Today's Laws & Customs:
• Completing, beginning, and rejoicing with the Torah ("Hakafot")
Today is Simchat Torah ("Rejoicing of the Torah"), on which we conclude, and begin anew, the annual Torah reading cycle. The event is marked with great rejoicing, and the "hakafot" procession, held both on the eve and morning of Simchat Torah, in which we march and dance with Torah scrolls around the reading table in the synagogue. In the words of the Chassidic saying, "On Simchat Torah, we rejoice in the Torah, and the Torah rejoices in us; the Torah, too, wants to dance, so we become the Torah's dancing feet."
During today's Torah reading, everyone, including children under the age of Bar Mitzvah, is called up to the Torah; thus the reading is read numerous times, and each aliyah is given collectively to many individuals, so that everyone should recite the blessing over the Torah on this day.
Links: Torah in the Winter; Dancing with the Torah; Love, Marriage and Hakafot; A Crown of Slippers
• Torah Reading
Vzot Haberachah (Deuteronomy 33-34)
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Bereishit, 3rd Portion Genesis 2:20-3:21 with Rashi
• Chapter 2
20And man named all the cattle and the fowl of the heavens and all the beasts of the field, but for man, he did not find a helpmate opposite him. כוַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁמוֹת לְכָל הַבְּהֵמָה וּלְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְכֹל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וּלְאָדָם לֹא מָצָא עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ:
21And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon man, and he slept, and He took one of his sides, and He closed the flesh in its place. כאוַיַּפֵּל יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהִים | תַּרְדֵּמָה עַל הָאָדָם וַיִּישָׁן וַיִּקַּח אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר תַּחְתֶּנָּה:
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall: [Gen. Rabbah 17:4] When He brought them [the animals], He brought before him of every species, male and female. He (Adam) said, “Everyone has a mate, but I have no mate.” Immediately,“And God caused to fall.” ולאדם לא מצא עזר. ויפל ה' א-להים תרדמה:כשהביאן הביאן לפניו כל מין ומין זכר ונקבה, אמר לכלם יש בן זוג ולי אין בן זוג, מיד ויפל:
of his sides: Heb. מִצַּלְעֹתיו, of his sides, like (Exod. 26:20):“And for the side (וּלְצֶלַע) of the Tabernacle.” This coincides with what they [the Rabbis] said: They were created with two faces. — [from Gen. Rabbah 8:1] See also Eruvin 18a, Ber. 61a. מצלעותיו: מסטריו, כמו (שמות כו כ) ולצלע המשכן, זהו שאמרו שני פרצופים נבראו:
and He closed: the place of the incision. — [from Ber. 61a, Eruv. 18a] ויסגר: מקום החתך:
and he slept, and He took: So that he should not see the piece of flesh from which she was created, lest she be repulsive to him. — [from Sanh. 39a] ויישן ויקח: שלא יראה חתיכת הבשר שממנו נבראת ותתבזה עליו:
22And the Lord God built the side that He had taken from man into a woman, and He brought her to man. כבוַיִּבֶן יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהִים | אֶת הַצֵּלָע אֲשֶׁר לָקַח מִן הָאָדָם לְאִשָּׁה וַיְבִאֶהָ אֶל הָאָדָם:
[And He] built: [He made her] like a building, broad at the bottom and narrow at the top, so that she can carry a fetus, like a storehouse of wheat, which is broad at the bottom and narrow on top, so that its burden should not weigh on its walls. — [from Ber. 61a, Eruv. 18a] ויבן: כבנין, רחבה מלמטה וקצרה מלמעלה לקבל הולד, כאוצר של חטים שהוא רחב מלמטה וקצר מלמעלה, שלא יכביד משאו על קירותיו:
[And He] built the side…into a woman: lit. to a woman, to become a woman, like (Jud. 8:27):“and Gideon made it into an ephod,” to be an ephod. ויבן וגו' את הצלע וגו' לאשה: להיות אשה, כמו (שופטים ח כז) ויעש אותו גדעון לאפוד, להיות אפוד:
23And man said, "This time, it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called ishah (woman) because this one was taken from ish (man)." כגוַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקֳחָה זֹּאת:
This time: This teaches us that Adam came to all the animals and the beasts [in search of a mate], but he was not satisfied until he found Eve. — [from Yev. 63a] זאת הפעם: מלמד שבא אדם על כל בהמה וחיה ולא נתקררה דעתו בהם עד שבא על חוה:
This one shall be called ishah because, from ish: One expression coincides with the other [i. e., the words אִישׁ and words אִשָּׁה have the same root]. From here is derived that the world was created with the Holy Tongue. — [from Gen. Rabbah 18:4] לזאת יקרא אשה כי מאיש וגו': לשון נופל על לשון, מכאן שנברא העולם בלשון הקדש:
24Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. כדעַל כֵּן יַעֲזָב אִישׁ אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אִמּוֹ וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ וְהָיוּ לְבָשָׂר אֶחָד:
Therefore, a man shall leave: The Divine Spirit says this, to prohibit forbidden unions to the Noahides. — [from Sanh. 58a] על כן יעזב איש: רוח הקודש אומרת כן, לאסור על בני נח את העריות:
one flesh: The fetus is formed by them both, and there [in the child] their flesh becomes one. — [from Sanh. 58a] לבשר אחד: הולד נוצר על ידי שניהם, ושם נעשה בשרם אחד:
25Now they were both naked, the man and his wife, but they were not ashamed. כהוַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא יִתְבּשָׁשׁוּ:
but they were not ashamed: for they did not know the way of modesty, to distinguish between good and evil (Gen. Rabbah) (Targum Yerushalmi), and even though knowledge was granted him to call [all the creatures] names, he was not imbued with the evil inclination until he ate of the tree, and the evil inclination entered into him, and he knew the difference between good and evil (Gen. Rabbah) (Zohar, vol. 1, 36b; Mid. Tadshei 7). ולא יתבוששו: שלא היו יודעים דרך צניעות להבחין בין טוב לרע, ואף על פי שנתנה בו דעה לקרות שמות, לא נתן בו יצר הרע עד אכלו מן העץ ונכנס בו יצר הרע וידע מה בין טוב לרע:
Chapter 3
1Now the serpent was cunning, more than all the beasts of the field that the Lord God had made, and it said to the woman, "Did God indeed say, 'You shall not eat of any of the trees of the garden?'" אוְהַנָּחָשׁ הָיָה עָרוּם מִכֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל הָאִשָּׁה אַף כִּי אָמַר אֱלֹהִים לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִכֹּל עֵץ הַגָּן:
Now the serpent was cunning: What is the connection of this matter here? Scripture should have juxtaposed (below verse 21): “And He made for Adam and for his wife shirts of skin, and He dressed them.” But it teaches you as a result of what plan the serpent thrust himself upon them. He saw them naked and engaging in intercourse before everyone’s eyes, and he desired her. — [from Gen. Rabbah 18:6] והנחש היה ערום: מה ענין זה לכאן היה לו לסמוך (פסוק כא) ויעש לאדם ולאשתו כתנות עור וילבישם. אלא למדך מאיזו עילה קפץ הנחש עליהם, ראה אותם ערומים ועוסקים בתשמיש לעין כל ונתאוה לה:
cunning, more than all: Commensurate with its cunning and its greatness, was its downfall- [it was] cunning, more than all, [and it was] cursed, more than all. — [from Gen. Rabbah 19:1] ערום מכל: לפי ערמתו וגדולתו היתה מפלתו, ערום מכל, ארור מכל:
Did…indeed say, etc.: Did He say to you, “You shall not eat of any, etc.?” Even though he saw them eating of the other fruits, he spoke to her at length in order that she answer him and come to speak of that tree. — [from Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer , ed. Horowitz, ch. 13; Avoth d’Rabbi Nathan , ch. 1] אף כי אמר וגו': שמא אמר לכם לא תאכלו מכל וגו' - ואף על פי שראה אותם אוכלים משאר פירות, הרבה עליה דברים כדי שתשיבנו ויבא לדבר באותו העץ:
2And the woman said to the serpent, "Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat. בוַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה אֶל הַנָּחָשׁ מִפְּרִי עֵץ הַגָּן נֹאכֵל:
3But of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God said, "You shall not eat of it, and you shall not touch it, lest you die.'" גוּמִפְּרִי הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹךְ הַגָּן אָמַר אֱלֹהִים לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ וְלֹא תִגְּעוּ בּוֹ פֶּן תְּמֻתוּן:
and you shall not touch it: She added to the command; therefore, she came to diminish it. That is what is stated (Prov. 30:6): “Do not add to His words.” - [from Sanh. 29a] ולא תגעו בו: הוסיפה על הצווי, לפיכך באה לידי גרעון, הוא שנאמר (משלי ל ו) אל תוסף על דבריו:
4And the serpent said to the woman, "You will surely not die. דוַיֹּאמֶר הַנָּחָשׁ אֶל הָאִשָּׁה לֹא מוֹת תְּמֻתוּן:
You will surely not die: He pushed her until she touched it. He said to her, “Just as there is no death in touching, so is there no death in eating” (Gen. Rabbah 19:3). לא מות תמתון: דחפה עד שנגעה בו, אמר לה כשם שאין מיתה בנגיעה כך אין מיתה באכילה:
5For God knows that on the day that you eat thereof, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like angels, knowing good and evil." הכִּי יֹדֵעַ אֱלֹהִים כִּי בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְכֶם מִמֶּנּוּ וְנִפְקְחוּ עֵינֵיכֶם וִהְיִיתֶם כֵּאלֹהִים יֹדְעֵי טוֹב וָרָע:
For God knows: Every craftsman hates his fellow craftsmen. He [God] ate of the tree and created the world (Gen. Rabbah 19:4). כי יודע: כל אומן שונא את בני אומנתו, מן העץ אכל וברא את העולם:
and you will be like angels: Creators of worlds. — [from Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer , ch. 13] והייתם כא-להים: יוצרי עולמות:
6And the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes, and the tree was desirable to make one wise; so she took of its fruit, and she ate, and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. ווַתֵּרֶא הָאִשָּׁה כִּי טוֹב הָעֵץ לְמַאֲכָל וְכִי תַאֲוָה הוּא לָעֵינַיִם וְנֶחְמָד הָעֵץ לְהַשְׂכִּיל וַתִּקַּח מִפִּרְיוֹ וַתֹּאכַל וַתִּתֵּן גַּם לְאִישָׁהּ עִמָּהּ וַיֹּאכַל:
And the woman saw: She understood the words of the serpent and they appealed to her; so she believed him (Gen. Rabbah 19:4). ותרא האשה: ראתה דבריו של נחש והנאו לה והאמינתו:
that the tree was good: to [cause them to] be like angels. כי טוב העץ: להיות כא-להים:
and that it was a delight to the eyes: As he had said to her, “and your eyes will be opened.” וכי תאוה הוא לעינים: כמו שאמר לה ונפקחו עיניכם:
and that the tree was desirable to make one wise: As he said to her, “knowing good and evil.” ונחמד להשכיל: כמו שאמר לה יודעי טוב ורע:
and she gave also to her husband: lest she die and he live and marry someone else. — [from Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer , ch. 13] ותתן גם לאשה עמה: שלא תמות היא ויחיה הוא, וישא אשה אחרת:
also: to include the cattle and beasts - [from Gen. Rabbah 19:5]. גם: לרבות כל בהמה וחיה:
7And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves and made themselves girdles. זוַתִּפָּקַחְנָה עֵינֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם וַיֵּדְעוּ כִּי עֵירֻמִּם הֵם וַיִּתְפְּרוּ עֲלֵה תְאֵנָה וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם חֲגֹרֹת:
And…were opened: Scripture is referring to wisdom, and not to actual vision, and the end of the verse proves this. — [from Gen. Rabbah 19:7] ותפקחנה עיני שניהם: לענין החכמה דבר הכתוב ולא לענין ראיה ממש, וסוף המקרא מוכיח:
and they knew that they were naked: Even a blind man knows when he is naked! What then is the meaning of “and they knew that they were naked” ? They had one commandment in their possession, and they became denuded of it. וידעו כי ערומים הם: אף הסומא יודע כשהוא ערום, אלא מהו וידעו כי עירומים הם, מצוה אחת היתה בידם ונתערטלו הימנה:
fig leaves: That is the tree of which they had eaten. With that which they had sinned, they were rectified, but the other trees prevented them from taking their leaves. — [from Ber. 40a, Sanh. 70b] Now why was the tree not identified? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, does not wish to grieve any creature, so that [others] should not put it to shame and say, “This is [the tree] because of which the world suffered.” (Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma, Vayera 14, Buber 32). עלה תאנה: הוא העץ שאכלו ממנו, בדבר שנתקלקלו בו נתקנו, אבל שאר העצים מנעום מליטול עליהם. ומפני מה לא נתפרסם העץ, שאין הקב"ה חפץ להונות בריה, שלא יכלימוהו ויאמרו זהו שלקה העולם על ידו. מדרש רבי תנחומא (וירא יד):
8And they heard the voice of the Lord God going in the garden to the direction of the sun, and the man and his wife hid from before the Lord God in the midst of the trees of the garden. חוַיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶת קוֹל יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהִים מִתְהַלֵּךְ בַּגָּן לְרוּחַ הַיּוֹם וַיִּתְחַבֵּא הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ מִפְּנֵי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהִים בְּתוֹךְ עֵץ הַגָּן:
And they heard: There are many Aggadic midrashim, and our Sages already arranged them in their proper order in Genesis Rabbah and in other midrashim, but I have come only [to teach] the simple meaning of the Scripture and such Aggadah that clarifies the words of the verses, each word in its proper way. וישמעו: יש מדרשי אגדה רבים וכבר סדרום רבותינו על מכונם בבראשית רבה (יט ו) ובשאר מדרשות ואני לא באתי אלא לפשוטו של מקרא ולאגדה המישבת דברי המקרא דבר דבור על אופניו:
And they heard: What did they hear? They heard the voice of the Holy One, blessed be He, which was going in the garden. — [from Gen. Rabbah 19:7] וישמעו: מה שמעו, שמעו את קול הקב"ה שהיה מתהלך בגן:
to the direction of the sun: To that direction in which the sun sets, and this is the west, for toward evening, the sun is in the west, and they sinned in the tenth [hour]. — [from Gen. Rabbah 19:8, Sanh. 38b] לרוח היום: לאותו רוח שהשמש באה משם וזו היא מערבית, שלפנות ערב חמה במערב, והם סרחו בעשירית:
9And the Lord God called to man, and He said to him, "Where are you?" טוַיִּקְרָא יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶל הָאָדָם וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אַיֶּכָּה:
Where are you: He knew where he was, but [He asked him this] in order to enter into conversation with him, lest he be frightened to answer if He should punish him suddenly (Tanchuma Tazria 9). So with Cain, He said to him (below 4:9): “Where is your brother Abel?” And so with Balaam (Num. 22:9): “Who are these men with you?” for the purpose of entering a conversation with them, and so with Hezekiah, in regard to the emissaries of Merodach Baladan (Isa. 39:3) (Gen. Rabbah 19:11). איכה: יודע היה היכן הוא, אלא ליכנס עמו בדברים, שלא יהא נבהל להשיב אם יענישהו פתאום. וכן בקין (בראשית ד ט) אמר לו אי הבל אחיך, וכן בבלעם (במדבר כב ט) מי האנשים האלה עמך, ליכנס עמהם בדברים, וכן בחזקיה בשלוחי (אויל) מרודך בלאדן (ישעיה לט ג):
10And he said, "I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I am naked; so I hid." יוַיֹּאמֶר אֶת קֹלְךָ שָׁמַעְתִּי בַּגָּן וָאִירָא כִּי עֵירֹם אָנֹכִי וָאֵחָבֵא:
11And He said, "Who told you that you are naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" יאוַיֹּאמֶר מִי הִגִּיד לְךָ כִּי עֵירֹם אָתָּה הֲמִן הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִיךָ לְבִלְתִּי אֲכָל מִמֶּנּוּ אָכָלְתָּ:
Who told you: From where do you know what shame there is in standing naked? מי הגיד לך: מאין לך לדעת מה בשת יש בעומד ערום:
from the tree?: Heb. הֲמִן. This is in the interrogative sense. המן העץ: בתמיה:
12And the man said, "The woman whom You gave [to be] with me she gave me of the tree; so I ate." יבוַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם הָאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר נָתַתָּה עִמָּדִי הִוא נָתְנָה לִּי מִן הָעֵץ וָאֹכֵל:
whom You gave [to be] with me: Here he [Adam] showed his ingratitude. — [from Avodah Zarah 5b] אשר נתת עמדי: כאן כפר בטובה:
13And the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" And the woman said, "The serpent enticed me, and I ate." יגוַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהִים לָאִשָּׁה מַה זֹּאת עָשִׂית וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה הַנָּחָשׁ הִשִּׁיאַנִי וָאֹכֵל:
enticed me: Heb. הִשִּׁיאַנִי, deceived me, like (II Chron. 32:15): “Let Hezekiah not deceive (יַשִּׁיא) you.” - [from Gen. Rabbah 19:2] השיאני: הטעני כמו (דה"י ב' לב טו) אל ישיא אתכם חזקיהו:
14And the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed be you more than all the cattle and more than all the beasts of the field; you shall walk on your belly, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life. ידוַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהִים | אֶל הַנָּחָשׁ כִּי עָשִׂיתָ זֹּאת אָרוּר אַתָּה מִכָּל הַבְּהֵמָה וּמִכֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה עַל גְּחֹנְךָ תֵלֵךְ וְעָפָר תֹּאכַל כָּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ:
Because you have done this: From here [we learn] that we may not intercede in favor of one who entices people [to idolatry], for had He asked him, “Why did you do this?” he could have answered, “The words of the master and the words of the pupil-whose words do we obey?” [i.e., Adam and Eve should have obeyed God rather than the serpent!]- [from Sanh. 29a] כי עשית זאת: מכאן שאין מהפכים בזכותו של מסית, שאילו שאלו למה עשית זאת, היה לו להשיב דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעין:
more than all the cattle and more than all the beasts of the field: If he was cursed more than the cattle [whose gestation period is long], he was surely cursed more than the beasts [whose gestation period is comparatively shorter]. Our Rabbis established this midrash in Tractate Bechoroth (8a) to teach that the gestation period of a serpent is seven years. מכל הבהמה ומכל חית השדה: אם מבהמה נתקלל מחיה לא כל שכן, העמידו רבותינו מדרש זה במסכת בכורות (דף ח א) ללמד שימי עיבורו של נחש שבע שנים:
you shall walk on your belly: It had legs, but they were cut off. — [from Gen. Rabbah 20:5] על גחונך תלך: רגלים היו לו ונקצצו:
15And I shall place hatred between you and between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed. He will crush your head, and you will bite his heel." טווְאֵיבָה | אָשִׁית בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין הָאִשָּׁה וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ וּבֵין זַרְעָהּ הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ וְאַתָּה תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב:
And I shall place hatred: You intended that the man should die when he would eat first, and you would marry Eve, and you came to Eve first only because women are easily enticed, and they know how to entice their husbands. Therefore, “I shall place hatred.” ואיבה אשית: אתה לא נתכוונת אלא שימות אדם כשיאכל הוא תחלה ותשא את חוה, ולא באת לדבר אל חוה תחלה אלא לפי שהנשים קלות להתפתות ויודעות לפתות את בעליהן, לפיכך ואיבה אשית:
He will crush your head: יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ, lit. he will crush you the head. He will crush you, like (Deut. 9:21): “And I crushed it,” which is translated by the Targum as וְשָׁפִית יָתֵיהּ ישופך: יכתתך, כמו (דברים ט כא) ואכות אותו, ותרגומו ושפית יתיה:
and you will bite his heel: Heb. תְּשׁוּפֶנוּ. You will not stand upright and you will bite him on the heel, and even from there you will kill him. The expression תְּשׁוּפֶנוּ is like (Isa. 40:24): “He blew (נָשַׁף) on them.” When a snake comes to bite, it blows with a sort of hiss, and since the two expressions coincide [i.e., they sound alike], Scripture used the expression of נְשִׁיפָה in both cases. ואתה תשופנו עקב: לא יהא לך קומה ותשכנו בעקבו, ואף משם תמיתנו. ולשון תשופנו כמו (ישעיה מ כד) נשף בהם, כשהנחש בא לנשוך הוא נושף כמין שריקה, ולפי שהלשון נופל על הלשון כתב לשון נשיפה בשניהם:
16To the woman He said, "I shall surely increase your sorrow and your pregnancy; in pain you shall bear children. And to your husband will be your desire, and he will rule over you." טזאֶל הָאִשָּׁה אָמַר הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה עִצְּבוֹנֵךְ וְהֵרֹנֵךְ בְּעֶצֶב תֵּלְדִי בָנִים וְאֶל אִישֵׁךְ תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ וְהוּא יִמְשָׁל בָּךְ:
your sorrow: This refers to the pain of child rearing. — [from Eruv. 100b] עצבונך: זה צער גידול בנים:
and your pregnancy: This refers to the pain of pregnancy. — [from above source] והרנך: זה צער העבור:
in pain you shall bear children: This refers to the pain of childbirth. — [from Gen. Rabbah 20:6] בעצב תלדי בנים: זה צער הלידה:
And to your husband will be your desire: for intimacy, but, nevertheless, you will not have the audacity to demand it of him with your mouth, but he will rule over you. Everything is from him and not from you. — [from Eruv. ad loc.] ואל אשך תשוקתך: לתשמיש ואף על פי כן אין לך מצח לתובעו בפה אלא הוא ימשול בך, הכל ממנו ולא ממך:
your desire: Heb. תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ, your desire, like: (Isa. 29:8): “a yearning (שׁוֹקֵקָה) soul.” - [after Targum Onkelos] תשוקתך: תאותך, כמו (ישעיה כט ח) ונפשו שוקקה:
17And to man He said, "Because you listened to your wife, and you ate from the tree from which I commanded you saying, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed be the ground for your sake; with toil shall you eat of it all the days of your life. יזוּלְאָדָם אָמַר כִּי שָׁמַעְתָּ לְקוֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ וַתֹּאכַל מִן הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִיךָ לֵאמֹר לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ אֲרוּרָה הָאֲדָמָה בַּעֲבוּרֶךָ בְּעִצָּבוֹן תֹּאכֲלֶנָּה כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ:
cursed be the ground for your sake: It will bring up cursed things for you, such as flies, fleas, and ants. This can be compared to one who falls into evil ways, and people curse the breasts from which he suckled. — [from Gen. Rabbah 20: 8] ארורה האדמה בעבורך: מעלה לך דברים ארורים כגון זבובים ופרעושים ונמלים, משל ליוצא לתרבות רעה והבריות מקללות שדים שינק מהם:
18And it will cause thorns and thistles to grow for you, and you shall eat the herbs of the field. יחוְקוֹץ וְדַרְדַּר תַּצְמִיחַ לָךְ וְאָכַלְתָּ אֶת עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה:
And it will cause thorns and thistles to grow for you: The earth-when you sow it with various species of seeds-will sprout thorns and thistles, artichokes and cardoons, which are edible only after preparation. — [from Gen. Rabbah 20:10. See also Beizah 34a] וקוץ ודרדר תצמיח לך: הארץ כשתזרענה מיני זרעים תצמיח קוץ ודרדר קונדס ועכביות, והן נאכלים על ידי תקון:
“and you shall eat the herbs of the field”: Now what [kind of] curse is this? Was it not said to him in the blessing (above 1:29): “Behold I have given you every seed-bearing herb, etc? But what is stated here [refers to] the beginning of the section: ”Cursed be the ground for your sake; with toil shall you eat of it,“ and after the toil, ”And it will cause thorns and thistles to grow for you." When you sow it with legumes or garden vegetables, it will cause thorns and thistles and other grasses of the field, to grow for you, and you shall have no choice but to eat them. ואכלת את עשב השדה: ומה קללה היא זו, והלא בברכה נאמר לו (לעיל א כט) הנה נתתי לכם את כל עשב זורע זרע וגו'. אלא מה אמור כאן בראש הענין (פסוק יז) ארורה האדמה בעבורך בעצבון תאכלנה, ואחר העצבון וקוץ ודרדר תצמיח לך, כשתזרענה קטניות או ירקות גנה היא תצמיח לך קוצים ודרדרים ושאר עשבי שדה, ועל כרחך תאכלם:
19With the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, until you return to the ground, for you were taken therefrom, for dust you are, and to dust you will return." יטבְּזֵעַת אַפֶּיךָ תֹּאכַל לֶחֶם עַד שׁוּבְךָ אֶל הָאֲדָמָה כִּי מִמֶּנָּה לֻקָּחְתָּ כִּי עָפָר אַתָּה וְאֶל עָפָר תָּשׁוּב:
With the sweat of your face: After you toil with it very much. — [Mid. Tadshei, Otzar Midrashim] בזעת אפיך: לאחר שתטרח בו הרבה:
20And the man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all life. כוַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ חַוָּה כִּי הִוא הָיְתָה אֵם כָּל חָי:
And the man named: Scripture returns to its previous topic (2:20): “And the man named,” and it interrupted only to teach you that through the giving of names, Eve was mated to him, as it is written (above 2:20): “but for man, he did not find a helpmate opposite him.” Therefore, (ibid. 21): “And He caused a deep sleep to fall,” and since Scripture wrote, (ibid. 25):“And they were naked,” it juxtaposed the section of the serpent, to let you know that because he saw her naked and saw them engaging in intercourse, he desired her and came upon them with a design and with guile. ויקרא האדם: חזר הכתוב לענינו הראשון ויקרא האדם שמות, ולא הפסיק אלא ללמדך שעל ידי קריאת שמות נזדווגה לו חוה, כמו שכתוב (לעיל ב כ) ולאדם לא מצא עזר כנגדו, לפיכך ויפל תרדמה, ועל ידי שכתב (שם פסוק כה) ויהיו שניהם ערומים, סמך לו פרשת הנחש, להודיעך שמתוך שראה ערותה וראה אותם עסוקים בתשמיש נתאוה לה ובא עליהם במחשבה ובמרמה:
Eve: Heb. חַוָּה. This coincides with the expression of חַיָה, living, because she gives life to her offspring, as you say, (Ecc. 2:22):“For what does a man have (הֹוֶה) ?” with the expression“being” (הֹוֶה) . [i.e., The “vav” and the “yud” are interchangeable.] חוה: נופל על לשון חיה, שמחיה את ולדותיה, כאשר תאמר (קהלת ב כב) מה הוה לאדם, בלשון היה:
21And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife shirts of skin, and He dressed them. כאוַיַּעַשׂ יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהִים לְאָדָם וּלְאִשְׁתּוֹ כָּתְנוֹת עוֹר וַיַּלְבִּשֵׁם:
shirts of skin: Some Aggadic works say that they were as smooth as fingernails, fastened over their skin (Gen. Rabbah 20:12), and others say that they were a material that comes from the skin, like the wool of rabbits, which is soft and warm, and He made them shirts from it (Gen. Rabbah ad loc., Sotah 14a). כתנות עור: יש דברי אגדה אומרים חלקים כצפורן היו מדובקים על עורן. ויש אומרים דבר הבא מן העור, כגון צמר הארנבים שהוא רך וחם ועשה להם כתנות ממנו:Daily Tehillim: Chapters 108 - 112
• Chapter 108
1. A song, a psalm by David.
2. My heart is steadfast, O God; I will sing and chant praises even with my soul.
3. Awake, O lyre and harp; I shall awaken the dawn.
4. I will thank You among the nations, Lord; I will sing praises to You among the peoples.
5. Indeed, Your kindness reaches above the heavens; Your truth reaches to the skies.
6. Be exalted upon the heavens, O God, [show] Your glory upon all the earth.
7. That Your beloved ones may be delivered, help with Your right hand and answer me.
8. God spoke in His holiness that I would exult, I would divide portions [of the enemies' land], I would measure the Valley of Succot.
9. Mine is Gilead, mine is Manasseh, and Ephraim is the stronghold of my head, Judah is my prince.
10. Moab is my washbasin, I will cast my shoe upon Edom, I will shout over Philistia.
11. Who brings me to the fortified city? Who led me unto Edom?
12. Is it not God, Who has [until now] forsaken us, and did not go forth, O God, with our armies?
13. Give us help against the adversary; futile is the help of man.
14. Through God we will do valiantly, and He will trample our oppressors.
Chapter 109
David composed this psalm while fleeing from Saul. At that time he faced many enemies who, despite acting friendly in his presence, spoke only evil of him; he therefore curses them bitterly.
1. For the Conductor, by David, a psalm. O God of my praise, be not silent.
2. For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful have opened against me; they spoke to me with a false tongue.
3. They have surrounded me with words of hate, and attacked me without cause.
4. In return for my love they hate me; still, I am [a man of] prayer.
5. They placed harm upon me in return for my favor, and hatred in return for my love.
6. Appoint a wicked man over him; let an adversary stand at his right.
7. When he is judged may he go out condemned; may his prayer be considered a sin.
8. May his days be few; may another take his position.
9. May his children be orphans and his wife a widow.
10. May his children wander about and beg; may they seek charity from amid their ruins.
11. May the creditor seize all that he has, and may strangers plunder [the fruits of] his labor.
12. May he have none who extends him kindness, and may none be gracious to his orphans.
13. May his posterity be cut off; may their name be erased in a later generation.
14. May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered by the Lord, and the sin of his mother not be erased.
15. May they be before the Lord always, and may He cut off their memory from the earth.
16. Because he did not remember to do kindness, and he pursued the poor and destitute man and the broken-hearted, to kill [him].
17. He loved the curse and it has come upon him; he did not desire blessing, and it has remained far from him.
18. He donned the curse like his garment, and it came like water into his innards, like oil into his bones.
19. May it be to him like a cloak in which he wraps himself, as a belt with which he girds himself always.
20. This is from the Lord for the deeds of my enemies, and [for] those who speak evil against my soul.
21. And You, God, my Lord, do [kindness] with me for the sake of Your Name; for Your kindness is good, rescue me!
22. For I am poor and destitute, and my heart has died within me.
23. Like the fleeting shadow I am banished, I am tossed about like the locust.
24. My knees totter from fasting, and my flesh is lean without fat.
25. And I became a disgrace to them; they see me and shake their heads.
26. Help me, Lord, my God, deliver me according to Your kindness.
27. Let them know that this is Your hand, that You, Lord, have done it.
28. Let them curse, but You will bless; they arose, but they will be shamed, and Your servant will rejoice.
29. May my adversaries be clothed in humiliation; may they wrap themselves in their shame as in a cloak.
30. I will thank the Lord profusely with my mouth, and amid the multitude I will praise Him,
31. when He stands at the right of the destitute one to deliver him from the condemners of his soul.
Chapter 110
This psalm records the response of Eliezer, servant of Abraham (to those who asked how Abraham managed to defeat the four kings). He tells of Abraham killing the mighty kings and their armies. Read, and you will discover that the entire psalm refers to Abraham, who merited prominence for recognizing God in his youth.
1. By David, a psalm. The Lord said to my master, "Sit at My right, until I make your enemies a stool for your feet.”
2. The staff of your strength the Lord will send from Zion, to rule amid your enemies.
3. Your people [will come] willingly on the day of your campaign; because of your splendid sanctity from when you emerged from the womb, you still possess the dew of your youth.
4. The Lord has sworn and will not regret: "You shall be a priest forever, just as Melchizedek!”
5. My Lord is at your right; He has crushed kings on the day of His fury.
6. He will render judgement upon the nations, and they will be filled with corpses; He will crush heads over a vast land.
7. He will drink from the stream on the way, and so will hold his head high.
Chapter 111
This psalm is written in alphabetical sequence, each verse containing two letters, save the last two verses which contain three letters each. The psalm is short yet prominent, speaking of the works of God and their greatness.
1. Praise the Lord! I will give thanks to the Lord with all my heart, in the counsel of the upright and the congregation.
2. Great are the works of the Lord, [yet] available to all who desire them.
3. Majesty and splendor are His work, and His righteousness endures forever.
4. He established a memorial for His wonders, for the Lord is gracious and compassionate.
5. He gave food to those who fear Him; He remembered His covenant always.
6. He has declared the power of His deeds to His people, to give them the inheritance of nations.
7. The works of His hands are true and just; all His mandates are faithful.
8. They are steadfast for ever and ever, for they are made with truth and uprightness.
9. He sent redemption to His people, [by] commanding His covenant forever; holy and awesome is His Name.
10. The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord; sound wisdom for all who practice it-His praise endures forever.
Chapter 112
This psalm, too, follows alphabetical sequence, each verse containing two letters, save the last two which contain three letters each. It speaks of the good traits man should choose, and of how to give charity-the reward for which is never having to rely on others.
1. Praise the Lord! Fortunate is the man who fears the Lord, and desires His commandments intensely.
2. His descendants will be mighty on the earth; he will be blessed with an upright generation.
3. Wealth and riches are in his house, and his righteousness endures forever.
4. Even in darkness light shines for the upright, for [He is] Compassionate, Merciful, and Just.
5. Good is the man who is compassionate and lends, [but] provides for his own needs with discretion.
6. For he will never falter; the righteous man will be an eternal remembrance.
7. He will not be afraid of a bad tiding; his heart is steadfast, secure in the Lord.
8. His heart is steadfast, he does not fear, until he sees his oppressors [destroyed].
9. He has distributed [his wealth], giving to the needy. His righteousness will endure forever; his might will be uplifted in honor.
10. The wicked man will see and be angry; he will gnash his teeth and melt away; the wish of the wicked will be ruined.
Tanya: Iggeret HaKodesh, end of Epistle 23• Lessons in Tanya
• Tuesday, Tishrei 23, 5776 · October 6, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Iggeret HaKodesh, end of Epistle 23
על כן, אהובי אחיי ורעיי, אל נא תרעו הרעה הגדולה הזאת
Therefore, my beloved ones, my brethren and friends: do not commit this great evil — of turning a gathering of worshipers before or after prayers into a “company of scoffers,”
ותנו כבוד לה׳ אלקיכם בטרם יחשך, דהיינו בין מנחה למעריב כל ימות החול
and1 “give glory unto the L‑rd your G‑d before it grows dark,” i.e., between Minchah and Maariv every weekday,2
ללמוד בעשרה פנימיות התורה, שהיא אגדה שבספר עין יעקב
by studying in groups of [at least] ten the innermost (i.e., the mystical) dimension of the Torah, i.e., theAggadah contained in Ein Yaakov.
שרוב סודות התורה גנוזין בה
For most of the secrets of the Torah are concealed in it (i.e., in the Aggadah);
ומכפרת עונותיו של אדם
moreover, it atones man’s sins,
כמבואר בכתבי האריז״ל
as explained in the writings of R. Isaac Luria, of blessed memory.3
והנגלות שבה
As to the revealed (non-mystical) passages in [the Aggadah],
הן דרכי ה׳ שילך בהם האדם
these are the ways of G‑d in which a man ought to walk,
וישית עצות בנפשו במילי דשמיא ובמילי דעלמא, וכידוע לכל חכמי לב
and [they enable him] to take counsel in his soul in heavenly matters (such as Torah and mitzvot) and in worldly matters, as is known to all the wise of heart.
וגם ללמוד מעט בשלחן ערוך, אורח חיים, הלכות הצריכות לכל אדם
In addition, between Minchah and Maariv, [people] should study a little — out of the Shulchan Aruch, in [the section called] Orach Chayim — the laws that are essential for every person to know.
ועל זה אמרו רז״ל: כל השונה הלכות בכל יום כו׳
Of this our Sages, of blessed memory, said:4 “Whoever studies Torah laws (halachot) every day [is assured of life in the World to Come].”
שהן הלכות ברורות ופסוקות, הלכה למעשה
This refers to clear and definitive rulings that are of practical relevance,
כמבואר בפירוש רש״י ז״ל שם
as explained in the commentary of Rashi, ad loc.5 — that the term halachot refers to final rulings, without the surrounding debates and argumentation.
This is actually explained by Rashi a little earlier in Tractate Megillah, not on the teaching about “Whoever studieshalachot...,” but in connection with a eulogy for someone who used to “study halachot.”
In Tractate Niddah, commenting on this teaching, Rashi states that the term halachot refers to Mishnayot, Beraitot andHalachah leMoshe miSinai, none of which include the discussions of the Gemara. This is also the case with regard to theShulchan Aruch.
ובשבת קדש, בעלות המנחה, יעסקו בהלכות שבת, כי הלכתא רבתי לשבתא
On the holy Sabbath, moreover, towards the time of Minchah, [people] should occupy themselves with the laws of the Sabbath. For6 “the law of Sabbath is a weighty law,” with many details to be mastered.
ובקל יכול האדם ליכשל בה, חס ושלום, אפילו באיסור כרת וסקילה, מחסרון ידיעה
A person can easily stumble in it, heaven forfend, even in a prohibition punishable by extirpation or stoning, because of ignorance [of these laws],
ושגגת תלמוד עולה זדון, חס ושלום
and7 “an unwitting error in [observance due to insufficient] study is accounted as an intentional transgression,” heaven forfend.
ואין צריך לומר באיסורי דברי סופרים, שרבו כמו רבו למעלה, ובפרט באיסורי מוקצה, דשכיחי טובא
It goes without saying [that the same applies to] the Rabbinic injunctions which are ever so numerous, and especially so with respect to the prohibitions of muktzeh that occur frequently;
וחמורים דברי סופרים יותר מדברי תורה
and8 “[infringements of] the words of the Sofrim (i.e., the Rabbinic injunctions) are more serious than [infringements of] the words of the Torah (i.e., explicit Scriptural commandments).”
כמו שאמרו רז״ל: שכל העובר על דברי חכמים, אפילו באיסור קל של דבריהם, כמו האוכל קודם ערבית וכהאי גונא, חייב מיתה, כעובר על חמורות שבתורה
As our Sages, of blessed memory, said:9 “Whoever transgresses the words of the Sages,” even a minor prohibition of theirs — as, for instance, he who eats before the evening prayer, and the like — “is liable to the death penalty,” just like one who transgresses grave prohibitions [explicit] in the Torah.10
At any rate, since we see from the above that it is vital that one study and know the laws of the Sabbath, they should be studied in public as the time for Minchah draws near.
וכל יחיד אל יפרוש עצמו מן הציבור, אפילו ללמוד ענין אחר
And let no individual separate himself from the congregation, when they are studying Ein Yaakov, Shulchan Aruch and the like, even in order to study something else;
כי אם בדבר שהציבור עסוקים בו
rather, [every individual should participate only] in whatever the congregation is busy with.
ואין צריך לומר שלא יצא החוצה, אם לא יהיו עשרה מבלעדו
It goes without saying that one should not leave if there are not ten without him;
ועליו אני קורא הפסוק: ועוזבי ה׳ יכלו כו׳
to him [who does leave] I apply the verse,11 “And those who forsake G‑d (i.e., who forsake the study of His Torah) shall be consumed...,”
כמו שאמרו רז״ל על כל דבר שבקדושה
as our Sages, of blessed memory, have said12 with respect to every sacred matter.
כי אין קדושה כקדושת התורה
For there is no holiness like the holiness of the Torah,
דאורייתא וקודשא בריך הוא, כולא חד
since13 “the Torah and the Holy One, blessed be He, are entirely one.”
Strictly speaking, our Sages applied the above verse (“And those who forsake G‑d shall be consumed”) only to a person whose leaving bars the congregational recital of a davar shebikedushah, a text involving the sanctification of G‑d’s Name, which cannot be done without a quorum of ten. By contrast, though the quality of Torah study is enhanced by a quorum of ten, this is not a prerequisite condition.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that there is “no holiness like the holiness of the Torah”: when ten Jews study together they draw down a most exalted degree of holiness and an intense indwelling of the Shechinah, as explained above. In this sense, then, an individual whose leaving disrupts a study group of ten may be likened to one whose leaving prevents a minyan from reciting Kedushah or the like.
וכל הפורש מן הציבור כו׳
Moreover,14 “Whoever separates himself from the community [will not merit to witness (and participate in)the community’s consolation].”
ושומע לי ישכון בטח, ובימיו ובימינו תושע יהודה, וירושלים תשכון לבטח
The Alter Rebbe concludes:15 “But he who listens to me shall dwell securely,” and16 in his days and in ours, Judah shall be saved and Jerusalem shall dwell securely.17
אמן, כן יהי רצון
Amen, may this be His will.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Cf. Yirmeyahu 13:16. |
| 2. | Note of the Rebbe: “It could be suggested that the reason the Alter Rebbe does not begin by relating to Shacharit, the first prayer of the day, is that an explicit law in the Shulchan Aruch (sec. 89:4) forbids one to engage in one’s personal affairs before prayer; likewise (sec. 155:1), the morning prayers must be followed by group study of the Torah (‘from the House of Prayer [directly] to the House of Study’).” |
| 3. | See the Alter Rebbe’s Hilchot Talmud Torah 2:2 and sources cited there (in the Kehot edition); see also the Introduction of the Ramban to Shir HaShirim. |
| 4. | Megillah 28b; Niddah 73a. |
| 5. | See Taz, Yoreh Deah 246:2. |
| 6. | Shabbat 12a, and Rashi there. |
| 7. | Avot 4:13. |
| 8. | Yerushalmi, Berachot 4:2. |
| 9. | Berachot 4:2. |
| 10. | Note of the Rebbe: “At first glance [the question arises], what is the Alter Rebbe letting us know [that is novel]? The answer: He is clearly expressing his dissent from the opinions that this statement is intended to be taken as mere hyperbole. See the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch 63:5; Sdei Chemed, Klalim, p. 386; Pe’at HaSadeh 8:15 (at length); Encyclopedia Talmudit, Vol. XIV, p. 599ff.” |
| 11. | Yeshayahu 1:28. |
| 12. | Berachot 8a; Yerushalmi, Megillah 4:4. |
| 13. | Zohar II, 90b; see also II, 60a, and III, 73a. |
| 14. | Semachot 2:10. But there the text reads, “from the ways of the congregation.” See also Rambam, Hilchot Evel 1:10. |
| 15. | Mishlei 1:33. |
| 16. | Cf. Yirmeyahu 23:6 and 33:16. |
| 17. | Note of the Rebbe: “The relevance here [of this verse] is perhaps the teaching in Taanit 11a, that he who shares the pain of the community will merit to witness the consolation of the community. Note also beginning of Berachot 30a.” |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Full text of this Mitzvah »
| Today's Mitzvah Tuesday, Tishrei 23, 5776 · October 6, 2015 A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot" Positive Commandment 142 Collecting Loans from Gentiles "From the foreigner you shall pursue a debt"—Deuteronomy 15:3. We are commanded to press a gentile to repay a debt that he owes us, and not to have mercy on him [and give him an extension]—as we are commanded regarding a Jew. [This commandment only applies to a gentile who has not accepted upon himself the observance of the Seven Noahide Laws.] | Collecting Loans from Gentiles | Positive Commandment 142 | Translated by Berel Bell | The 142nd mitzvah is that we are commanded to demand and to put pressure on a non-Jew to repay his debts; contrary to our commandment to have pity on a Jew and the prohibition against demanding repayment.1 | The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "You shall collect from a non-Jew." | In the words of the Sifri: "The verse 'You shall collect from a non-Jew,' constitutes a positive commandment." | FOOTNOTES | 1. | N234 above. | 2. | Deut. 15:3. |
Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 15
Halacha 1
When a forbidden substance becomes mixed with a permitted substance of another type, [it causes it to become forbidden] if its flavor can be detected. When [a forbidden substance becomes mixed with a permitted substance of] the same type and it is impossible to detect [the forbidden substance] by its flavor,1 its presence becomes nullified if there is a majority [of the permitted substance].2
Halacha 2
What is implied? When the fat of the kidneys3 falls into beans and becomes dissolved, the beans should be tasted.4 If the taste of fat cannot be detected, they are permitted. If [not only] the taste, [but also] the substance of the fat is present, they are forbidden according to Scriptural Law. If the flavor could be detected, but there is no substance, they are forbidden by Rabbinic Law.5
Halacha 3
What is meant by its substance? For example, there was enough forbidden fat for there to be an olive-sized portion [of fat] in each portion the size of three eggs from the mixture. If a person eats a portion of beans the size of three eggs, he is liable for lashes for they contain an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat, for [not only] the flavor, [but also] the substance of [the forbidden fat] is present.6 If one eats less than a portion the size of three eggs [of the mixture], one is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct as prescribed by Rabbinic Law.
Similarly, if there was less than an olive-sized portion of [forbidden] fat in every portion the size of three eggs, even if the flavor of fat is detectable and he eats the entire pot, he is not liable for lashes7 [as prescribed by Scriptural Law], only stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 4
[The following laws apply when] the fat of the kidneys8 falls into the fat from the fat tail9 and the entire [mixture] becomes dissolved.10 If there is twice as much fat from the fat tail as fat of the kidneys, the entire mixture is permitted according to Scriptural Law.11 Even when a piece of [meat from] a nevelahbecomes mixed with two pieces of [meat from] a ritually slaughter animal, everything is permitted according to Scriptural Law.12 Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, everything13 is forbidden until the forbidden substance will be nullified because of the tiny proportion [of the entire mixture it represents] to the extent that it is not significant and it is as if it does not exist, as will be explained.14
Halacha 5
Into what quantity [of a permitted substance] must a forbidden substance be mixed for it to be considered nullified because of its tiny proportion? [Each forbidden substance according to] the measure the Sages specified for it. There are substances that are nullified in a mixture 60 times its size, others in a mixture 100 times its size, and still others in a mixture 200 times its size.
Halacha 6
Thus we learn from this that [the following laws apply] with regard to all of the prohibited substances in the Torah, whether those punishable by lashes or punishable by kerait or substances from which it is forbidden to benefit that become mixed with permitted substances. If the substances are of different types, [the mixture is forbidden] if the flavor is detectable.
If the substances are of the same type and thus it is impossible to detect the flavor [of the forbidden substance], we measure [whether there was] 60, 100, or 200 [times the amount of permitted substances]. The only exceptions are wine poured as a libation to a false deity, because of the severity [of the prohibition against] worship of a false deity15 and tevel, because it can be corrected.16 For that reason, even the slightest mixture of them with a substance of their type is forbidden. If they become mixed with substances of a different type, the matter is dependent on whether their flavor is detectable.
Halacha 7
What is implied? When several barrels of wine fell over a drop of wine that was poured as a libation, the entire mixture is forbidden, as will be explained.17Similarly, if a cup of wine which is tevel becomes nixed into a barrel [of wine], the entire [barrel] is considered tevel until the amount of terumah and tithes that are appropriate to be separated18 are separated as will be explained in the appropriate place.19
Halacha 8
[Related concepts apply with regard to] produce of the Sabbatical year.20 If [such produce] becomes mixed with [produce of] the same type, the tiniest amount [causes the mixture to be considered bound by the laws of the produce of the Sabbatical year].21 [If it becomes mixed with produce of] another type, [the ruling depends on whether] its flavor can be detected. [Nevertheless,] it is not considered as one of the substances forbidden by Scriptural Law. For this mixture is not forbidden. Instead, one is obligated to eat the entire mixture in keeping with the holiness of the produce of the Sabbatical year, as will be explained in the appropriate place.22
Halacha 9
Although chametz on Pesach is forbidden by Scriptural Law, it is not governed by these general principles,23 for this mixture is not forbidden forever. For after Pesach, the entire mixture will be permitted, as we explained.24 Therefore the slightest amount [of chametz] causes [a mixture] to become forbidden,25whether [it becomes mixed] with a substance of its own type or of another type.
Halacha 10
The same law26 applies when new grain becomes mixed with old grain before [the offering of] the omer. Even the tiniest amount causes [the entire mixture] to become forbidden. For there is a factor that will cause the substance to become permitted. For after [the offering of] the omer, the entire mixture is permitted.27
Similarly, whenever there is a factor that will cause the substance to become permitted, e.g., consecrated entities,28 the second tithe,29 or the like,30 our Sages did not mention a measure [in which it could be nullified]. Instead, even if one [of the forbidden substance] becomes mixed with several thousand31 [times that amount of a permitted substance], it is not nullified. [The rationale is that] there is a way that the prohibition can be released.32 [This principle applies] even when the prohibition stems from Rabbinic decree, e.g., an article set aside or born on a festival.33
Halacha 11
With regard to orlah, mixed species grown in a vineyard, fat, blood, and the like, our Sages fixed a measure [that would enable mixtures to be nullified]. Similarly, our Sages fixed a measure with regard to terumot, for there is no way the can be permitted for all people.34
Halacha 12
It appears to me35 that even there is a factor that will cause a substance to become permitted, if that substance becomes mixed with a substance of a different type and its flavor is not detectable, it is permitted. The fact that there is a factor that will cause the substance to become permitted does not [cause the prohibition to be] more severe than tevel. [For tevel] can be corrected,36and yet when it [becomes mixed with a substance] of a different type, [it is permitted if] its flavor cannot be detected, as explained.37 One should not raise a question with regard to chametz on Pesach [where such leniency is not granted. A distinction can be made.] For with regard to chametz, the Torah [Exodus 12:20] states: "Do not eat any leavened substance." For this reason, [our Sages] were stringent with regard to it, as we explained.38
Halacha 13
These are the measures which the Sages established: Terumah, terumat ma'aser39 challah, and bikkurim become nullified [when the mixture is] 101 times the [original] amount. [In addition,] one must separate [a portion and give it to a priest].40 [All of these sacred foods] are combined one with the other.41Similarly, a slice of the showbread becomes nullified when mixed with slices of ordinary bread [if] the mixture is 101 times the original amount.42
What is implied? When a se'ah of flour from one of the above43- or one se'ahfrom all of them [combined] - falls into 100 se'ah of ordinary [flour] and [the flour] became mixed together,44 one should separate one se'ah from the mixture for the se'ah that fell in originally. The remainder is permitted to all people.45 If it fell into less than 100 se'ah, the entire mixture is meduma.46
Halacha 14
Orlah and mixed species grown in a vineyard become nullified [when the mixture is] 201 times the [original] amount. The [two prohibitions] are combined one with the other,47 and it is not necessary to separate any thing.48
What is implied? When a revi'it of wine which is orlah or which [came from grapes] grown together with mixed species in a vineyard - or one revi'it was combined from both prohibited substances - falls into 200 revi'iot of wine, the entire mixture is permitted. It is not necessary to separate anything. If it falls into less than 200, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire [mixture].49
Halacha 15
Why is it necessary to separate [a measure of] terumah and not a measure oforlah or mixed species from a vineyard? Because terumah is the property of the priests. Accordingly, any terumah which the priests are not concerned with, e.g., terumah from [low-grade] figs,50 carobs, and Edomite barley, need not be separated.51
Halacha 16
Why was the measure doubled for orlah and mixed species grown in a vineyard? Because it is forbidden to benefit from them.52
Why did [the Sages] choose the figure of 100 for terumot? For terumat ma'aseris one hundredth of the entire crop,53 and yet it causes the entire crop to be "sanctified,"54 as [Numbers 18:29] states: "its sacred part."55 Our Sages said: "An entity which must be separated from it sanctifies it if it returns to it.
Halacha 17
The measure for all of the other prohibitions of the Torah,56 e.g., the meat of crawling animals, teeming animals, fat, blood, and the like is sixty times [the original amount].
What is implied? When an olive-sized portion of the fat of the kidneys falls into sixty times the size of an olive of the fat from the fat tail, the entire mixture is permitted. If it falls into less than sixty [that amount], the entire mixture is forbidden. Similarly, if a portion of forbidden fat the size of a barley-corn, [the mixture] must contain permitted substances the size of sixty barley-corns.57Similar [laws apply] with regard to other prohibitions.
Similarly, if the fat of the gid hanesheh falls into a pot of meat,58we require sixty times its amount. The fat of the gid itself is included in this sum.59 Although the fat of the gid is prohibited [only] by Rabbinic Law, as we explained,60 since thegid hanesheh is considered a creation in its own right,61 [our Sages] ruled stringently concerning it as if it was forbidden by Scriptural Law. The gid itself is not measured and it does not cause other substances to be forbidden, because the gid does not impart flavor.62
Halacha 18
Halacha 19
[The following laws apply when] an egg in which a chick is found65is cooked together with eggs that are permitted. If there are 61 and it,66 they are permitted. If, however, there are only sixty [permitted eggs], the entire mixture is forbidden. [The rationale is that the chick] is a creation in its own right,67 [our Sages] made a distinction and added to its [required] measure.
Halacha 20
If, however, the egg of an non-kosher fowl was cooked together with the eggs of kosher fowl, it does not cause them to become forbidden.68
Halacha 21
What is the source because of which the Sages relied on the measure of 60? For the portion given [to the priest] from the ram brought by a Nazirite,71i.e., the foreleg, is one sixtieth of the remainder of the ram. It is cooked together with it and does not cause it to be forbidden,72 as [Numbers 6:19] states: "And the priest shall take the cooked foreleg from the ram."
Halacha 22
[The following rules apply when] two substances of the same type, [one permitted and one forbidden,] and a [third] entity become mixed together, e.g., there was a pot with fat from the fat tail and beans and fat from the kidneys fell into it. The entire [mixture] dissolved and became a single entity. We view the fat from the fat tail and the beans as a single entity and we measure the fat from the kidneys against it. If the ratio was one to sixty, it is permitted. For it is impossible to detect the taste.73
Halacha 23
The same principle applies when terumot are mixed together [with other substances, some of the same type and some of a different type], their measure is 100. And the measure of mixed species from a vineyard and orlahis 200.
Halacha 24
When we calculate the measure of permitted substances with regard to all prohibitions, whether the measure is 60, 100, or 200, we include the soup, the spices, everything that is in the pot, and what the pot has absorbed after the prohibited substance fell according to our estimation.74 For it is impossible to know the exact amount which the pot absorbed.
Halacha 25
It is forbidden to nullify a substance75 forbidden by Scriptural76 Law as an initial and preferred measure. If, however, one nullified it, the mixture is permitted.77Nevertheless, our Sages penalized such a person and forbade the entire mixture.78 It appears to me that since this is a penalty, we forbid this mixture only to the person79 who transgressed and nullified the prohibited substance.80For others, however, the entire mixture is permitted.
Halacha 26
What is implied? If a se'ah of orlah falls into 100 se'ah [of permitted produce], the entire [mixture] is forbidden. One should not bring another 100 se'ah and join [the entire quantity] together so that [the forbidden substance] will be nullified because of the presence of 201 times the original amount. If, however, he transgressed and did so, the entire [mixture] is permitted.
With regard to a prohibition forbidden by Rabbinic decree,81 we do nullify a prohibition as an initial and preferred measure.
Halacha 27
What is implied? If milk fell into a pot that contains fowl and imparted its flavor to the food, one may add other fowl to the pot until the flavor [of the milk] is no longer discernable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 28
We already explained82 that if a forbidden substance imparts its flavor to a permitted substance, the entire mixture is not permitted. When does the above apply? [When the flavor imparted] improves [the flavor of the permitted food]. If, however, the forbidden substance detracts from the flavor of the permitted substance and impairs it, it is permitted.83
[This applies] provided it detracts from its flavor from the beginning until the end. If, however, it detracted from its flavor at the outset, but ultimately improved it or improved it initially, even though it will ultimately detract from it, [the mixture] is forbidden.84
Halacha 29
Halacha 30
If [the mixture involved] meat and milk, wine poured as a libation, wine that wasorlah, or [made from grapes that grew together with] mixed species in a vineyard that fell into honey, or the meat of crawling animals or teeming animals that were cooked with vegetables and the like, a gentile should taste [the mixture].
We rely on his word.88 If he says: "It does not have the flavor [of the forbidden substance]," or he says: "It [imparted] its flavor, but that flavor is bad and it detracts [from the flavor of the permitted substance," the entire [mixture] is permitted, provided it will not ultimately improve it, as we explained.89 If there is no gentile to taste it, we rely on the measures of 60,90 100, or 200.91
Halacha 31
When a rat falls into beer or vinegar, we require a measure of 60, for we suspect that it imparted its flavor to the beer or the vinegar and it improves it.92When, however, it falls into wine, oil, or honey,93 it is permitted, even if it imparts its flavor, for the [rat's] flavor detracts [from the flavor of these substances]. For [these substances] must all have a pleasant fragrance and rat meat spoils their aroma and detracts from their flavor.
Halacha 32
When a goat is roasted in its fat, it is forbidden to eat from even the tip of its ear. [The rationale is that] the fat permeates through all its limbs, improves [their taste], and imparts flavor. Accordingly, if [a goat] is lean and possessed only a meager amount of fat on its kidneys and digestive organs,94 i.e., one in sixty-one [of the entire animal], one may cut away [the meat] and eat it95 until he reaches the fat.
Similarly, when the thigh [of an animal] is roasted96 together with the gid hanesheh, one may cut away [the meat] and eat it until he reaches the gid [hanesheh].97 [This], he should cast away. Similarly, if an animal was roasted whole without removing the forbidden strands of tissue and membranes, one may cut away [the meat] and eat it.98 When he reaches a forbidden substance, he should cast it away. There is no need to calculate the ratio [of this forbidden tissue to the meat,] for this [forbidden] tissue does not impart flavor.
Halacha 33
One should not roast ritually slaughtered meat with the meat of a nevelah or the meat of a non-kosher species in one oven, even though they do not touch each other.99 If one roasted them together, [the kosher meat] is permitted. [This applies] even if the forbidden meat was very succulent and the permitted meat was lean. For an aroma does not cause a substance to become forbidden; only the flavor of a forbidden substance does.
Halacha 34
When the meat of a ritually slaughtered animal100 was mixed together101 with the meat of a nevelah that was salted, the [kosher] meat becomes prohibited,102 for the concentrated [juices] of the nevelah are absorbed in the kosher meat. It is impossible to detect their flavor or to calculate the quantity of the forbidden substance.103
When the meat of a unsalted species of kosher fish was mixed together with the meat of a species of unkosher fish that was salted, the [kosher] fish becomes prohibited because of the [non-kosher] brine. If, however, it was the kosher fish that was salted and the non-kosher fish was unsalted, the salted fish does not become forbidden. For even though the unsalted [fish] absorbs [the brine] of the salted one, it does not absorb it to the degree that it will cause it to discharge [its own brine].
When a non-kosher fish was pickled with a kosher fish, the entire mixture is forbidden unless the ratio of kosher fish to non-kosher is 200:1.104
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Because it tastes the same as the permitted substance.
|
| 2. |
According to Scriptural Law. As stated in Halachot 4-5, the Rabbis enforced more stringent requirements.
|
| 3. |
Which is forbidden (Chapter 7, Halachah 5).
|
| 4. |
By a gentile (see the notes to Halachah 30 and Chapter 9, Halachah 8) for a discussion of why the gentile's word is accepted.
|
| 5. |
See Tosafot (Chullin 98b) which mentions a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if the principle "the flavor of an entity is equivalent to its substance" is of Rabbinic or Scriptural origin.
|
| 6. |
The Rambam shares the perspective of Tosafot (Avodah Zarah 67b) who maintains that if there is more than an olive-sized portion of fat in a portion of food k'dei achilat p'ras (the size of three eggs), its substance is considered as present even though it is dissolved and not discernable. Rashi differs and maintains that as long as the fat is dissolved, it is considered as if the substance of the forbidden entity is not present.
|
| 7. |
Even though he may eat an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat, he will not have eaten it in the required time (the time it takes to eat three eggs, as stated in Chapter 14, Halachah 8) for one to be held liable. The concentration of the forbidden fat is too small for that to happen.
|
| 8. |
Which is forbidden (Chapter 7, Halachah 5).
|
| 9. |
Which is permitted.
|
| 10. |
Since both are fat, the mixture is considered as being of the same substance.
|
| 11. |
For according to Scriptural Law, as long as the majority is kosher, the mixture may be eaten. Indeed, there is no need for there to be twice as much kosher fat as non-kosher fat. A simple majority is sufficient.
|
| 12. |
With regard to the mixture of fat, there is greater reason for leniency, for there is no longer any non-kosher fat that exists as an independent entity, it is all mixed together with the kosher fat. In this instance, the meat from the nevelah exists as an independent entity, it is just that we have no way of detecting which of the pieces it is (Radbaz).
|
| 13. |
In all instances when forbidden substances are mixed with kosher substances. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 109:1) which rules leniently and allows one to rely on Scriptural Law in certain situations. See the notes to Halachah 20.
|
| 14. |
In the following halachot.
|
| 15. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 5:8), the Rambam cites Deuteronomy 13:18: "No trace of the condemned should cling to your hand" as evidence that even the slightest amount is forbidden. See Chapter 16, Halachah 28, for a leniency that is granted with regard to this restriction.
|
| 16. |
The terumot and the tithes can be separated from it, causing it to be permitted. See Halachah 10.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam cites the rationale given by Avodah Zarah73b: Just as one kernel of grain can serve as terumah and correct the entire crop; so, too, one kernel of grain from which terumah was not separated can cause an entire crop to be forbidden. The rationale given by the Rambam here has its source in the Jerusalem Talmud (Shivi'it 6:3).
|
| 17. |
Chapter 16, Halachah 28.
|
| 18. |
I.e., the terumah and tithes that would have been required to have been separated from the teveloriginally. In this context, the fact that it became mixed with other wine is not significant.
|
| 19. |
Hilchot Terumah, Chapter 13.
|
| 20. |
The Rambam feels it necessary to mention this point, because his source, Avodah Zarah 73b mentions the produce of the Sabbatical year together with the two prohibited substances mentioned above. The Rambam clarifies that the comparison is not entirely correct, because the produce of the Sabbatical year is not forbidden.
|
| 21. |
The Ra'avad mentions that this concept applies only until the time it is required to destroy the produce of the Sabbatical year. After that time, that produce is forbidden to be eaten and hence, is considered like other forbidden substances.
|
| 22. |
Hilchot Shemitrah ViYovel, chs. 4-7.
|
| 23. |
I.e., although even the tiniest amount of chametz causes an entire mixture to be forbidden,chametz was not mentioned by Avodah Zarah 73b together with wine poured as a libation andtevel. The reason is that the prohibition of the mixture of chametz is motivated by a different rationale (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 24. |
See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 1:5 which states that a mixture of chametz and another substance is permitted after the Pesach holiday.
|
| 25. |
As explained in the following halachah and notes. See also Halachah 12.
|
| 26. |
The Radbaz states that the comparison is to tevel and not to chametz on Pesach. For like tevel, if it becomes mixed with a different substance, it is permitted if its flavor cannot be detected. There are special stringencies applied with regard to chametz, as stated in Halachah 12 (Radbaz).
|
| 27. |
See Chapter 10, Halachah 2.
|
| 28. |
For they can be redeemed (Radbaz).
|
| 29. |
For they can be eaten in Jerusalem or their holiness can be transferred to money (Radbaz).
|
| 30. |
E.g., Bikkurim; see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bkkurim 2:2).
|
| 31. |
Our Sages (Beitzah 3b) state it is not nullified when mixed with 1000 times the amount of kosher substances. The Rambam's wording clarifies that 1000 is not an upper limit. No matter how many times more of the permitted substance there is, the mixture is forbidden.
|
| 32. |
Hence, this option should be taken rather than relying on the nullification of the forbidden substance.
|
| 33. |
As explained in Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 1:19 states that when a person sets an object aside before the holiday with the intent that he will not use it on the holiday, he may not change his mind and use it on the holiday. This prohibition is referred to as muktzeh.
Halachah 1:20 states that an egg laid on a holiday following the Sabbath was prepared on the Sabbath, as it were. Therefore it may not be used on the holiday. This prohibition is referred to asnolad. Both of these prohibitions are of Rabbinic origin. Halachah 1:21 states that if such an egg becomes mixed with other eggs, they are all forbidden.
|
| 34. |
I.e., a mixture of terumah could be eaten in a permitted manner by a priest. Nevertheless, since there is no way it could be permitted to an ordinary person, our Sages were not stringent (Kessef Mishneh).
Both the Kessef Mishneh and the Radbaz ask: It is possible to have to have terumah permitted by making a statement of regret concerning its separation before a wise man. If so, seemingly, it should be considered as an object that could be eaten in a permitted manner. The Radbaz explains that a wise man who can nullify the separation of terumah may not always be found. The Kessef Mishneh states that since this is not the common practice, a substance may not be considered as an object that could be eaten in a permitted manner for this reason.
|
| 35. |
This term indicates a conclusion deduced by the Rambam without an explicit prior Rabbinic source. There are others, including Rav Yitzchak Alfasi and Rav Moshe HaCohen, who differ and maintain that since the mixture could be eaten in a permitted manner, the above stringencies apply. The Ra'avad, however, states that this concept is explicitly stated in the Mishnah. He does not, however, mention which mishnah. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer different hypotheses as to the Ra'avad's intent and why the Rambam did not accept it.
|
| 36. |
By separating the appropriate terumot and tithes.
|
| 37. |
Halachah 6.
|
| 38. |
Halachah 9.
|
| 39. |
The terumah which the Levites offer from the tithes they are given.
|
| 40. |
Although the prohibition is negated, we are still concerned with the fact that property due the priest is not given to him, as stated in Halachah 15.
|
| 41. |
I.e., as stated in the conclusion of the halachah, if two of these substances fall into the same accumulation of permitted substances, it is necessary to have 100 times their combined size.
|
| 42. |
The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam's ruling here appears to contradict his ruling inHilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 6:24 where he states that the showbread is not nullified. He explains that in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, the Rambam is speaking about pieces of the showbread that are ritually pure. Hence the entire mixture should be eaten by the priests. (Note the Radbaz who questions how the priests could eat the mixture.) Here, by contrast, we are speaking about pieces of the showbread that are impure. If the showbread was a significant part of the mixture, the entire mixture would have to be burnt. Since it is not significant, we considered its existence negated.
|
| 43. |
Terumah, terumat ma'aser challah, or bikkurim.
|
| 44. |
If, however, the sacred substances are distinct, they must be separated from the ordinary substances.
|
| 45. |
It does not have to eaten with attention to the laws of terumah.
|
| 46. |
This term refers to a mixture of terumah or other sacred substances with ordinary substances. The mixture must be sold to priests (at the price of terumah) with the exception of the original sacred amount (Hilchot Terumah 13:2).
|
| 47. |
Although they are separate and unrelated prohibitions, since it is forbidden to benefit from both of them and we derive the laws pertaining to one from the laws pertaining to the other, we rule that they may be combined (Orlah 2:1).
|
| 48. |
As explained in the following halachah, in this instance, one is not causing the priests a loss.
|
| 49. |
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, objecting to the decision that it is forbidden to benefit from the mixture. (He maintains that although partaking of the mixture is forbidden, one should be able to sell it to a gentile with the exception of the value of the forbidden substance. For, he maintains, it is never forbidden to benefit from a mixture that is not inherently forbidden.) The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's view.
|
| 50. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 11:4).
|
| 51. |
For the priests will not be concerned about its loss.
|
| 52. |
Therefore they were treated more stringently. The Radbaz emphasizes that they are compared to terumah and not to other forbidden substances for the root kodesh is used with regard to them.
|
| 53. |
For it is one tenth of a tenth.
|
| 54. |
I.e., "forbidden."
|
| 55. |
As the Rambam continues to explain, the Jerusalem Talmud (Orlah 2:1) offers a non-literal interpretation of this phrase, understanding it as meaning "the one who sanctifies it."
|
| 56. |
With this wording, the Rambam also eliminates those prohibitions of Rabbinic origin, which have a smaller measure as stated in the following halachah.
|
| 57. |
Although there is not enough of the forbidden substance for a person to be liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, unless there is 60 times the amount of forbidden fat, the mixture is forbidden according to Scriptural Law (see Chulin 98a).
|
| 58. |
The prohibitions are considered of the same type, because the taste of the fat is not distinct from that of the meat (Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi to Chulin 98a).
|
| 59. |
As is the law with regard to Rabbinic prohibitions as stated in the following halachah.
|
| 60. |
Chapter 8, Halachah 1.
|
| 61. |
As our Sages ruled [Chulin 100a; Chapter 16, Halachah 6; quoted by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 100:1)], a forbidden being which is a creation in its own right is never forbidden. Therefore they ruled more stringently. In this instance, the gid hanesheh itself will be removed. Hence the full stringency of our Sages' ruling is not applied, nevertheless, in recognition of the serious of the prohibition involved, this stringency is applied.
|
| 62. |
See Chapter 8, Halachah 6.
|
| 63. |
Thus instead of requiring 61 times the forbidden substance (60 plus the substance itself) all that is required is 60 (59 and the substance itself).
|
| 64. |
See Chapter 9, Halachot 12-13. As explained in the notes there, the Ra'avad and the Rashba offer a different rationale for this ruling, explaining that since the meat of the udder is acceptable, we include it in the reckoning of 60. Thus in contrast to other instances where 60 times the amount of the forbidden substance is required, here, we require only 59. According to his view, we cannot extrapolate from this ruling to other Rabbinic prohibitions.
|
| 65. |
Such an egg is forbidden to be eaten (see Chapter 3, Halachah 8).
|
| 66. |
I.e., a total of 62.
|
| 67. |
As stated in the notes to the previous halachah, in this instance, the forbidden substance itself will be removed. Hence the full stringency of our Sages' ruling concerning an entity that is a creation in its own right is not applied. Nevertheless, in recognition of the serious of the prohibition involved, this stringency is applied. See the notes to the following halachah where a rationale cited by other authorities is mentioned.
|
| 68. |
Here we are talking about eggs that are cooked in their shells. When an egg contains a chick, the chick will impart its flavor to the entire pot. When, by contrast, eggs are cooked in their shells, they do not impart flavor (Chulin 97b). The non-kosher egg must be removed from the mixture. This, however, can sometimes be done, because the appearance of non-kosher eggs may differ from that of kosher eggs (Chapter 3, Halachah 18).
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 86:6) differs and states that if a substantial loss will not be caused, we should be stringent and follow the same ruling with regard to all eggs. If, however, there will be a substantial loss, even he counsels to rely on the more lenient views.
|
| 69. |
For, at times, non-kosher eggs are not distinguishable from kosher eggs (ibid.).
|
| 70. |
I.e., the mixture is judged as an ordinary instance in which kosher food becomes mixed with non-kosher food. According to the Rambam, the non-kosher egg is not a creation that is forbidden in its own right.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:5) differs and rules that we require 61 kosher eggs in this instance as well. The Ramban explains that the reason is that not all eggs are the same size and by adding an extra egg, we make certain that we have the necessary amount. (He uses this rationale to explain the law stated in the previous halachah as well.) The Siftei Cohen 86:15 offers a different rationale, stating that an egg itself is considered a creation in its own right.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that there are some who would rule that 60 eggs are not necessary, for there are opinions [see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 109:1)] that when kosher and non-kosher entities are intermingled in a dry mixture, we rely on Scriptural Law and require only a simple majority of the kosher substances. As obvious from this ruling, the Rambam does not accept this leniency.
|
| 71. |
When a Nazirite completes the days of his Nazirite vow, he brings several sacrifices. Among them is a ram brought as a peace offering. The foreleg from this offering is given to the priest and may not be eaten by an ordinary Israelite (Chulin 98a; Hilchot Nazirut 8:1-4).
|
| 72. |
I.e., although this portion which is forbidden to an Israelite is cooked together with the entire ram, the Israelite is permitted to partake of the remainder of the ram. Accordingly, our Sages inferred that a similar ratio may be used when other prohibited substances are cooked with permitted substances.
|
| 73. |
Because there is no significant difference between the taste of fat from the fat tail and fat from the kidneys, as indicated by Halachah 4.
|
| 74. |
I.e., at that time, it absorbed both the permitted substances and the prohibited substance (Radbaz).
In his Kessef Mishneh and in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 99:4), Rav Yosef Caro follows the view of Rashi and the Tur who maintain that we should measure the prohibited substance and the permitted substances as they are at present, for there is no way of knowing how much the pot absorbed. This stringency applies, however, only with regard to forbidden substances mixed with permitted substances of a different type. (For then the prohibition stems from Scriptural Law.) If they are of the same type (when a simple majority is required according to Scriptural Law), the Shulchan Aruch rules more leniently and accepts the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 75. |
I.e., after a forbidden substance fell into a mixture, one may not add enough permitted substances that there will 60, 100, or 200 times the amount of the forbidden substance.
|
| 76. |
If, however, a substance forbidden by Rabbinic Law accidentally fell into a mixture, one may add enough permitted substances to nullify the prohibition, as stated in Halachah 26.
|
| 77. |
Because in fact the presence of the forbidden substance has been nullified.
|
| 78. |
The Siftei Cohen 99:11 explains the reason for this penalty. If we would permit him to benefit from it, we fear that if, in the future, such a situation would recur, he would instruct his servants to nullify the prohibited substances for him.
|
| 79. |
Or the person whom he intended to serve after nullifying the forbidden substance. Were this not the case, he would benefit from his undesirable act (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 80. |
The Rambam's wording implies that the penalty was imposed only when he willfully nullified the existence of the forbidden substance. If he did so accidentally or inadvertently, no prohibition applies, for our Sages did not impose penalties in such situations [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 99:5)].
|
| 81. |
This point was not accepted by all authorities. The Ashkenazic authorities (as reflected by the ruling of Rabbenu Asher) maintain that even a Rabbinic prohibition should not be nullified as an initial and preferred measure. The Radbaz proposes an intermediate position: that the stringency should be applied only to Rabbinic prohibitions that have a source in Scriptural Law, e.g., milk and fowl, but not those enacted by the Rabbis entirely on their own initiative. This compromise, however, was not accepted. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 99:6) adopts the Rambam's position, while the Tur and the Rama follow that of Rabbenu Asher.
|
| 82. |
Halachah 1.
|
| 83. |
Avodah Zarah 66a derives this concept from the statements of Deuteronomy 14:21 concerning the meat of an animal that died without slaughter: "Give it to the stranger in your gate and he will partake of it." Implied is that the prohibition applies only to meat that is fit for a non-Jew to partake of. If it is not fit for the non-Jew to eat, it cannot cause a Jew's food to be forbidden.
See also Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 103:2) which states: "The impairment of the food's flavor does not have to be complete to the extent that one would be disgusted to eat it. Instead, even if it slightly detracts [from its flavor], it does not cause the mixture to become forbidden."
|
| 84. |
Avodah Zarah, loc. cit. states that if initially, the flavor of a substance is improved by the addition of the forbidden substance, it becomes forbidden. The fact that ultimately the addition detracts from the flavor of the permitted substance is not sufficient to cause it to become permitted again. The Rambam draws the conclusion that ultimately if the flavor of the substance will be improved, it is also prohibited (Kessef Mishneh).
Note, however, the Siftei Cohen 103:7 who states that it is permitted to partake of a mixture after the flavor of the permitted substance was impaired, before it improved, even though one knows that ultimately, it will improve. Based on the wording of the following halachah, however, it is questionable if the Rambam would accept this conclusion.
|
| 85. |
I.e., since there is a question whether the mixture is forbidden or not.
|
| 86. |
For he is permitted to partake of terumot.
|
| 87. |
Chs. 13 and 14.
|
| 88. |
There is a difficulty with the Rambam's statements, for generally, we do not rely on the word of a gentile with regard to ritual matters. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 98:1) relies on the opinion of the Rashba quoted by the Tur, that this refers to a situation where the gentile does not know that we are relying on him, but instead makes his statements as a matter of course (masiach lifi tomo).
See also the Turei Zahav 98:2 and the Siftei Cohen 98:2 who quote views which state that an ordinary gentile is not sufficient, but instead, the intent is a gentile chef who is an expert on recognizing flavors. According to some, however, this interpretation leads to a leniency. For since he is a professional, he will not risk his professional reputation by lying to mislead a Jew. Hence, according to these views, his statements can be accepted even if they are made in response to direct questions and not as a matter of course. There are, nevertheless, authorities who differ and require even a chef to make his statements as a matter of course. Moreover, there are authorities (among them, the Radbaz and the Rama) who never accept the statements of a gentile with regard to these matters.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 98:1) states that in the present age, we do not rely on the statements of a non-Jew who tasted food to determine whether it is kosher or not.
|
| 89. |
Halachah 28.
|
| 90. |
For it is an accepted principle that the taste of a forbidden substance will be nullified in more than 60 times its volume.
|
| 91. |
This refers to mixtures of terumot, orlah, and mixed species in a vineyard. The ruling is, however, problematic. For if we are speaking about a mixture of these substances together with different substances, then 60 times their volume will be sufficient. For the taste of all substances except spices is nullified in 60 times their volume as stated in the previous note. And if we are speaking about a mixture of substances with their own kind, the taste of the forbidden substance will not be detectable.
|
| 92. |
Avodah Zarah 68b leaves unresolved the question whether the rat's flavor detracts from the flavor of beer and vinegar. Hence we rule stringently.
|
| 93. |
These substances are not mentioned by the Talmud, loc. cit., but it is common knowledge that the rat's flavor will detract from their own, as the Rambam explains (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 94. |
These are prohibited by Scriptural Law.
|
| 95. |
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro states that, according to the Rambam, one may partake of the meat as it is. He need not scrape off or cut away its surface (kelipah or netilah). In hisShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 105:5), however, he rules according to the perspective of Rabbenu Asher, the Rashba, the Ran, and the Tur who maintain that the outer layer of the meat next to the fat itself must be cut away.
See also the ruling of the Rama (Yoreh De'ah, loc. cit.) that at present, we are not capable of differentiating which fat is considered succulent and which is considered lean. Hence, we require 60 times the amount of forbidden fat in all instances.
|
| 96. |
The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that the leniency mentioned by the Rambam applies only when the animal is roasted with its gid or with the forbidden tissues. If it is cooked, more stringent rules apply.
|
| 97. |
Although the fat of the gid hanesheh is prohibited, there is not enough fat to cause the other limbs of the animal to become prohibited (Kessef Mishneh). Nevertheless, one must cut away the outer layer of the meat next to the gid.
|
| 98. |
In this instance as well, there is not a significant enough quantity of fat to cause the meat to become forbidden.
|
| 99. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 108:1) quotes the Rambam's ruling forbidding roasting the two in the same oven, but allows for certain leniencies, e.g., the oven is very large or the substances are covered.
|
| 100. |
It appears that the kosher meat was unsalted. If, however, it were salted, it would not absorb the juices of the non-kosher meat, as indicated by the principle: "One that is involved in discharging its own juices does not absorb from another" (Radbaz).
|
| 101. |
The commentaries note an apparent contradiction to the Rambam's rulings in Chapter 7, Halachot 17-19. The Radbaz explains that there, both the forbidden and the kosher substances were salted, while here the kosher meat was not. The Kessef Mishneh explains that here the two pieces of meat are mixed together, while there the substances were merely near each other.
|
| 102. |
In this halachah, the Rambam is communicating the principle stated by Chulin 111b et al that meat which is salted is considered as if it is burning hot. It emits concentrated juices which are absorbed by other meat.
|
| 103. |
I.e., no matter what the ration of the kosher meat to the non-kosher meat, the mixture is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 70:3-4) follows the more lenient views of Rabbenu Asher, the Rashba, and the Ran who maintain that only the external surface of the kosher meat becomes forbidden. Once it is peeled off, the meat is permitted.
|
| 104. |
For pickling is considered equivalent to cooking. Fish brine is considered as very powerful. Hence it requires a much larger measure than ordinary non-kosher substances. See Rav Kapach's notes to the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Terumot 10:8) where he writes that the Rambam changed his mind three times on this issue, twice stating more stringent views than the one stated here, before writing this view as his final conclusion.
|
Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
Neshech and marbit are one in the same, as Leviticus 25:37 states: "Do not give him your money with neshech and do not put forth your food at marbit."And further on, Deuteronomy 23:20 speaks of: "Neshech from money, neshechfrom food, neshech from any substance that will accrue."
Why is interest called neshech? Because it bites. It causes pain to one's colleague and consumes his flesh. Why did the Torah refer to it with two terms? So that one would commit a twofold transgression when violating this prohibition.
Halacha 2
Just as it is forbidden to give a loan at interest; so, too, it is forbidden to borrow at interest, as Deuteronomy, ibid., states: "Do not offer interest to your brother." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning to the borrower.
Similarly, it is forbidden to act as a broker between the borrower and the lender when interest is involved. Anyone involved, a guarantor, a scribe or a witness transgresses a negative commandment, as Exodus 22:24 states: "Do not lay interest upon him." This is a warning against the witnesses, the guarantor and the scribe.
Thus, we see that a person who offers a loan at interest violates six prohibitions:
"Do not act like a creditor toward him," "Do not give him your money withneshech" "Do not put forth your food at marbit" "Do not take neshech and tarbitfrom him" (Leviticus 25:36), "Do not lay interest upon him," and "Do not place a stumbling block in front of the blind" (Leviticus 19:14).
A person who borrows at interest violates two prohibitions: "Do not offer interest to your brother." "Do not place a stumbling block in front of the blind"
The guarantor, the witnesses and the like violate only the prohibition: "Do not lay interest upon him." Any broker who connects between the lender and the borrower or assists or instructs one of them with regard to making the loan transgresses the commandment: "Do not place a stumbling block in front of the blind"
Halacha 3
Although the lender and the borrower violate all the negative commandments mentioned above, they are not punished with lashes, because the interest must be returned. For whenever a person gives a loan at interest, if fixed interest is involved, it is forbidden by Scriptural Law and may be expropriated through legal process. The judges expropriate it from the lender and return it to the borrower. If the lender dies, it is not expropriated from his children's possessions.
Halacha 4
When a father leaves his sons money obtained by taking interest, they are not obligated to return it, even though they know that it was obtained through interest. If, however, he leaves them a cow, a garment or any other specific article obtained through interest, they are obligated to return it as an expression of honor for their father.
When does the above apply? When their father repented, but was not able to return the article before he died. If, however, he did not repent, the sons need not be concerned with his honor. They are not required to return even a specific article.
Halacha 5
When robbers and people who lend money at interest seek to return the money they took, we should not receive it from them. This will make the path ofteshuvah more accessible to them. Whoever accepts repayment from them is not looked upon favorably by our Sages. If, however, the stolen article itself was intact or a specific article was given as interest, and it itself is there, it may be accepted.
Halacha 6
When interest - whether fixed interest or interest forbidden by Rabbinic law - is mentioned in a promissory note, the lender may collect the principal, but not the interest. If he collected the entire amount, any fixed interest can be expropriated from him. "The shade of interest" - i.e., interest forbidden by Rabbinic law - may not be collected from the borrower by the lender, nor is it expropriated by the court from the lender for the borrower.
Halacha 7
Whenever a person writes a promissory note that includes interest, it is as if he documents and has witnesses testify that he denies God, the Lord of Israel. Similarly, whenever a person borrows or lends money at interest in privacy he denies God, the Lord of Israel, and denies the exodus from Egypt, as Leviticus 25:37-38 states: "Do not give him your money with neshech... I am God your Lord, who took you out of the land of Egypt."
Halacha 8
It is forbidden for a person to borrow money from his sons or the members of his household at interest. This is forbidden even when he is not tightfisted and he is merely giving them a present." The rationale is that in doing so, he might habituate them to this practice.
Halacha 9
When Torah scholars lend money to one another and the borrower returns more than the amount loaned him, it is permitted. It is obvious that the extra amount was only a present that he gave him. For they know the severity of the prohibition against taking interest.
Halacha 10
The following laws apply when a person lends money to a colleague, and the borrower discovers more than the sum originally agreed upon, or the borrower returned a debt and the lender discovers more than the sum that was borrowed. If the additional amount was a sum about which a person might easily err, it must be returned. If not, we can assume that the borrower gave the lender a present, he had stolen property belonging to the lender in his possession and sought to return it together in the account without the lender being aware, or another person asked him to return money in such a manner.
What can be considered a sum about which a person might easily err? One, two, five or ten more. The latter figures are included, for perhaps the person counted out the sum in groups of five or ten.
Similarly, if the person found that a group of five or a group of ten had an additional one, he must return the extra amount. Maybe an additional one with which he was counting became mixed with a group of five or ten,
Halacha 11
The following laws apply when a person lends a colleague according to a particular coinage, or stipulates in his wife's ketubah that a sum should be paid to her in a particular coinage, and then the ruling authorities increase the weight of that coinage. When the value of produce was reduced because of the increase, he should deduct the proportion of the increase, even if the increase was minimal. If, however, the value of produce is not reduced because of the addition, he need not deduct that proportion. Instead, he should pay him the coin used as currency at that time.
When does the above apply? When the addition was one fifth of its value -e.g., its weight was four units and it was increased to five. If, however, more than a fifth was added, he should deduct the entire proportionate amount of the increase, even though the price of produce did not increase. Similar laws apply with regard to a loan when the weight of a coin was decreased.
Halacha 12
The following rules apply when a person lends a colleague according to a particular coinage, and that coinage is disqualified by the ruling authorities. If the lender could use the disqualified coin as legal tender in another country, and the lender has a way of getting to that country, the borrower may repay him in the coinage that he lent him, telling him: "Go and use it in such and such a place." If the lender does not have a way of getting there, the borrower must repay him in the coinage that is legal tender at that time. Similar laws apply with regard to a ketubah.
Halacha 13
Some of the Geonim have ruled that when a borrower forgoes the interest a lender charged or will charge on his behalf, his statements are of no consequence, even though he affirms his waiver with a kinyan or gives it as a present. Their rationale is that whenever interest is given, the borrower is waiving his rights. The Torah, however, does not accept this waiver and forbids it. Therefore, one cannot waive interest, even interest forbidden merely by Rabbinic Law on behalf of the lender.
It appears to me that this ruling is incorrect. Instead, since the lender is told to return the interest, and he knows that he violated a prohibition, and the borrower has the right to collect the money, if the borrower desires to waive the obligation to return the interest he may, just as a person may waive the return of a stolen article. Indeed, our Sages explicitly stated that when robbers and people who lent money at interest seek to return the money they took, we should not receive it from them. This indicates that the waiver of the obligation to return the interest is effective.
Halacha 14
It is permitted to give property belonging to orphans to a faithful person who has valuable properties to offer as security, in an arrangement that is likely to lead to profit and unlikely to lead to loss.
What is implied? The court tells the person: "Do business with their property. If there is a profit, give them a portion of the profit. If there is a loss, suffer the loss yourself." This is "the shade of interest." Nevertheless, "the shade of interest" is forbidden only because of a Rabbinic decree, and our Sages did not apply their decree to property belonging to orphans.
Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 5
Halacha 1
One may lend money to and borrow money from a gentile and a resident alien at interest, as implied by Deuteronomy 23:20: "Do not offer interest to your brother." We may infer: Offering - and taking - interest from "your brother" is prohibited; from people at large, by contrast, it is permitted.
It is a positive mitzvah to lend money to a gentile at interest, as Ibid:21 states: "You may offer interest to a gentile." The Oral Tradition teaches that this is a positive commandment. This is the Scriptural Law.
Halacha 2
Our Sages, however, forbade a Jew from lending money to a gentile at a fixed rate of interest beyond what is necessary for him to earn his livelihood. They enacted this decree lest, the lender learn from the gentile's deeds as a result of the large extent of his contact with him. Therefore even according to the Sages, it is permitted to borrow money from a gentile at interest, for the Jew will flee from him, and will not frequent his company.
Torah scholars will not learn from a gentile's conduct. . Hence, it is permitted for them to lend money to a gentile at interest, even to make a profit. Any transactions in the category of "the shade of interest" that involve gentiles are permitted for everyone.
Halacha 3
The following law applies when a Jew borrowed money from a gentile at interest, and when he seeks to return it to him another Jew meets him and tells him: "Give it to me and I will pay you the rate of interest that you pay the gentile." This is forbidden, even if the original borrower brings the other Jew to the gentile. Instead, the gentile must take back his money and then give it as a loan to the other Jew.
Halacha 4
When, by contrast, a gentile borrows money from a Jew at interest and desires to return it to him, and another Jew meets the gentile and tells him: "Give it to me and I will pay you the rate of interest that you pay the other Jew," this is permitted. If, however, the gentile brought the Jewish borrower to the Jewish lender and informed him of the loan, this is considered fixed interest, for he gave the money with the knowledge of the Jewish lender. This applies even if the gentile gave the Jewish borrower the money.
Halacha 5
It is forbidden for a Jew to entrust his money to a gentile so that he can lend them to a Jew at interest.
When a gentile loans money to a Jew at interest, it is forbidden for another Jew to serve as a guarantor. The rationale is that according to their laws, the lender may demand payment from the guarantor first. Thus, after paying the debt, the guarantor will demand payment for the interest that he is obligated to the gentile. Hence, if the gentile makes a commitment not to demand payment from the guarantor first, it is permitted.
Halacha 6
The following laws apply when a Jew borrowed money from a gentile at interest and then the gentile converted. If a reckoning was made before he converted, the convert may collect the principal and the interest. If a reckoning was not made until after he converted, the convert may collect the principal, but not the interest.
Different rules apply when, by contrast, a gentile borrows money from a Jew at interest and then converts. After a reckoning is made, even if it was made after the conversion, the convert is required to pay the entire sum, the principal and the interest. This measure was instituted lest people say that the person converted for the sake of his money. Even after he converted, the Jew can collect the entire sum of interest for which he became liable while he was a gentile.
Halacha 7
It is a mitzvah to lend money to a Jew without charge before lending money to a gentile at interest.
Halacha 8
It is forbidden for a person to invest his money in a manner where his share in the profit is great and his share in the eventuality of loss is minimal. This is considered "the shade of interest." A person who makes such investments is considered "wicked."
If a person makes such an investment, the profits and the losses are divided according to the laws governing a hetter iska. A person who invests his money in a manner where his share in the profit is minimal and his share in the eventuality of loss is great is considered pious.
Halacha 9
We may not appoint a person as a storekeeper in return for half of the profits, nor may one entrust a person with money to buy produce in return for half of the profits, nor may one buy eggs to place under another person's chickens in return for half of the profits, nor may one evaluate calves and young donkeys and then have them fattened in return for half of the profits.
These arrangements are permitted only when the investor pays the manager a wage for his efforts and reimbursement for the upkeep of the animals, or grants the manager a greater share of the profits than his share in the event of a loss, as we explained with regard to partnerships.
Halacha 10
When a person enters into a partnership arrangement with a colleague, entrusting him with money or with land, or making an iska agreement, he should not include the profit together with the principal as a single sum in the promissory note, lest there be no profit and this lead to interest.
Similarly, a person should not give a colleague money as an iska or in a partnership, but have a promissory note written as if it were a loan. This is prohibited lest he die and the promissory note be given to his heir, who will use it to collect interest.
Halacha 11
It is forbidden to pay interest before taking a loan or to pay it afterwards. What is implied? If a person thought about receiving a loan from a
colleague and sent him presents so that he would grant him the loan, this is considered to be paying interest before giving a loan. If he took a loan from him and returned the debt, and then sent the lender a present for the fact that his money was in his possession without his receiving any benefit, this is considered as paying interest afterwards. If one transgresses and does this, this is "the shade of interest."
Halacha 12
When a person who borrowed money from a colleague would not ordinarily greet him first, it is forbidden for him to greet him first. Needless to say, it is forbidden for him to praise the lender in public or go to his home. These prohibitions are derived from the phrase Deuteronomy 23:20: "All types ofneshech"; even words are forbidden.
Similarly, it is forbidden for the borrower to teach the lender Scripture or Talmud throughout the duration of the loan if the borrower was not accustomed to doing so previously,52 as implied by the phrase: "All types of interest."
Halacha 13
When a person lends money to a colleague, he should not tell the borrower: "Take notice if so and so from this and this place comes." Implied is that the borrower should honor him and provide him with food and drink as is appropriate. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 14
There are practices that resemble interest, but which are permitted. What is implied? A person may purchase a promissory note from a
colleague for less than its face value without any concern. A person may give a colleague a dinar so that he will lend a third party 100 dinarim. The rationale is that the Torah forbade only interest given by the borrower to the lender.
Similarly, a person may tell a colleague: "Here is a dinar. Tell so and so to give me a loan." This is permitted, because he gave him a wage only for making the suggestion.
Halacha 15
There are certain matters that are permitted, and yet are forbidden because they are ha'aramat ribit (a circumvention of the prohibition against interest).
What is implied? The borrower tells the lender: "Lend me a maneh." The lender answers: "I do not have a maneh. I have wheat worth a maneh," and he gave him the wheat for a maneh and then purchased it from him for 90 zuz. This is permitted, but it was forbidden by the Sages as a circumvention of the prohibition against interest. For he gave him 90 and received a maneh.
If the lender transgressed and carried out these transactions, the lender may expropriate 100 zuz from the borrower through legal process, because even "the shade of interest" is not involved. Similarly, if a field was given as security for a loan, the lender may not rent it back to the owner of the field, because this is a circumvention of the prohibition against interest. For the borrower is receiving the field that he owned and paying the lender rent each month because he lent him money.
Halacha 16
It is forbidden to hire out dinarim. This does not resemble hiring out other utensils. In the latter case, the same utensil that was hired out is returned, In this instance, however, the recipient spends the dinarim he receives and pays him back with others. Hence, "the shade of interest" is involved.
Halacha 17
The following rules apply when a king has established a law that whoever pays the head tax imposed on every person for a particular person has the right to take control of that person and treat him as a serf. If a person pays a dinar as the tax for a particular person and then has him work for more than a dinar, this is permitted. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
Whenever a person gives a loan to a colleague of a sela for five dinarim, twose'ah of wheat for three, a selah for a selah and a se'ah? or three se'ah for three se'ah and a dinar, it is forbidden. The general principle is whenever there is a stipulation that any increase be made to a loan, interest forbidden by Scriptural Law is involved, and it may be expropriated from the lender through legal process.
Similarly, when a person lends money to a colleague and makes a stipulation that he can live in the borrower's courtyard at no cost until he returns the loan, he rented the borrower's property for less than its fair value and established that this reduction would remain in force until he repaid the debt, or took as security property from which benefit can be derived at the time of the loan - e.g., the borrower gave the lender his courtyard as security with the intent that the lender dwell in it without charge - all the above are forms of interest forbidden by Scriptural Law" and it may be expropriated from the lender through legal process.
Similarly, when a person sells a field or a courtyard through an asmachta, since the purchaser does not acquire the field itself, any produce that he consumes is interest and must be returned. Similar laws apply to any person who has not completed a transaction that is not fully binding at the outset. He must return all the produce. For if he consumes the produce, he will be taking interest according to Scriptural Law.
Any other matter forbidden as interest outside the above categories is prohibited by Rabbinic decree. These decrees were enforced lest this lead to the violation of interest forbidden by Scriptural Law. Interest forbidden by the Rabbis is called "the shade of interest" and may not be expropriated from the lender through legal process.
Halacha 2
When a person lends money to a colleague, he should not take that colleague's servant to perform work for him even if the servant is sitting idly. He should not dwell in his courtyard without charge, even though this courtyard is not fit to be rented out and the owner does not ordinarily rent out his property. If the lender does dwell in it, he must pay rent to the owner/borrower. If he does not pay rent, it is considered as "the shade of interest," because at the outset, he did not stipulate that if he makes the loan, he can dwell in his courtyard.
Therefore, the following rule applies if the borrower has not paid the debt and desires to deduct the rent for the courtyard in which the lender dwelled from the debt. If the rent is equivalent to the entire debt, he may not deduct the entire amount - only the sum that the judges specify. The rationale is that if the lender were sent away without receiving anything, it would be equivalent to expropriating the interest by the court. And "the shade of interest" is not expropriated by the court.
Halacha 3
My teachers issued the following ruling when a person lends money to a colleague and afterwards demands payment of the debt. If the borrower tells the lender: "Dwell in my courtyard until I repay the debt," it is considered as only "the shade of interest." The rationale is that this condition was not specified at the time the loan was given, as can be inferred from Leviticus 25:37: "Do not give him a loan with neshech."
Halacha 4
The following rules apply when a person lends a colleague money and the borrower offers a field as security. Although the lender tells the borrower: "If you do not return the debt to me within three years, the field belongs to me," he does not acquire it. The rationale is that the agreement is an asmachta and anasmachta is not binding. Accordingly, the lender must deduct all the produce he consumed from the sum of the loan. For consuming that produce is interest forbidden by Scriptural Law.
Different rules apply, however, if the seller/borrower tells the lender/purchaser: "If I do not repay you within three years, acquire it retroactively from the present date." If the borrower brings the money to the lender within three years, the lender is not entitled to the produce. ' If he brings the money to the lender/purchaser after three years, all the produce belongs to the purchaser.
Halacha 5
When a person sells a house or a field and tells the purchaser: "When I obtain money, return the property to me," the purchaser does not acquire the field. All the produce that he consumes is considered as fixed interest and can be expropriated from him through legal process.
If, however, on his own initiative, the purchaser tells the seller: "When you obtain money, I will return this field to you," it is permitted for him to do so. The purchaser may consume the produce until the seller returns his money.
Halacha 6
The following laws apply when a person sells a field to a colleague and the purchaser pays a portion of the money to the seller. If the seller tells the purchaser: "Acquire a portion of the property in proportion to the percentage of your payment," each of them is entitled to consume a share of the produce proportional to the percentage of the property he owns.
If the seller tells the purchaser: "When you bring the remainder of the money, you will acquire the field retroactively to the present date," both of them are forbidden to benefit from the produce immediately. The seller is prohibited, lest the purchaser bring the remainder of the money and thus the field will belong to him from that date. Hence if the seller were to consume the produce, he would be receiving benefit from the money that the purchaser has yet to pay him.
Similarly, the purchaser is forbidden to benefit from the produce. The rationale is that perhaps he will not bring the remainder of the money and the transaction will be nullified. Thus, he will have benefited from the produce in consideration of the money he had given the seller. Therefore, the produce should be given to a third party until it is appropriate to give it to one of them.
If the seller tells the purchaser: "When you bring the remainder of the money, you will acquire the field," the seller is entitled to benefit from the produce until the purchaser brings the money. If the purchaser consumes the produce, its value should be expropriated from him.
If the seller tells the purchaser: "Acquire the field at present and the remainder of the money is considered as a debt," the purchaser should benefit from the produce. If the seller consumes the produce, everything that he consumed should be expropriated from him.
Halacha 7
My masters ruled that the following principle applies when a person lends money to a colleague and the borrower gives the lender his field as security with the intent that the lender benefit from the produce while he was holding it as security. Even though the lender does not deduct anything, this is considered merely "the shade of interest," and cannot be expropriated from the lender through legal process.
The rationale is that giving a field as security is different from giving a house as security. Because produce is not located in the field at the time the loan is given. It is possible that the lender will profit, for produce will grow, and it is possible that he will lose when sowing and working the field. Therefore, it is "the shade of interest."
Similarly, giving a field as security does not resemble selling a field under anasmachta. When a person sells under an asmachta, he does not resolve to make the sale. When he gives a field as security, by contrast, he resolves to sell the potential to benefit from the land.
Similarly, from the Talmud, it appears that a property given as security involves "the shade of interest," and that can be understood only if we say that it refers to a person who gives a field as security, as my masters ruled.
Thus, there are three ways in which property can be given as security: security where taking benefit involves fixed interest, security where taking benefit involves the shade of interest and security where taking benefit is permitted.
What is implied? If a person gave a colleague a property where benefit is continually present, e.g., a courtyard, a bathhouse, or a store, as security, it is considered as fixed interest. If he gave him a field or the like as security and it produced profit from which he benefited, it is considered as "the shade of interest."
If he gave him a courtyard or the like as security and made a deduction, it is considered as "the shade of interest." If he gave him a field as security and made a deduction, it is permitted.
What is meant by "making a deduction"? A person lent a colleague 100 dinarim.The borrower gave him his courtyard or his field as security and the lender told the borrower: "I will deduct a silver me'ah each year as rent for the property, so that I can receive all of the benefit from the courtyard," or the like, it is forbidden. If he gives a field or the like as security, it is permitted.
Halacha 8
Some of the Geonim have ruled that whenever property is given as security and nothing is deducted, it is considered to be fixed interest. They did not penetrate to the depth of the matter to distinguish between a field and a courtyard. Therefore, the words of the Talmud appeared problematic to them.
Similarly, they ruled that it is always forbidden to give property as security without a deduction being made, whether for a courtyard or a field, except according to the following arrangement.
What is implied? The lender loaned the borrower 100 dinarim, took a house or a field as security, and stipulated that after ten years the property would return to its owners at no charge. The lender is permitted to benefit from the produce of the property for the entire ten years, even if ordinarily its rent would be 1000dinarim a year. For in effect, what he is doing is renting it at a lower price.
Similarly, it is permitted if the owner of the field added a stipulation that whenever he brought the renter or lender money, he would deduct a rent of tendinarim a year from the amount and leave the property. Similarly, it is permitted if the borrower added a stipulation that whenever he desired, he could calculate the time that the lender or renter dwelled in the property and pay him the remainder and then he would leave the property. The rationale is that it is a rental that is involved, and any stipulation involving a rental is binding and permitted, as explained previously.
• Tuesday, Tishrei 23, 5776 · 10/06/2015
"Today's Day"
Friday Tishrei 23, Simchat Torah 5704
We do not read the Torah at night. Blessing by the kohanim at Shacharit. We do not have the custom to spread a tallit over the heads of the chatan Torah and chatan Bereishit. The one called to the Torah also1 says chazak chazak venitchazeik.
Torah lessons: Chumash: B'racha, Shishi and Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 108-112.
Tanya: XXIV. My beloved, (p. 531) ...apparent to all. (p. 533).
On Simchat Torah 5540 (1779) the Alter Rebbe said:
It is a tree of life for those who hold fast to it - this refers to people of intellect who study Torah. ...and those who support it are fortunate2 - these are the people of avoda (davening) who occupy themselves with Torah.
They are fortunate (me'ushar) as the Zohar (III 53b) interprets: Do not read the word as me'ushar but (through a transposition of letters) as meirosho, "from his head." Through their avoda they call forth (the spiritual level of) "His head," the inwardness of the En Sof.
This is similar to the unique quality of the foot which provides the support of the head.
FOOTNOTES
1. I.e. in addition to all the congregants.
2. Mishlei 3:18.
Daily Thought:
Dancing With Them
This self of which we are conscious is but a tiny portion of the whole, the tip of a peninsula, a finely focused ray of an infinite source of light.
Upstream lies unimaginable wealth, storehouses of treasures left by many generations. Upstream lies every G‑dly act of our holy mothers and fathers, the strength and courage of every martyr, the unlimited power of G‑d’s breath within us.
When you dance and sing in the joy of a beautiful deed, listen to the music. You will hear your holy mothers and fathers of ages past, dancing and singing along.
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment