimson wool, two birds, and well water, which is specifically for tzora'as.
The details of this mitzvah — i.e. the first purification3 of a metzora — are explained in tractate Negaim.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. Ch. 14.
2.In the order of Sefer HaMitzvos, they were listed sequentially in P108 (mei niddah), P109 (mikveh) and P110, this mitzvah.
3.In contrast with the second purification procedure. See following mitzvah.
• 1 Chapter: Ishut Ishut - Chapter Four
English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• 3 Chapters: Tum'at Tsara`at Tum'at Tsara`at - Chapter 8, Tum'at Tsara`at Tum'at Tsara`at - Chapter 9, Tum'at Tsara`at Tum'at Tsara`at - Chapter 10
Hayom Yom:
• Sunday, Tammuz 25, 5775 · 12 July 2015
"Today's Day"
Wednesday Tamuz 25 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Matot-Massai, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 119, 1-96.
Tanya: Ch. 7. In the true (p. 367) ...a "broken spirit." (p. 369).
There are two characteristic expressions in Chassidus:
(a) A Jew recognizes G-dliness and senses the supra-natural. He needs no proofs for these.
(b) A Jew neither wants nor is able to be sundered from G-dliness.1
The truth is that these two expressions are one and the same: A Jew recognizes G-dliness and senses the higher-than-natural, and that is why he neither wants nor can he be torn away from G-dliness.
FOOTNOTES
1. See Sivan 21.
Ishut - Chapter Four
Halacha 1
A woman may be consecrated only voluntarily. If one forces a woman to be consecrated, she is not consecrated. When a man, by contrast, is forced to consecrate [a woman], she is consecrated.1
A man may consecrate many women at one time, provided that he does so by [transferring] money, and there is enough money to give each one a p'rutah. One of these [women] or another person may accept the money on behalf of them all, [provided] they consent.
Halacha 2
When a person [desires to] consecrate a woman, and with her consent gives the kiddushin to another woman, and tells the latter "And you as well," or uses another similar expression, they are both consecrated.2
When, however, the man places [the kiddushin] in the hand [of the second woman] and says, "And you," there is doubt whether or not the kiddushin are valid. Perhaps his intent was only to clarify her feelings. It was as if he asked her, "What would you say about this?" Therefore, she accepted the kiddushin, for she thought he was still asking her about her intent. For this reason, [the question is unresolved,] and the status of the kiddushin is in doubt.
Halacha 3
If he told her, "Become consecrated to me with this dinar," and she took it and threw it in front of him or to the sea, into a fire or into anything that will cause it to be destroyed, she is not consecrated.3
Halacha 4
[In the above instance, if] the woman told the man, "Place [the kiddushin] on [this] rock," she is not consecrated. If the rock belonged to her, she is consecrated. If the rock belonged to both of them, [the question is unresolved, and] the status of the kiddushin is in doubt.
If he told her, "Be consecrated to me with this loaf of bread," and she told him, "Give it to a poor person," she is not consecrated. [This applies] even if she supports the poor person in question.
[If she told him,] "Give it to a dog," she is not consecrated.6 If the dog belonged to her, she is consecrated. If [the dog] was chasing after her and she told him, "Give it to this dog," [the question is unresolved, and] the status of the kiddushinis in doubt.
Halacha 5
[The following laws apply when a man] was selling produce, utensils or the like, and a woman came and asked him: "Give me some of these." If he asked her, "If I give them to you, will you be consecrated to me?" and she said, "Yes," she is consecrated when he gives [the items] to her. If, however, she replied to him: "[Just] give them to me," "Heave them over," or another reply that means "Don't fool around with me regarding such matters, just give me [what I asked for]," she is not consecrated although he gave her [what she asked for].
A similar [decision is rendered] if [a man] was drinking wine and [a woman] asked him, "Give me a cup," and he asks her, "If I do, will you be consecrated to me with it?" If she replies, "[Just] let me drink," "Give me," "Serve me drink," or "Dish it out," she is not consecrated. Her words imply: "Just give me a drink, and don't fool around with me regarding such matters."
Halacha 6
When [a man] consecrates [a woman] in the presence of a single witness, hiskiddushin] are of no consequence. [This applies] even when both [the man and the woman] acknowledge [that the kiddushin were given].7 Surely this applies when [a man] consecrates [a woman] without any witnesses at all [observing the act].
When [a man] consecrates [a woman] in the presence of individuals who are disqualified from serving as witnesses by Scriptural law, she is not consecrated. [When he consecrates her in the presence of] individuals who are disqualified from serving as witnesses by Rabbinic law,8 or in the presence of witnesses regarding whom there is doubt whether or not they are acceptable according to Scriptural law, [the following rules apply:] If he desires to consummate the marriage, he should consecrate the woman again in the presence of acceptable witnesses. If he does not desire to consummate the marriage, the woman must receive a get from him [to enable her to marry others], because of the doubt.9[This ruling applies] even when the woman denies [the matter], contradicting the witnesses and saying that she was never consecrated.
This ruling applies with regard to all situations in which the status of thekiddushin is in doubt. If [the man] desires to consummate the marriage, he should consecrate the woman again in a manner that is unequivocally acceptable. If he does not desire to consummate the marriage, the woman must receive a get from him, because of the doubt.
Halacha 7
When a minor consecrates [a woman], his kiddushin are of no consequence. When, by contrast, a male past the age of majority consecrates a girl below the age of majority who is an orphan,10 or who has left her father's authority,11[different rules apply]: If she is below the age of six, even if she is one who shows deep understanding of secret matters,12 and can differentiate and discern, she is not married, and there is no need for mi'un.13
If she is more than ten years old, even when she is very foolish, since she willingly accepted the kiddushin, she is consecrated [according to Rabbinic law] and [must perform] mi'un [should she desire to nullify the marriage]. If she is between the ages of six and ten, [the rabbis] must evaluate her ability to discern. If she is able to differentiate and discern with regard to matters of marriage and kiddushin, [the marriage is binding according to Rabbinic law] andmi'un is necessary. If she lacks [this degree of discernment], she is not consecrated [at all], and need not perform mi'un [to nullify the marriage].
Halacha 8
What is meant by the statement that she is consecrated [according to Rabbinic law], and [must perform] mi'un [should she desire to nullify the marriage]? If she was consecrated but no longer desires to remain with her husband, she must perform mi'un in the presence of two witnesses. She should say: "I no longer desire him." Afterwards, she leaves [the relationship] without a divorce, as will be explained in Hilchot Gerushin.14
Why does she leave [the relationship] without a divorce? Because the consecration is not absolutely binding according to Scriptural law; it is merely a Rabbinic institution. [According to Scriptural law, the outcome] is tentative. If she continues living with her husband until she reaches the age of majority, thekiddushin are finalized, and she becomes a married woman in the complete sense of the term.15 There is no need for [her husband] to consecrate her again after she attains majority. If she does not want [to continue] living with him, she must perform mi'un; she then leaves [the relationship] without a divorce.
Halacha 9
When a male deaf mute marries a mentally competent woman, or a female deaf mute marries a mentally competent man, the marriage bond is not absolutely binding according to Scriptural law; it is merely a Rabbinic institution. Therefore, if a mentally competent man consecrates the wife of a deaf mute man who is herself mentally competent, she is considered to be consecrated to the mentally competent man. He must give her a get, and she is permitted to remain married to her deaf mute husband.16
When, by contrast, a mentally incompetent man consecrates a mentally competent woman, or a mentally competent man consecrates a mentally incompetent woman, the marriage bond is not at all binding - neither according to Scriptural law nor according to Rabbinic law.17
Halacha 10
When a sexually impotent male - whether a s'ris chamah or a s'ris adam - consecrates [a woman], and similarly, when [a man] consecrates an aylonit, thekiddushin are absolutely binding.18
Halacha 11
When a tumtum or an androgynous consecrates a woman, or when either of these individuals has been consecrated by a man, there is doubt whether thesekiddushin are binding, and because of the doubt, a get is required.19
Halacha 12
When a person consecrates one of the women forbidden as arayot, his act is of no consequence. For kiddushin are not binding with regard to these forbidden relationships, with the exception of [kiddushin given] a niddah. When a man consecrates a niddah, the kiddushin are binding absolutely. It is, nevertheless, improper to do so.20
Halacha 13
When a married woman accepts kiddushin from another man in the presence of her husband, she is considered to be consecrated to the second man. For a woman's word is accepted when she tells her husband to his face that he had divorced her. We assume it axiomatically that a woman would not act so brazenly in her husband's presence [unless it were true].21
If, however, the other person consecrates her outside her husband's presence, these kiddushin are not considered to be binding unless she brings proof that she was divorced before she was consecrated. As long as she is outside her husband's presence, it is possible that she will act brazenly.
Halacha 14
When a man consecrates one of the shniyot or a woman forbidden because of a negative commandment [not associated with karet] or because of a positive commandment, the kiddushin are binding absolutely. [The same ruling applies when] a yavam consecrates a woman who was married to the same man as hisyevamah.22
There is one exception to the above principle: when a person other than [theyavam] consecrates a yevamah, [the question is unresolved, and] the status of the kiddushin is in doubt. For our Sages were unsure whether the kiddushin of a yevamah are valid, like those of others in which the relationship is forbidden by merely a negative commandment, or whether the kiddushin are of no consequence, as in the case of an incestuous relationship.
In all the situations mentioned above, although the man who gave the kiddushinis forbidden to consummate the marriage, he must terminate it by giving a get.
Halacha 15
[When] a man consecrates a gentile woman or a [Canaanite] maidservant, thekiddushin are of no consequence; the woman's status is the same after receiving the kiddushin as beforehand. Similarly, when a gentile or a [Canaanite] servant consecrates a Jewish woman, the kiddushin are of no consequence.
When an apostate Jew consecrates [a woman], his kiddushin are absolutely valid, despite the fact that he willingly worships a false deity. The woman must receive a get from him.23
Halacha 16
When a man consecrates a woman who is half a maidservant and half a free woman,24 she is not completely consecrated until she becomes [totally] free. Once she becomes free, the kiddushin are [automatically] completed, like thekiddushin of a minor who comes of age. There is no need for her to be consecrated again.
If another man consecrates such a woman after she was granted her freedom [before the person who consecrated her originally consummates their marriage], there is doubt regarding the matter,25 and the status of both theirkiddushin is in doubt.
Halacha 17
What then is a shifchah charufah [a betrothed maidservant] as described by the Torah [Leviticus 19:20]? A woman who is half a maidservant and half a free woman, who was consecrated by a Hebrew servant.
When a male who is half a servant and half a free man consecrates a woman, [the matter is unresolved, and] the status of the kiddushin is in doubt.
Halacha 18
When a drunk gives [a woman] kiddushin, they are valid, even if he is very drunk. If he reaches a state of drunkenness comparable to that of Lot,26 thekiddushin are of no consequence. This matter requires ample deliberation.
Halacha 19
When a man gives money worth less than a p'rutah as kiddushin, the kiddushinare not valid. When a man consecrates a woman with food or with a utensil worth less than a p'rutah, the status of the kiddushin is in doubt; perhaps thekiddushin are worth a p'rutah in another place.
From this one can deduce that whenever a person consecrates a woman with an article worth money, if it is worth a p'rutah in that country the kiddushin are definitely binding. If it is not worth a p'rutah [there], the status of the kiddushin is in doubt [as above].27
It appears to me that if [a man] consecrated [a woman] with cooked food, a vegetable that will not be preserved or the like, and the item is not worth ap'rutah in that place, the kiddushin are not binding at all. For by the time this item reaches another place, it will spoil and be worthless. This is a reasonable inference; one may rely on it.
Halacha 20
When [a man] consecrates a woman with less than a p'rutah's worth, or he consecrates two women with a p'rutah, the women are not consecrated. [This applies] even when he sends wedding presents [worth more than a p'rutah] afterwards. Similarly, when a minor consecrates a woman, the kiddushin are not valid, despite the fact that he sent marriage presents after he had attained majority. [This ruling was delivered because the presents] were sent because of the original kiddushin, which were invalid [and therefore are not considered to be significant in their own right].
Halacha 21
When [a man] consecrates a woman by [giving her] money or a legal document, he does not have to place the kiddushin in her hand. Instead, if she consents that he throw them to her and he does so, she is consecrated, whether he throws them into her hand, her bosom, her courtyard or her field.28
If she is standing in a domain belonging to her [prospective] husband, he must place them in her hand or in her bosom. If she is standing in a domain that belongs to both of them, and he threw kiddushin to her with her consent, but they did not reach her hand or her bosom, the status of the kiddushin is in doubt. Even when she tells him, "Put the kiddushin down in this place," if the place belongs to both of them the status of the kiddushin is in doubt.29
Halacha 22
[The following rules apply when the two] are standing in the public domain or in a domain that does not belong to either of them, and he throws kiddushin to her: If they are closer to him, she is not consecrated. If they are closer to her, she is consecrated. If they are halfway between the two of them, or if there is doubt whether they were closer to him or to her,30 and they were lost before they reached her hand, there is doubt regarding the status of the kiddushin.
What is meant by "closer to him," or "closer to her"? A situation in which he can guard [the kiddushin] and she cannot is considered as "closer to him." One in which she can guard them and he cannot is considered to be "closer to her."31One in which they can both guard them or neither can guard them is considered to be "halfway between the two of them."
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Bava Batra 48b states that since it was possible for a man to divorce his wife without her consent (in Talmudic times), there was no need for the Sages to abrogate the man's kiddushin. Even if he was forced into consecrating the woman, he could end their relationship at will. With regard to the woman, by contrast, since she cannot initiate a divorce, our Sages abrogated the marriage bond when she was compelled to establish it against her will.
|
| 2. |
The first woman is consecrated based on the principle stated in the following halachah, that a woman may tell a person to give the kiddushin to an agent acting on her behalf. The second woman is consecrated, because she accepted the kiddushin in silence, which is interpreted as acquiescence.
|
| 3. |
The fact that she discarded the kiddushin is a clear indication of her rejection of his proposal.
|
| 4. |
Telling the person to give the kiddushin to someone else also indicates that she does not desire them, nor the consequences of accepting them (Tosafot, Kiddushin 8b).
|
| 5. |
I.e., that the recipient should act as her agent.
|
| 6. |
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 30:11) quotes the opinion of the Tur, who maintains that if at the outset the woman says, "Put money down in this place and I will be consecrated to you," or "Give food to this dog and I will be consecrated to you," the status of the kiddushin is doubtful. Since the man spent money because of her wishes, one might presume that this can be compared to the law stated in the previous halachah. Nevertheless, since the kiddushin were not given to a person, it is possible that the comparison is not in place, and the kiddushin are not definitely binding. (See also Chapter 5, Halachah 21.)
|
| 7. |
The Ramah (Orach Chayim 42:2) quotes an opinion that requires stringency in such an instance, but states that leniency should be granted if following the stringent view will cause a woman great difficulty in getting married.
Although the need for witnesses with regard to marriage and divorce is derived from an analogy (gezerah shavah) to claims of monetary law, a difference exists between the two. With regard to a financial claim, no witnesses are necessary if both litigants agree regarding a matter.
As stated in this halachah, this concept does not apply with regard to the laws of marriage and divorce. Two rationales are given for this matter:
a) When the man and woman agree with regard to the establishment of a marriage bond, they are limiting the privileges of others, for they are unable to consecrate the woman. With regard to financial matters, by contrast, the rights of others are not restricted (Rashba).
b) There is a fundamental difference between the function of witnesses in cases involving financial matters and their function with regard to wedding and divorce. With regard to financial matters, the function of witnesses is to clarify the truth (eidei berur). With regard to marriage and divorce, by contrast, the witnesses' function is to notarize the event (eidei kiyyum). For a marriage bond to be established - or broken - even when the husband and wife agree that the event took place, witnesses must observe the proceedings (Tumim 90:14, Tzaphnat Paneach, Kallei HaTorah).
|
| 8. |
This ruling sheds light on a theme of larger scope: the interrelation between Rabbinic law and Scriptural law. For the fact that a woman needs a get to marry another person appears to indicate that according to Scriptural law, the kiddushin are effective.
|
| 9. |
Many of the manuscript copies and early printings of the Mishneh Torah state that the obligation to give a get is of Rabbinic origin. This view would appear to be supported by the Rambam's ruling in Chapter 5, Halachah 1.
|
| 10. |
If she is not an orphan and has never been married, the right to consecrate her belongs to her father, not to her.
|
| 11. |
I.e., she was married, the marriage was consummated, and then she was either divorced or widowed. In this and the above instance, the girl does not have sufficient authority to create a marriage bond that is binding according to Scriptural law. Nevertheless, a bond that is binding according to Rabbinic law may be established, as the halachah continues to explain.
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 155:2) quotes opinions that maintain that the above applies only when the girl's marriage was arranged by her brother or her mother. If she arranged the marriage herself, it is not binding, even according to Rabbinic law. The Ra'avad mentions a third opinion, which states that for a girl between the ages of six and ten, the marriage must be arranged by her family to be binding. After the age of ten, it is binding even if she arranged it herself.
|
| 12. |
Our translation is based on the commentary of Metzudot on Isaiah 3:3.
|
| 13. |
The annulment of a marriage that a girl below the age of majority initiates, as explained in the following halachah.
When a girl is below the age of six, we assume that she does not have sufficient understanding of the nature of marriage to make a commitment that is binding in any way.
|
| 14. |
Chapter 11, Halachah 8.
|
| 15. |
As the Rambam states in Hilchot Gerushin 11:6, if the girl reaches majority before she states that she desires to nullify the marriage bond, Rabbinic law requires her to receive a get before she marries another person. If she continues living with her husband and they engage in sexual relations after she attains majority, the marriage bond is binding according to Scriptural law.
|
| 16. |
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision, stating that the woman should not be allowed to remain married to her deaf mute husband. The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's decision, explaining that since the marriage of a deaf mute is a Rabbinic institution, our Sages did not impose the same restrictions that would apply had the marriage been effective according to Scriptural law.
Others state that the Rambam's ruling applies only when the mentally competent man merely consecrated the deaf mute's wife. If he consummated the marriage (nisu'in), the deaf mute is forbidden to continue living with her after her divorce.
|
| 17. |
Our Sages differentiated between the marriage of a deaf mute and that of a mentally incompetent person as follows: the marriage of a deaf mute may be harmonious and has the possibility of enduring. The marriage of a mentally incompetent person, by contrast, will surely be plagued by friction and will not endure. For a mentally competent will never be comfortable living with a mentally incompetent person. (See Chapter 11, Halachah 6 and Yevamot 112b.)
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 44:2) states that this is a sensitive matter, for it is difficult to determine when a person is completely incompetent or not.
|
| 18. |
All the terms mentioned in this halachah are explained in Chapter 2. Although s'ris adam (a person who has been castrated) is forbidden to marry, if he violates this prohibition, the marriage bond is binding and a get is required for severing the relationship. With regard to an aylonit, see Chapter 24, Halachot 1-2, and the accompanying notes.
|
| 19. |
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 44:5) quotes the Tur as stating that an androgynous is considered to be a male, and the kiddushin that he gives are binding.
|
| 20. |
This ruling is relevant in the present age, for it is frequent that a woman is a niddah at the time of a marriage. A wedding should never be planned to coincide with the woman's niddah state. Nevertheless, since weddings are often planned well in advance, and women's menstrual cycles are flexible, it is possible that the calculations will be in error, and the wedding will be scheduled for the time when the woman is a niddah. In such a situation, the commonly accepted ruling is to hold the wedding. Nevertheless, restrictions are placed on the couple's being in private until the woman purifies herself. Needless to say, sexual relations are forbidden.
|
| 21. |
The Ra'avad states that the woman's word should be accepted only insofar as to require her to receive a get from the second person. She is not allowed to marry him, nor may she collect herketubah from her first husband unless she proves that she has been divorced. The Ramah (Even HaEzer 17:2) states that in the present age, since brazen behavior is more common, the presumption upon which the Rambam's ruling rests is no longer a viable support.
|
| 22. |
The situation is as follows: A man who was married to two women died while childless. As required by Deuteronomy, Chapter 5, one of his brothers (the yavam) marries one of his widows (theyevamah). Afterwards, neither the yavam nor any other of the deceased's brothers is allowed to marry the deceased's second wife. (See Hilchot Yibbum 1:12.)
|
| 23. |
Rav David Cohen (Section 9, Responsum 1) states that the intent is that we are obligated to force the apostate to divorce his wife, lest he cause her to violate Torah law.
|
| 24. |
E.g., a Canaanite maidservant who was owned in partnership by two masters. One granted the woman her freedom, but the other did not.
|
| 25. |
Our translation follows the commentary of the Maggid Mishneh, who explains that there is a question whether or not the kiddushin of the first person are valid. Nevertheless, if the couple marry and consummate their relationship, this establishes their wedding bond.
|
| 26. |
Who was totally unaware of what he was doing (Genesis, Chapter 19).
|
| 27. |
The commentaries (see Beit Shmuel 31:6) debate the status of the kiddushin when one knows for a fact that they are worth a p'rutah in another place. Some maintain that they are absolutely binding, and others maintain that their status remains doubtful.
|
| 28. |
The Tur (Even HaEzer 30) states that the woman's field or courtyard must be protected. It is possible to state that this is the Rambam's opinion as well, and he relies on the statements he makes in Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 4:9 regarding giving a present (Kessef Mishneh). Nevertheless, it is possible to differentiate between the two and explain that the laws governingkiddushin are more lenient. The Beit Shmuel 30:3 maintains that this is the view of the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 30:1). See Chelkat Mechokeik 30:2.
|
| 29. |
Although this would not be acceptable with regard to a business transaction (Hilchot Mechirah, Chapter 4), an exception is made here, because of the possibility that the man lent the woman rights to his share of the property.
|
| 30. |
See the Beit Shmuel 29:9, which interprets this as meaning that two pairs of witnesses observed the throwing of the kiddushin, one maintained that the kiddushin were able to be guarded by the man, and one that they were able to be guarded by the woman. If, however, there was only one pair of witnesses, and they were unsure whether the woman could guard them, the kiddushin are not effective, because it is as if they were given without being observed by witnesses.
|
| 31. |
The Makneh states that the Rambam relies on his statements in Hilchot Gerushin 5:13, which state that the woman must be able to bend over and take the object. Others do not make such a stipulation.
|
English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• 3 Chapters: Tum'at Tsara`at Tum'at Tsara`at - Chapter 8, Tum'at Tsara`at Tum'at Tsara`at - Chapter 9, Tum'at Tsara`at Tum'at Tsara`at - Chapter 10
Tum'at Tsara`at - Chapter 8
Halacha 1
With regard to blemishes of the head and the chin, if the hair would fall out from its roots and leave a portion of skin bare of hair, it is called a netek. A netekmay not be less than the size of a gris that is square. This applies whether it appears deep or not. The term "deep" was mentioned with regard to a netekonly to teach you: Just as a shade that is deep comes about through the hand of heaven, so too, a netek must come about through the hand of heaven. This excludes a blemish on a portion of the head or chin whose hair was removed by a person. Such a blemish is pure.
When a woman or a seris grow hair on their chins, they can contract the impurity of a netek if it falls off.
Halacha 2
Netakim become impure due to two signs: short, golden hair and spreading. There is an isolation period of two weeks. All of this is explicitly stated in the Torah.
What is implied? When a netek appears on a man's head or in his beard, if it contains two or more short, gold hairs, and there is no black hair in the netek at all, he should be deemed definitively impure. If it did not contain any hair - neither black, nor golden - he should be isolated for a week. On the seventh day, a priest should examine him. If short golden hair emerged or the netekspread, the afflicted person should be deemed definitively as impure. If two black hairs emerged, he should be released from the inspection process.
If it neither spread and neither golden nor black hair emerged, the priest should shave around the netek, but not the hair directly adjacent to the netek and isolate him for a second week. The priest should examine him again at the end of the second week. If the netek spread or short golden hair emerged, he should be deemed definitively as impure. If nothing changes, he is released from the inspection process. For netakim do not require isolation for more than two weeks. If golden hair appears or the netek expands after he was released, he is definitively categorized as impure.
Halacha 3
How is the netek shaved? One shaves the area around it and leaves two hairs next to it on every side so that any spread will be noticeable.
This shaving is acceptable no matter which person performs it, as implied byLeviticus 13:33: "And he will be shaved." Similarly, the shaving may be performed with any instrument. Even if one is a nazirite, he should shave. If, however, he isolated him without shaving, the isolation is effective.
Halacha 4
The golden hair mentioned by the Torah must have a golden hue. The termdak mentioned there implies that the hair must be short. If, however, they were long, even though they are of a golden hue, it is not a sign of impurity.
Halacha 5
Two short golden hairs are a sign of impurity. Whether they are adjacent to each other or distant from each other, whether they are in the center of thenetek or at its extremities, whether the netek existed before the golden hair or the golden hair existed before the netek, they are a sign of impurity, provided they can be pulled out by tweezers, as explained with regard to white hair.
Halacha 6
For black hair to save a blemish from being considered a netek, there must be two hairs. They do not prevent that categorization unless they are long enough to be bent in half, with their point touching their base. If that criterion is met, their presence is significant whether they are adjacent to each other or distant from each other, provided they are in the center of the netek and there is enough empty skin for two hairs to grow between the two black hairs that are located in the netek and the hair that is outside it. If, however, the two hairs remain at the extremity of the netek, they do not prevent it from being placed in that category.
How do they prevent the netek from being considered as tzara'at? If two black hairs remain in the netek, even though there are golden hairs in the netek or it spread, the person is pure. If the person was deemed definitively impure because of golden hair or the spreading of the netek and two black hairs grew in it, the netek is considered as pure and they counteract the spreading or the golden hair. This applies whether they grew in the middle of the netek or at its extremities. For hair that grows prevents a netek from being considered as impure in every place within the netek, while hair that remains is effective only when it is two hairsbreadth away from healthy hair.
Halacha 7
The fact that two hairs grow in a netek, one black and one white, or gold, or one long and one short, does not prevent a netek from being categorized as impure.
Halacha 8
The following rule applies when a netek was deemed definitively impure because of golden hair or spreading and then black hair grew in it and it was declared pure. Even though the black hair disappeared, the person is pure until other golden hair emerges or the netek spread further, as Leviticus 13:37states: "The netek has been healed; he is pure." Since it was healed, he is pure, even though the original signs of impurity remain unchanged.
Halacha 9
If a person was deemed definitively impure because of golden hair - whether he was categorized as such originally, after a week of isolation, after two weeks of isolation, or after he was released from the inspection process - and then the golden hair which caused him to be deemed impure disappeared, but other golden hair grew in that netek or the netek spread, the person is definitively impure, as he was before.
Similarly, if he was deemed impure because a netek spread - whether he was categorized as such after a week of isolation, after two weeks of isolation, or after he was released from the inspection process - and then the area to which the netek spread healed, but it spread elsewhere or golden hair grew in it, he remains definitively impure as he was. He remains in that state until no sign of impurity remains or two black hairs grow.
Halacha 10
The following rules apply when there were two netakim next to each other and a line of black hair dividing them. If the line of black hair was broken and thenetek covered it in one place, the original situation prevails, for the black hair that remains is still at the side of the netakim. If the netek broke through the line of hair in two places, he is pure, because the remainder of the line is now in the middle of the netek.
How large must the break between them be? No less than a space sufficient for two hairs to grow. If there was a break in one place the size of a gris, the person is impure, because the break itself is considered as another netek, because the black hair is at its side and not in its midst.
The following rules apply when there is a netek that is surrounded by black hair and there is another netek surrounding the black hair. If the hair between them is broken through in one place, the person is impure. The rationale is that the inner netek is not saved, because the black hair is at its side, not in its midst. If the hair was broken through in two places, he is pure, even if the broken space is a gris in size. The rationale is that the inner netek and the outer netekbecame a single entity with black hair in the middle. This applies provided the open space is large enough for two hairs to grow or larger.
Halacha 11
The following rules apply when there is a netek with a strand of bald skin extending from it or two netakim with a strand of bald skin connecting them. If this strand is wide enough for two hairs to grow, it can bring about impurity if short golden hair grows in it or its size increases. And new black hair that grows in it can prevent it from being declared impure. The black hair that remains in that strand, by contrast, does not prevent such a categorization unless the strand is as wide as a gris.
Halacha 12
When a person had a netek the size of a gris on his head and the netekexpanded until it covered his entire head and no hair was left at all with the exception of less than two hairs, he is pure. This applies whether he became entirely bald while isolated, while deemed definitively impure, or after he was released from the inspection process, as Leviticus 13:40 states: "He is entirely bald; he is pure."
Similarly, if a netek was on the place of his beard and he lost all his facial hair, he is pure. Although this is not stated in the Written Law, it is part of the Oral Tradition that if all of one's facial hair falls off, he is pure. In such a situation, the skin on his face that became hairless can become impure according to the laws that govern blemishes on the skin, as we explained.
Halacha 13
When a person comes at the outset with a netek covering his entire head or the entire area of his beard, he should be isolated for one week. If golden hair does not grow, he should be isolated for a second week. If short golden hair grows, he should be deemed impure. If not, he should be released from the inspection process. If, however, golden hair grows after he is released, he is deemed as definitively impure. If black hair grows, he is pure.
If someone comes at the outset with a netek covering his entire head or the entire area of his beard and black hair appeared, he is pure as stated. If the black hair disappears, he is impure, because the netek spread.
Halacha 14
Total baldness on the head and the area of the beard are not dependent one on the other. The two areas are not combined together, nor is there a concept of tzara'at spreading from one to the other. This is derived from Leviticus 13:30which speaks of: "tzara'at of the head or of the beard," teaching that they are considered as two different categories.
What is the area where the beard grows? From the joint of the upper jawbone until the Adam's apple. A virtual line is drawn from one ear to the other. Any place where hair grows that is from the line and above is considered as part of the head. From the line and below, it is considered as part of the area of the beard.
Tum'at Tsara`at - Chapter 9
Halacha 1
Everyone can become impure due to tzara'at blemishes, even a new-born baby or servants, but not gentiles or resident aliens. Anyone is acceptable to inspect such blemishes. A person can inspect all blemishes except his own.
Halacha 2
Even though everyone is acceptable to assess blemishes, the designation of a person as impure or pure is dependent on a priest.
What is implied? If there is a priest who does not know how to assess blemishes, a sage should observe them and instruct him: "Say 'You are impure,'" and the priest says: "You are impure;" "Say 'You are pure,'" and the priest says: "You are pure." "Isolate him," and he isolates him. The pronouncement must be made by a priest, because Deuteronomy 21:5 states: "Their statements will determine every quarrel and every blemish." Even if a priest is a minor or intellectually or emotionally incapable, the sage instructs him and he declares the person definitively impure, releases him from the inspection process, or isolates him.
When does the above apply? When the priest relies on the words of the sage. If, however, the priest assesses the blemish and relies on his own understanding, it is forbidden for him to assess any blemish unless he is instructed by a master and is thoroughly versed in all the blemishes and their names, including the blemishes that affect a person and those that affect clothes and houses.
Halacha 3
A priest who declared a person who was pure as impure or a person who was impure as pure does not affect his status, as can be inferred from Leviticus 13:44: "He is impure and the priest shall deem him impure" and ibid.:37: "He is pure and the priest shall declare him pure." When a person who contactedtzara'at is healed, either after isolation or after having been deemed definitively impure, he remains impure even for several years,until a priest tells him: "You are pure."
Halacha 4
A priest is not permitted to deem a person impure until he focuses his sight on the blemish when compared to the flesh outside of it. The priest who inspected a blemish initially should be the one who inspects it at the end of the first week and at the end of the second week. He is the one who places the person in isolation, deems him definitively impure, or releases him from the inspection process.
If the priest who initially inspected the blemish dies or becomes sick, another priest should inspect it. The second priest cannot deem it impure because its size increased, because only the first priest can tell whether it increased or not.
A priest's word is accepted if he says: "This blemish increased in size" or "This blemish did not increase in size," "This white hair preceded the blemish," or "This blemish preceded the white hair."
Halacha 5
A challal is not acceptable to inspect blemishes, as can be inferred fromLeviticus 13:2: "One of the descendants of Aaron, the priests," i.e., when their priestly status is intact. One who is disqualified from serving in the Temple because of physical blemishes is fit to inspect blemishes, provided he is not blind, even in one eye. Indeed, even a priest whose eyesight has become impaired should not inspect blemishes, as is derived from ibid:12: "the entire vision of the eyes of the priest."
Halacha 6
Blemishes may be inspected only during the day, whether to isolate a person, to deem him definitively impure, or to release him from the inspection process as pure, for throughout the passage the term "on the day" is used.
A blemish should not be inspected in the early morning, nor towards evening, nor inside a building, nor on a cloudy day, because then a darker hue of white will look brighter. Nor should it be inspected at noon, because then a brighter hue of white will look darker.
When should it be inspected? In the fourth hour after sunrise, in the fifth hour, in the eighth hour, and in the ninth hour. This applies to blemishes on a person's body, those on garments, and those on buildings.
Halacha 7
Blemishes can be inspected on any day with the exception of the Sabbath and the holidays. If the seventh day of a person's isolation falls on the Sabbath or a holiday, the inspection is postponed. This leads to both leniencies and stringencies. For it is possible that the blemish would have been deemed impure on the Sabbath and, on the following day, the signs of impurity will have disappeared. Conversely, it is possible that, on the Sabbath, the blemish would have been deemed pure and on the following day, signs of impurity will appear. The determination of one's status is made only at the time of the inspection after the Sabbath.
Halacha 8
When a blemish appears on a bridegroom, he is given all seven days of celebration. Similarly, if a blemish appears on his garments or his home, it is not inspected until after the seven days of his celebration. Similarly, during a festival, he is given all the days of the festival before an inspection is made, as indicated by Leviticus 14:36: "And the priest shall give a command and they will empty the home." Now if the Torah postponed the matter for the sake of concerns that are merely permitted, i.e., so that one's utensils not be deemed impure, the inference can certainly be made, that judgment should be postponed for a mitzvah.
Halacha 9
A person should not be isolated, deemed definitively impure, or sent away except on the day the blemish was first inspected, the seventh day afterwards, or the thirteenth. This applies with regard to blemishes for which the isolation period is two weeks, because the seventh day is counted when calculating the first week and the second week. It is valid for all blemishes, those on a person's body, those on garments, and those on buildings.
Halacha 10
A person should not be isolated a second time in the midst of a period of isolation. Nor is one deemed definitively impure if a sign of impurity appears during the days of isolation. Nor is one who has been deemed definitively impure deemed definitively impure for another blemish that appeared, nor is he sent into isolation for a blemish that is fit to require isolation if it appears in the time he is definitively impure.
If, however, a person has two blemishes and a priest sees one and then the other, it is permitted for him to say: "You are isolated because of this one and deemed definitively impure because of the other one" or "You are deemed definitively impure because of this one and isolated because of the other one." This applies whether at the time of the initial examination, at the conclusion of the first week or at the conclusion of the second week.
Two blemishes should not be seen at the same time, whether on one person or on two people, as implied by Leviticus 13:3: "And the priest shall see the blemish."
Halacha 11
When a blemished person comes to a priest for an examination, he should not tell him: "Go and return." Instead, he should attend to him immediately. If two people come before him, he should examine the first and then isolate him, release him from the inspection process, or deem him definitively impure and then examine the second person.
Halacha 12
It is not necessary for a priest to look carefully at the blemished person's underarms, between his testicles, or in the creases of his flesh, lest there be a blemish there, as implied by Leviticus 13:12: "the entire vision of the eyes of the priest." This also applies when a person has become entirely white.
How should a person with a blemish stand before a priest to be inspected? If male, he is inspected while naked, standing like one who is hoeing and like one who is harvesting olives. If female, she is inspected while naked, sitting on the ground like one who is kneading dough, like one who nurses her child, or like one who weaves with a standing loom, in which instance she raises her right hand until reveals her underarm.
If a blemish can be detected when a man or a woman is in these positions, he or she is impure. If it cannot be detected in such a position, no attention is paid to it. Just as a person appears for the inspection of his blemish, so must he appear for his shaving. If hair could be found on any portion of his flesh when a man is standing naked like one who is hoeing or like one who is harvesting olives or a woman is sitting in the position described, the shaving is acceptable. The priest is not required to search in other places to see if hair remains, even though he is required to remove all the person's hair, as will be explained.
Tum'at Tsara`at - Chapter 10
Halacha 1
A person who removes the signs of impurity, whether all of them or part of them, or who burns the healthy flesh in a baheret, whether partially or entirely, or who removes an entire blemish from his flesh, a garment, or a building, violates a negative commandment, as Deuteronomy 24:8 states: "Be very careful with regard to a tzara'at blemish, to watch it carefully, and to act according to everything that the priest, the Levites, will instruct you, as you were commanded, you shall heed." Implied is that one should not remove hair nor cut off any sign. This applies before the priest comes for an initial examination, after the person has been isolated, after he has been deemed definitively impure, or after he has been sent away as pure.
He is not, however, liable for lashes unless his acts are effective. If his acts are not effective, he is not liable for lashes. What is implied? If a person had abaheret with three white hairs and he pulled out one or he burnt a portion of the healthy flesh in a baheret, but a lentil-sized portion remained, he is not liable for lashes, because he is impure, as was his status previously. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.
Similarly, one who shaves the hairs next to a netek is liable for lashes, asLeviticus 13:33 states: "He shall not shave the netek." He is not liable unless he shaves the entire area around the netek with a razor.
It is permitted for a person afflicted with tzara'at to carry a pole on his shoulder on which there is a tzara'at blemish or to tie palm bast on his foot on which there is a blemish. If the signs of impurity are removed, they are removed, provided he does not have the intent of removing them.
Halacha 2
A person who removes signs of impurity or who burns healthy flesh before the inspection performed by a priest is pure. Similarly, if he does so in the days of his isolation, he will be considered pure after the days of his isolation. If, however, he removed them after he was deemed definitively impure because of them, he remains impure as was his status. He cannot regain purity unless thetzara'at covers his entire body or unless his baheret becomes smaller than agris.
Halacha 3
When a person cuts off his entire baheret unintentionally, he is pure. Different rules apply if he cut it off intentionally. If he cut off all the healthy flesh surrounding the baheret, even a hair's width, he can never become pure. If he cut it off exactly, he cannot regain purity unless the baheret covers his entire body.
Halacha 4
When one pulls out one white hair and the second fell off on its own accord, the person is pure. If there were three and he pulled out two and one fell off on its own, he remains impure.
If there was a portion of healthy flesh in a baheret the size of a lentil and one burnt half of it and half disappeared, he is pure. If the healthy flesh was larger than a lentil, one burnt off the part greater than a lentil and the lentil sized portion disappeared naturally, he is pure. If he burnt off the portion the size of a lentil and the remainder disappeared, he is impure.
Halacha 5
When a person has a baheret on his foreskin, he should be circumcised even though the circumcision is not being performed on the designated day. The rationale is that the performance of a positive commandment supersedes the observance of a negative commandment in all instances.
If the person was circumcised and the removal of the foreskin also caused the removal of the sign that caused him to be deemed impure, he is obligated to bring the sacrifices of a person becoming purified from tzara'at.
Halacha 6
It is a positive commandment for a man afflicted with tzara'at who was deemed as definitively impure to cover his head throughout the time he is impure, he should be cloaked until his lips like a mourner, his clothes should be torn and he must notify those who pass by him that he is impure, as Leviticus 13:45 states: "And the person afflicted with tzara'at who has the blemish shall...." Even a High Priest who becomes afflicted with leprosy covers his head and tears his clothes, for a positive commandment supersedes a negative commandment.
He is forbidden to greet others throughout the time he is deemed impure, as a mourner is, as can be inferred from the continuation of the above verse: "he shall cover his lips," i.e., his lips shall be closed together. He may, however, read Scripture, study Mishnah, and elucidate Torah teachings.
He is forbidden to have his hair cut and launder his clothes throughout the time he is deemed definitively impure. He must conduct himself with these restrictions even on Sabbaths and holidays. He is, however, permitted to wash, anoint himself, wear shoes, engage in physical intimacy, and have his bed stand upright like other people.
Halacha 7
The law is that a person afflicted by tzara'at should have a dwelling alone outside the town, as indicated by Leviticus 13:46: "outside the camp where he dwells." This restriction applies only in walled cities in Eretz Yisrael.
Halacha 8
A woman afflicted by tzara'at does not cover her head, rend her garments, or cloak her face. She does, however, dwell outside her town and inform others that she is impure. Indeed, not only those afflicted by tzara'at, but all those who impart impurity to other people are obligated to inform everyone that they are impure so that they will separate themselves from them, as implied by ibid.:45: "'Impure, impure,' he shall call out." That can be interpreted to mean "The impure person shall inform others that he is impure."
Halacha 9
A tumtum and an androgynus should cover their heads, rend their garments, and cloak their faces, because their status is in doubt.
Halacha 10
The same laws apply to both a person afflicted with tzara'at who is isolated and one who is definitively deemed impure. With regard to impurity, there is no difference between a person afflicted with tzara'at who is isolated and one who is definitively deemed impure except covering one's head, rending one's garments, shaving, and bringing fowl. One who is deemed pure after being isolated is exempt from shaving and bringing fowl, while one who is deemed pure after having been deemed impure has these obligations. Nevertheless, with regard to impurity, they are equal in all matters.
Halacha 11
A person afflicted with tzara'at is a primary source of impurity. He imparts impurity to humans and implements through touching them and to earthenware containers when a portion of his body enters their inner space. He imparts impurity to a person when carried by him and an object over which he lies or sits even if there is a stone intervening between him and their surface, as is the law regarding a zav and a zavah. This is derived from Leviticus 13:6: "He shall launder his garments." According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that he becomes pure with regard to imparting impurity to the objects on which he lies or sits. All of these laws apply equally to one isolated because of tzara'at and one deemed definitively impure].
Halacha 12
There is an additional dimension of severity with regard to a person afflicted bytzara'at. He imparts impurity to a building when he enters it, whether he is in the midst of the time when he has been deemed impure or whether he is during his period of isolation.
What is implied? If he enters a building, everything - whether humans or implements - that is in the building contracts impurity. Even though the afflicted person did not touch them, they become primary derivatives of impurity. The impurity of the building which the afflicted person enters is derived from the phrase, Leviticus 13:46: "outside the camp where he dwells." Implied is that just as he is impure, his dwelling is impure.
If he was standing under a tree and a person who was ritually pure passed under the tree, that person contracts impurity. If a person who was pure was standing under the tree and a person afflicted by tzara'at passed under it, he does not impart impurity to him. If the afflicted person stood, the other person became impure, because the place became the afflicted person's dwelling. If it is unknown whether he stood or not, the other person is pure.
If a person afflicted by tzara'at inserted his head and the majority of his body into a building, everything in the building becomes impure. If he desires to enter a synagogue, a partition that is ten handbreadths high and encompasses an area four cubits by four cubits should be constructed for him. He should enter first and leave last so that he will be dwelling alone and will not stand together with the other people and impart impurity to them.
• Sunday, Tammuz 25, 5775 · 12 July 2015
"Today's Day"
Wednesday Tamuz 25 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Matot-Massai, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 119, 1-96.
Tanya: Ch. 7. In the true (p. 367) ...a "broken spirit." (p. 369).
There are two characteristic expressions in Chassidus:
(a) A Jew recognizes G-dliness and senses the supra-natural. He needs no proofs for these.
(b) A Jew neither wants nor is able to be sundered from G-dliness.1
The truth is that these two expressions are one and the same: A Jew recognizes G-dliness and senses the higher-than-natural, and that is why he neither wants nor can he be torn away from G-dliness.
FOOTNOTES
1. See Sivan 21.
Daily Thought:
Real Motives
No person can know his own inner motives.
He may be kind because kindness brings him pleasure.
He may be wise because wisdom is music to his soul.
He may become a martyr burned in fire because his heart burns with defiance.
How can you know that your motives are sincere? Only when doing the right thing cuts against the grain.[Torah Ohr 19b; Likkutei Sichot, vol. 20, pp. 76, 306–307.]
___________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment