Daily Quote:
Tree, o' tree, with what can I bless you? That your fruit should be sweet? Your fruit is sweet. That your shade should be plentiful? Your shade is plentiful. That a stream of water should run beneath you? Water runs beneath you. The one thing left for me to bless you is: May all the plantings from your seed be like you![Talmud, Taanit 5b]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Toldot, 3rd Portion Genesis 26:13-26:22 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Genesis Chapter 26
13And the man became great, and he grew constantly greater until he had grown very great. יגוַיִּגְדַּ֖ל הָאִ֑ישׁ וַיֵּ֤לֶךְ הָלוֹךְ֙ וְגָדֵ֔ל עַ֥ד כִּֽי־גָדַ֖ל מְאֹֽד:
he had grown very great: For they would say,“Rather the manure of Isaac’s mules than Abimelech’s silver and gold” (Gen. Rabbah 64:7). כי גדל מאד: שהיו אומרים זבל פרדותיו של יצחק ולא כספו וזהבו של אבימלך:
14And he had possessions of sheep and possessions of cattle and much production, and the Philistines envied him. ידוַֽיְהִי־ל֤וֹ מִקְנֵה־צֹאן֙ וּמִקְנֵ֣ה בָקָ֔ר וַֽעֲבֻדָּ֖ה רַבָּ֑ה וַיְקַנְא֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ פְּלִשְׁתִּֽים:
and much production: Heb. וַעִבֻדָּה רַבָּה, much activity, in Old French ouvrene (enterprises). עִבוֹדָה means one job, whereas עִבֻדָּה means much production. ועבדה רבה: פעולה רבה, בלשון לע"ז אובריינ"א [מכלול העבודות] עבודה משמע עבודה אחת, עבודה משמע פעולה רבה:
15And all the wells that his father's servants had dug in the days of Abraham his father the Philistines stopped them up and filled them with earth. טווְכָל־הַבְּאֵרֹ֗ת אֲשֶׁ֤ר חָֽפְרוּ֙ עַבְדֵ֣י אָבִ֔יו בִּימֵ֖י אַבְרָהָ֣ם אָבִ֑יו סִתְּמ֣וּם פְּלִשְׁתִּ֔ים וַיְמַלְא֖וּם עָפָֽר:
the Philistines stopped them up: Because they said,“They are a danger to us due to the armies that will come upon us.” [Onkelos renders:] טְמוּנוּן פְּלִשְׁתָּאֵי an expression of stopping up, and in the language of the Talmud,“stops up (מְטַמְטֵם) the heart.” סתמום פלשתים: מפני שאמרו תקלה הם לנו מפני הגייסות הבאות עלינו. טמונין פלשתאי לשון סתימה, ובלשון משנה (פסחים מב א) מטמטם את הלב:
16And Abimelech said to Isaac, "Go away from us, for you have become much stronger than we." טזוַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֲבִימֶ֖לֶךְ אֶל־יִצְחָ֑ק לֵ֚ךְ מֵֽעִמָּ֔נוּ כִּֽי־עָצַ֥מְתָּ מִמֶּ֖נּוּ מְאֹֽד:
17And Isaac went away from there, and he encamped in the valley of Gerar and dwelt there. יזוַיֵּ֥לֶךְ מִשָּׁ֖ם יִצְחָ֑ק וַיִּ֥חַן בְּנַֽחַל־גְּרָ֖ר וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב שָֽׁם:
in the valley of Gerar: far from the city. בנחל גרר: רחוק מן העיר:
18And Isaac again dug the wells of water which they had dug in the days of his father, Abraham, and the Philistines had stopped them up after Abraham's death; and he gave them names like the names that his father had given them. יחוַיָּ֨שָׁב יִצְחָ֜ק וַיַּחְפֹּ֣ר | אֶת־בְּאֵרֹ֣ת הַמַּ֗יִם אֲשֶׁ֤ר חָֽפְרוּ֙ בִּימֵי֙ אַבְרָהָ֣ם אָבִ֔יו וַיְסַתְּמ֣וּם פְּלִשְׁתִּ֔ים אַֽחֲרֵ֖י מ֣וֹת אַבְרָהָ֑ם וַיִּקְרָ֤א לָהֶן֙ שֵׁמ֔וֹת כַּשֵּׁמֹ֕ת אֲשֶׁר־קָרָ֥א לָהֶ֖ן אָבִֽיו:
And Isaac again dug: [Meaning] the wells that they had dug in the days of his father Abraham and that the Philistines had stopped up-before Isaac traveled from Gerar, he went back and dug them. וישב ויחפר: הבארות אשר חפרו בימי אברהם אביו. ופלשתים סתמום, מקודם שנסע יצחק מגרר חזר וחפרן:
19And Isaac's servants dug in the valley, and they found there a well of living waters. יטוַיַּחְפְּר֥וּ עַבְדֵֽי־יִצְחָ֖ק בַּנָּ֑חַל וַיִּ֨מְצְאוּ־שָׁ֔ם בְּאֵ֖ר מַ֥יִם חַיִּֽים:
20And the shepherds of Gerar quarreled with Isaac's shepherds, saying, "The water is ours"; so he named the well Esek, because they had contended with him. כוַיָּרִ֜יבוּ רֹעֵ֣י גְרָ֗ר עִם־רֹעֵ֥י יִצְחָ֛ק לֵאמֹ֖ר לָ֣נוּ הַמָּ֑יִם וַיִּקְרָ֤א שֵֽׁם־הַבְּאֵר֙ עֵ֔שֶׂק כִּ֥י הִתְעַשְּׂק֖וּ עִמּֽוֹ:
Esek: Contention. עשק: ערער:
because they had contended with him: They engaged with him about it with strife and contention. כי התעשקו עמו: נתעשקו עמו עליה במריבה וערעור:
21And they dug another well, and they quarreled about it also; so he named it Sitnah. כאוַיַּחְפְּרוּ֙ בְּאֵ֣ר אַחֶ֔רֶת וַיָּרִ֖יבוּ גַּם־עָלֶ֑יהָ וַיִּקְרָ֥א שְׁמָ֖הּ שִׂטְנָֽה:
Sitnah: nuysemant in Old French (harm, wrong, injury). שטנה: נוישימונ"ט [נזק]:
22And he moved away from there, and he dug another well, and they did not quarrel over it; so he named it Rehoboth, and he said, "For now the Lord has made room for us, and we will be fruitful in the land." כבוַיַּעְתֵּ֣ק מִשָּׁ֗ם וַיַּחְפֹּר֙ בְּאֵ֣ר אַחֶ֔רֶת וְלֹ֥א רָב֖וּ עָלֶ֑יהָ וַיִּקְרָ֤א שְׁמָהּ֙ רְחֹב֔וֹת וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כִּ֣י עַתָּ֞ה הִרְחִ֧יב יְהֹוָ֛ה לָ֖נוּ וּפָרִ֥ינוּ בָאָֽרֶץ:
and we will be fruitful in the land: Heb. וּפָרִינוּ בָאָרֶץ, as the Targum translates it: וְנִיפוּשׁ בְּאַרְעָא,“and we will be fruitful in the land.” ופרינו בארץ: כתרגומו ונפוש בארעא:
---------------------
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 135 - 139
• Hebrew text
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Name of the Lord; offer praise, you servants of the Lord-
2. who stand in the House of the Lord, in the courtyards of the House of our God.
3. Praise the Lord, for the Lord is good; sing to His Name, for He is pleasant.
4. For God has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel as His beloved treasure.
5. For I know that the Lord is great, our Master is greater than all supernal beings.
6. All that the Lord desired He has done, in the heavens and on earth, in the seas and the depths.
7. He causes mists to rise from the ends of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain; He brings forth the wind from His vaults.
8. It was He who struck down the firstborn of Egypt, of man and beast.
9. He sent signs and wonders into the midst of Egypt, on Pharaoh and on all his servants.
10. It was He who struck down many nations, and slew mighty kings:
11. Sichon, king of the Amorites; Og, king of Bashan; and all the kingdoms of Canaan.
12. And He gave their lands as a heritage, a heritage to His people Israel.
13. Lord, Your Name is forever; Lord, Your remembrance is throughout all generations.
14. Indeed, the Lord will judge on behalf of His people, and have compassion on His servants.
15. The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the product of human hands.
16. They have a mouth, but cannot speak; they have eyes, but cannot see;
17. they have ears, but cannot hear; nor is there breath in their mouth.
18. Like them will their makers become-all who trust in them.
19. House of Israel, bless the Lord; House of Aaron, bless the Lord;
20. House of Levi, bless the Lord; you who fear the Lord, bless the Lord.
21. Blessed is the Lord from Zion, who dwells in Jerusalem. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 136
This psalm contains twenty-six verses, corresponding to the twenty-six generations between the creation of the world and the giving of the Torah.
1. Praise the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is forever.
2. Praise the God of the supernal beings, for His kindness is forever.
3. Praise the Master of the heavenly hosts, for His kindness is forever.
4. Who alone performs great wonders, for His kindness is forever.
5. Who makes the heavens with understanding, for His kindness is forever.
6. Who spreads forth the earth above the waters, for His kindness is forever.
7. Who makes the great lights, for His kindness is forever.
8. The sun to rule by day, for His kindness is forever.
9. The moon and stars to rule by night, for His kindness is forever.
10. Who struck Egypt through its firstborn, for His kindness is forever.
11. And brought Israel out of their midst, for His kindness is forever.
12. With a strong hand and with an outstretched arm, for His kindness is forever.
13. Who split the Sea of Reeds into sections, for His kindness is forever.
14. And brought Israel across it, for His kindness is forever.
15. And cast Pharaoh and his army into the Sea of Reeds, for His kindness is forever.
16. Who led His people through the desert, for His kindness is forever;
17. Who struck down great kings, for His kindness is forever.
18. And slew mighty kings, for His kindness is forever.
19. Sichon, king of the Amorites, for His kindness is forever.
20. And Og, king of Bashan, for His kindness is forever.
21. And gave their land as a heritage, for His kindness is forever.
22. A heritage to Israel His servant, for His kindness is forever.
23. Who remembered us in our humiliation, for His kindness is forever.
24. And redeemed us from our oppressors, for His kindness is forever.
25. Who gives food to all flesh, for His kindness is forever.
26. Praise the God of heaven, for His kindness is forever.
Chapter 137
Referring to the time of the destruction of the Temple, this psalm tells of when Nebuchadnezzar would ask the Levites to sing in captivity as they had in the Temple, to which they would reply, "How can we sing the song of God upon alien soil?" They were then comforted by Divine inspiration.
1. By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat and wept as we remembered Zion.
2. There, upon the willows, we hung our harps.
3. For there our captors demanded of us songs, and those who scorned us-rejoicing, [saying,] "Sing to us of the songs of Zion.”
4. How can we sing the song of the Lord on alien soil?
5. If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget [its dexterity].
6. Let my tongue cleave to my palate if I will not remember you, if I will not bring to mind Jerusalem during my greatest joy!
7. Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites the day of [the destruction of] Jerusalem, when they said, "Raze it, raze it to its very foundation!”
8. O Babylon, who is destined to be laid waste, happy is he who will repay you in retribution for what you have inflicted on us.
9. Happy is he who will seize and crush your infants against the rock!
Chapter 138
David offers awesome praises to God for His kindness to him, and for fulfilling His promise to grant him kingship.
1. By David. I will thank You with all my heart, in the presence of princes I shall praise You.
2. I will bow toward Your Holy Sanctuary, and praise Your Name for Your kindness and for Your truth; for You have exalted Your word above all Your Names.
3. On the day that I called out You answered me, You emboldened me, [You put] strength in my soul.
4. Lord, all the kings of the land will give thanks to You when they hear the words of Your mouth.
5. And they will sing of the Lord's ways, for the glory of the Lord is great.
6. For though the Lord is exalted, He sees the lowly; the High One castigates from afar.
7. If I walk in the midst of distress, keep me alive; against the wrath of my enemies stretch out Your hand, and let Your right hand deliver me.
8. Lord, complete [Your kindness] on my behalf. Lord, Your kindness is forever, do not forsake the work of Your hands.
Chapter 139
A most prominent psalm that guides man in the ways of God as no other in all of the five books of Tehillim. Fortunate is he who recites it daily.
1. For the Conductor, by David, a psalm. O Lord, You have probed me, and You know.
2. You know my sitting down and my standing up; You perceive my thought from afar.
3. You encircle my going about and my lying down; You are familiar with all my paths.
4. For there was not yet a word on my tongue-and behold, Lord, You knew it all.
5. You have besieged me front and back, You have laid Your hand upon me.
6. Knowledge [to escape You] is beyond me; it is exalted, I cannot know it.
7. Where can I go [to escape] Your spirit? And where can I flee from Your presence?
8. If I ascend to the heavens, You are there; if I make my bed in the grave, behold, You are there.
9. Were I to take up wings as the dawn and dwell in the furthest part of the sea,
10. there, too, Your hand would guide me; Your right hand would hold me.
11. Were I to say, "Surely the darkness will shadow me," then the night would be as light around me.
12. Even the darkness obscures nothing from You; and the night shines like the day-the darkness is as light.
13. For You created my mind; You covered me in my mother's womb.
14. I will thank You, for I was formed in an awesome and wondrous way; unfathomable are Your works, though my soul perceives much.
15. My essence was not hidden from You even while I was born in concealment, formed in the depths of the earth.
16. Your eyes beheld my raw form; all [happenings] are inscribed in Your book, even those to be formed in future days-to Him they are the same.
17. How precious are Your thoughts to me, O God! How overwhelming, [even] their beginnings!
18. Were I to count them, they would outnumber the sand, even if I were to remain awake and always with You.
19. O that You would slay the wicked, O God, and men of blood [to whom I say], "Depart from me!”
20. They exalt You for wicked schemes, Your enemies raise [You] for falsehood.
21. Indeed, I hate those who hate You, Lord; I contend with those who rise up against You.
22. I hate them with the utmost hatred; I regard them as my own enemies.
23. Search me, Lord, and know my heart; test me and know my thoughts.
24. See if there is a vexing way in me, then lead me in the way of the world.
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Tuesday, Cheshvan 28, 5776 · November 10, 2015
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Tuesday, Cheshvan 28, 5776 · November 10, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Kuntres Acharon, Essay 2
עיין עץ חיים, שער הנקודות, שער ה׳, פרק ו׳
Examine the statement in Etz Chayim, Shaar HaNekudot, Shaar 8, ch. 6,
שאין החזרת פנים בפנים, כי אם על ידי מצות מעשיות דוקא
that there can be no “turning of face to face” except through mitzvot requiring action.
The text cited had previously discussed the stage of creation at which (i) the bracket of six Sefirot known collectively asZa (ז״א; Z’eir Anpin), and (ii) the Sefirah of Malchut,1 were first emanated and revealed (in the World of Atzilut) fromChochmah and Binah, their spiritual parents. Adam had not yet been created and hence the avodah of fulfilling mitzvot did not yet exist. At this stage, if Za and Malchut had united “face to face,” there would be an effusion of Divine energy from the innermost aspect of Za to the innermost aspect of Malchut. This, however, would enable the kelipot to receive more than their due share of life-giving influence from the source of holiness. The union was therefore merely “back to back,” i.e., only the external aspect of Za was drawn down to Malchut.
Only after Adam was created and performed mitzvot, effectively “trimming and hacking off the thorns,” i.e., limiting the nurture of kelipot, could Za and Malchut be united “face to face.”
In other words, Divinity can be revealed within this world (without any nurture being illegitimately diverted to thekelipot) only by means of mitzvot whose performance entails an actual deed.
וטעם הדבר
The reason for this, as given there in Etz Chayim,
כי על ידי מעשים טובים גורם זיווג העליון וכו׳
is that by means of good deeds one brings about a Supernal Union, causing Za and Malchut to turn “face to face.”
ולהבין אמאי מעשיות דוקא
Now, why only mitzvot involving action?
Why can the same result not be brought about by mitzvot fulfilled by thought and speech?
יובן ממה שכתוב בשער מ״ן ומ״ד
This may be understood in the light of what is written in [Etz Chayim,] Shaar Ma’n Uma’d,2
כי צריך תחלה להעלות מ״ן דנוקבא דז״א
that first, before the Supernal Union takes place, there must be an elevation of mayin nukvin (i.e., an arousal initiated by the recipient) from the nukva (i.e., the feminine element) of Za, viz., Malchut,
ומ״ן דנוקבא הן בחינת עשיה, כמו שכתוב שם, פרק א׳
and the mayin nukvin of nukva is the state of action, as explained there, in ch. 1.
In other words: The things of this world, whose source is the Sefirah of Malchut (which is the nukva of Za) must be elevated to their source in holiness. This can be accomplished only through mitzvot whose fulfillment requires actions performed with the material components of the world. This alone makes possible the Supernal Union which reveals Divinity within this world.
But how can it be ensured that no part of this revelation will leak to the kelipot (which are also known as chitzonim — lit., “extraneous forces”)?
והנה, המעשים טובים נקראים כסוח וקיצוץ הקוצים הנאחזים באחוריים
Good deeds are described as trimming and hacking off the thistles that attach themselves to the hinderpart,
שהן בחינת עשיה
which is the state of deed,
כמו שכתוב בשער מ״ז, פרק ה׳
as is written in [Etz Chayim,] Shaar 47, ch. 5.
It is the performance of specifically these commandments that hacks away the kelipot which, like the unchecked roots of thistles or weeds in a vineyard, would otherwise encroach on the life-giving waters and divert them from their intended destination.
והיינו, על ידי העלאת הטוב הגנוז בהם, המלובש במצות מעשיות
This [pruning is effected] by elevating the element of good that is concealed in them (i.e., in things of this world that are related to Asiyah) and that is enclothed in mitzvot of action,
למקורו, לקדושת האצילות שכבר הובררה
[elevating this element of good] to its source, to the sanctity of Atzilut that has already been refined.
The performance of practical mitzvot thus makes possible the purification and elevation of those physical things that are in need of this, by extracting the element of good that is within them and elevating it to holiness.
ומה שכתוב שם, שאדם הראשון תיקן גם כן על ידי תפלה
As to the statement there that Adam effected rectification (tikkun) through prayer as well, which would not appear to be a mitzvah requiring action,
היינו, על ידי אותיות הדבור, דעקימת שפתיו הוי מעשה
this means [that he did so] through uttering the letters of speech, i.e., not through the intent of prayer, but by the actual deed involved, for the movement of one’s lips is also deemed a deed.3
כי הן מנפש החיונית שבגוף ודמו, אשר שרשן מנוגה
For they — these utterances — derive from the vivifying soul which is in one’s body and blood, whose root(and life-force) is in [kelipat] nogah.
As the Alter Rebbe explains in ch. 37 of Tanya, one’s G-dly soul is incapable of uttering the words of Torah or prayer (which have to be sounded with the physical mouth, tongue and teeth), except through the agency of the vivifying soul that is invested in the body.
We see from the above that uttering the words of prayer can also elevate Ma’n from the nukva of Asiyah, just as is done by the practical mitzvot.
והנה הבירורים דעשיה עולין ליצירה על ידי שם ב״ן, ומיצירה לבריאה ולאצילות, כמו שכתוב בשער מ״ן, דרוש י״א, סימן ז׳
The acts of refinement of Asiyah that are accomplished through practical mitzvot ascend to Yetzirah by means of the Divine Name Ba’n, and from Yetzirah to Beriah and Atzilut, as noted in Shaar Ma’n, Derush11, sec. 7.
ובזה יובן דהרהור לא עביד מידי
Thus we can understand why mere thought accomplishes nothing, as Essay 1 of Kuntres Acharon quotes above from the Zohar,
כי בלי העלאת מ״ן מהמלכים שבנוגה, אי אפשר להמשיך טיפין מלמעלה לזווג זו״ן
for unless mayin nukvin is elevated from the “kings of nogah,”4 it is impossible to draw forth drops from above to effect the union of Zu’n, an acronym for the above terms Za and nukva.
This elevation can be effected only through activity on the level of Asiyah, as stated above.
Za and Malchut can unite only if a degree of illumination that transcends them both, is drawn down upon them. To use a mortal analogy: Concerning the union of man and woman it is written,5 “Male and female did He create them, and G‑d blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply.”’ I.e., in order for their union to bear fruit, a blessing must first descend upon the partners from above. And these “drops” of blessing from a source in Divinity that transcends both Za andMalchut cannot be drawn forth unless mayin nukvin is aroused and elevated by the refinement of the materiality of kelipat nogah.
כי רוצה לינק מאמו, ולא להשפיע למטה
For [Za] desires to seek its nurture from its “mother”, i.e., from the Sefirah of Binah, rather than giving forth for the lower realms,
It is only through the elevation of Ma’n of nogah that a higher degree of illumination is drawn down within Za, causing it to desire to unite with the Sefirah beneath it, viz., Malchut.
כמו שכתוב בשער מ״ן, דרוש ב׳
as is written in [Etz Chayim,] Shaar Ma’n, Derush 2.
ועיין זהר, פרשת פקודי, דף רמ״ד, עמוד ב׳, דאית סדורא כו׳ לאסתכלא כו׳
Examine Zohar, Parshat Pekudei, p. 244b, which states that there is a mode...of gazing....
Just as there is a mode of verbalized prayer, there is also a mode of prayer with kavanah by means of which one meditates and attains infinite heights, as one gazes upon the glory of the King.
והן כוונות התפלה ויחודים עליונים, ליודעים ומשיגים לאסתכלא כו׳
This refers to the intentions (kavanot) in worship, and the supernal unions, for those who know and understand how to “gaze....”
Such individuals can have an impact on this world through their unarticulated intentions alone.
כי נפש רוח נשמה שלהם עצמן הן מ״ן, במסירות נפש על התורה
For their Nefesh, Ruach and Neshamah themselves constitute [the arousal initiated by the recipient which is known as] Ma’n, through their self-sacrificing devotion for the Torah,
ובנפילת אפים, כנודע
and during the Tachanun prayer, during which we say “To You, G‑d, I lift my soul,” as is known.
This ability, however, remains the province of a select few. The overwhelming majority of Jews accomplish this elevation through mitzvot of action involving an actual deed or speech. And in this manner they are able to bring about a union “face to face” between Za and Malchut — the sublime union of Kudsha Brich Hu and His Shechinah, which draws Divinity down into this world.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Za (as the benefactor) is termed “male”, and Malchut (as the recipient) is termed “female”. Their union — (The Rebbe here refers the reader to Tanya, ch. 41) — is called the union of Kudsha Brich Hu (“the Holy One, Blessed be He”) and HisShechinah (“the Divine Presence”), for Za (as implied by the term kadosh) is separate from the world, while Malchut is called Shechinah (from the root meaning “to dwell”) because it descends within the world. This union results in the revelation of Divinity within the world. |
| 2. | The abbreviations מ״ן and מ״ד are the initials (respectively) of two Kabbalistic metaphors in Aramaic: mayin nukvin (lit., “feminine waters”) and mayin d’churin (or: mayin duchrin; lit., “masculine waters”). |
| 3. | Sanhedrin 65a. |
| 4. | As explained at length in the Kabbalah and in the literature of Chassidut, all things that are to be found in the kelipot “fell” there from the “seven kings” of the World of Tohu. The “kings” that “fell” into kelipat nogah are refined and elevated through man’s spiritual service. |
| 5. | Bereishit 5:2. |
---------------------
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Today's Mitzvah
Tuesday, Cheshvan 28, 5776 · November 10, 2015
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 195
Gluttonous Eating and Drinking
"You shall not eat over the blood"—Leviticus 19:26.
A youth is forbidden to eat and drink in a gluttonous fashion, according to the specific [extreme] conditions that define a "rebellious son." (A rebellious son is put to death. As such, the Sages interpret the afore-cited verse to mean: "Do not eat [in such a manner that will cause] blood [i.e., death].")
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Positive Commandment 37
A Priest's Attendance at a Next of Kin's Funeral
"For [his sister], he must become impure"—Leviticus 21:3.
Priests are commanded to become ritually impure [by attending the funerals of] their next of kin. Since the Torah normally forbids priests from becoming impure through contact with a corpse, one might think that the allowance for them to attend the funeral of a relative is simply to provide them with that option, but is not compulsory. Therefore the Torah clarifies that it is mandatory. As the Talmud related that Yosef the Priest's wife died on the eve of Passover and he didn't want to become impure by attending her funeral [so that he should be able to sacrifice and eat from the Paschal Offering], so the Sages "pushed" him and forced him become impure.
Included in this mitzvah is the general obligation that everyone – priests and Israelites alike – mourn the deaths of their next of kin. (And it is because of the priest's obligation to mourn that the Torah obligates him to attend the funeral and show his respects.) According to Torah law, the mourning period is one day [following the burial]; the Sages extended this to a seven-day period of mourning.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Today's Mitzvah Tuesday, Cheshvan 28, 5776 · November 10, 2015
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 195
Gluttonous Eating and Drinking
"You shall not eat over the blood"—Leviticus 19:26.
A youth is forbidden to eat and drink in a gluttonous fashion, according to the specific [extreme] conditions that define a "rebellious son." (A rebellious son is put to death. As such, the Sages interpret the afore-cited verse to mean: "Do not eat [in such a manner that will cause] blood [i.e., death].")
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Gluttonous Eating and Drinking
Negative Commandment 195
Translated by Berel Bell
The 195th prohibition is that we are forbidden from being a glutton and a drunkard in our youth, according to the specific conditions1 which define a ben sorer u'moreh [rebellious son].
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "Do not eat on the blood."3
The explanation [of why this is counted as a prohibition instead of a positive commandment to punish the ben sorer u'moreh] is that the ben sorer u'moreh is included among those who are executed by the High Court. The Torah states clearly4 that the method of execution is stoning. We already explained in the Introduction to this work5 that whenever the Torah indicates a punishment of kares or execution, the mitzvah is a prohibition, except for the Pesach sacrifice and circumcision. We therefore know that the present mitzvah is a prohibition, since this glutton and drunkard is punished by stoning if all the conditions are present.
We have mentioned the source for the punishment, but according to our principle that the Torah gives a punishment only if there is another verse which states the actual prohibition, we still need to find the actual prohibition. The Gemara says in Sanhedrin,6 "Which verse serves as the prohibition of ben sorer u'moreh? The verse, 'Do not eat on the blood.' " It is as if the verse says, "Do not eat in a way that will cause bloodshed," i.e. the eating of this glutton and drunkard which is punishable by execution. If a person would eat this wicked meal with all the negative conditions, he would transgress this prohibition.
It doesn't matter that this is a lav she'b'klalus,7 as explained in the Ninth Introductory Principle, because since there is a separate verse stating the punishment, we are not concerned whether the actual prohibition comes from a separate law or a lav she'b'klalus. We have already explained this many times and given many examples.8
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the eighth chapter of tractate Sanhedrin.
FOOTNOTES
1.For example, he must buy and consume 50 dinars worth of meat with money stolen from his father. It must be cooked rare, and eaten outside his father's property in bad company. It must be done in the three month period after he reaches bar mitzvah. See Hilchos Mamrim, Ch. 7.
2.Lev. 19:26.
3.See below, where the Rambam explains the connection of this verse to this prohibition.
4.Deut. 21:21.
5.End of Introductory Principle 14.
6.63a.
7.An "inclusive prohibition," i.e. one which includes several distinct prohibitions. The general rule regarding a lav she'b'klalus is that it counts as just one commandment even though it includes several distinct prohibitions. (See Introductory Principle Nine and N299.)
This verse, "Do not eat on the blood," is explained in Sanhedrin to include other prohibitions, such as eating sacrificial meat before the blood is spilt on the altar (N182). Although usually the separate aspects of a lav she'b'klalus are included in one single prohibition, N195 does not have this problem, as the Rambam explains further.
8.See, for example, N26; N60.
------------------------------------Positive Commandment 37
A Priest's Attendance at a Next of Kin's Funeral
"For [his sister], he must become impure"—Leviticus 21:3.
Priests are commanded to become ritually impure [by attending the funerals of] their next of kin. Since the Torah normally forbids priests from becoming impure through contact with a corpse, one might think that the allowance for them to attend the funeral of a relative is simply to provide them with that option, but is not compulsory. Therefore the Torah clarifies that it is mandatory. As the Talmud related that Yosef the Priest's wife died on the eve of Passover and he didn't want to become impure by attending her funeral [so that he should be able to sacrifice and eat from the Paschal Offering], so the Sages "pushed" him and forced him become impure.
Included in this mitzvah is the general obligation that everyone – priests and Israelites alike – mourn the deaths of their next of kin. (And it is because of the priest's obligation to mourn that the Torah obligates him to attend the funeral and show his respects.) According to Torah law, the mourning period is one day [following the burial]; the Sages extended this to a seven-day period of mourning.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
A Priest's Attendance at a Next of Kin's Funeral
Positive Commandment 37
Translated by Berel Bell
The 37th mitzvah is that we are commanded that Kohanim shall make themselves tameh1 for those relatives mentioned in the Torah.2 Since the Torah honored them by prohibiting them from being tameh from a dead body alone,3 and allowed them to become tameh for relatives, one could possibly think that it is optional and depends on their wishes: if they wish, they may become tameh, and if not, they will not become tameh. The Torah therefore explicitly decreed that it is a requirement.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement4 (exalted be He), [regarding the kohen's sister], "You shall become tameh for her."
The Sifra5 says, "The phrase, 'You shall become tameh for her,' is a positive commandment. Even should he not want to become tameh, he is made tameh against his will. The wife of Yosef HaKohen passed away on Erev Pesach, and he did not want to become tameh,6 and the Sages forced him to become tameh against his will."
This mitzvah is actually the commandment to mourn, i.e. that every Jew is required to mourn upon the passing of one of the six7 for who it is commanded to mourn. The commandment is said regarding a kohen to emphasize its seriousness: Even a kohen, who is normally forbidden from becoming tameh, is commanded in this case to act like any other Jew and become tameh. [It is stressed in this way] in order to prevent people from being lenient in the laws of mourning.
It has been explained8 that the first day of mourning is mandated by Torah law. Our Sages said in tractate Moed Katan,9 "The commandment of mourning does not apply during Yom Tov. If the person was already mourning [when Yom Tov began], the positive commandment which applies to everyone [i.e. rejoicing during Yom Tov] pushes away the positive commandment which applies only to the individual" [i.e. mourning]. This [phrase "positive commandment"] indicates clearly that mourning is a Torah obligation and counts as a positive commandment. However, this is only for the first day, when even a kohen becomes tameh upon the passing of a close relative. The seven days of mourning are by Rabbinic law. Be sure to understand this.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate "Mashkin,"10 passages in Berachos,11 Kesuvos,12 Yevamos,13 and Avodah Zorah,14 and in Sifra, Parshas Emor el HaKohanim.
The requirement of Kohanim to become tameh for a close relative is not binding upon female Kohanim. Only one who is prohibited from becoming tameh for non-relatives is commanded to become tameh for relatives. A female kohen, since she is not prohibited from tumas meis, as explained there,15 she is also not commanded or required to become tameh [upon death of a relative]. She is required to mourn, but becoming tameh is her choice. Be sure to understand this.
FOOTNOTES
1.I.e. ritually impure by attending the funeral of a close relative.
2.Lev. 21:2-3. I.e. father, mother, son, daughter, brother and sister. By Rabbinic law, this also applies to a husband and wife. See Hilchos Avel, 2:1.
3.And not other types of tumah
4.Lev. 21:3.
5.Ibid.
6.For her burial. Even though he was allowed to become tameh, he would then be unable to fulfill the mitzvah of partaking in the Pesach sacrifice.
7.See Kapach, 5731, footnote 26.
8.Zevachim 100a.
9.14b.
10.Moed Katan 19ff.
11.18a.
12.4b.
13.22b et al.
14.13a.
15.N166.
------------------------------------
• 1 Chapter: Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 7 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Nedarim - Chapter 7
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Nedarim - Chapter 7
Halacha 1
When two people are forbidden - by vow or by oath - to derive benefit from each other, they are allowed1 to return a lost article to each other, because doing so is a mitzvah.2 In a place where it is customary for the person who returns a lost article to receive a reward, the reward should be given to the Temple treasury.3 For if [the person who returns the lost article] will take the reward, he will be receiving benefit.4 If he does not take it, he will be giving the other person benefit.5
Halacha 2
They are [both] permitted [to make use of] those entities that are owned jointly by the entire Jewish people,6 e.g., the Temple Mount, its chambers, its courtyards, and a well in the midst of a highway.7 They are forbidden [to make use of] those entities that are owned jointly by all the inhabitants of that city,8e.g., its marketplace, its bathhouse, its synagogue, its ark, and its holy texts.
Halacha 3
What can they do so that they will be permitted to use these entities? Each one of them should sign over his portion to the nasi9 or to another person and have him acquire that portion through the medium of another person.10 Thus when either of them enter a bathhouse belonging to all the members of the city or to the synagogue, he is not entering the property of the colleague [from whom he is forbidden to benefit], for each of them has relinquished his share of the place and given it away as a present.
Halacha 4
[The following laws apply when] they are both partners in a courtyard.11If it can be divided,12 they are forbidden to enter it unless it is divided and each person enters his portion. If it cannot be divided,13 each one should enter his house, saying: "I am entering my property."14 Regardless,15 they are both forbidden to place a mill or an oven there or to raise chickens in this courtyard.16
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
Halacha 7
When a person forbids himself from benefiting from one of the nations, he is permitted to buy [an article] from them at more than the market price and sell to them at less than the market price.23 If he forbids them from benefiting from him, if they are willing, it is permitted for him to purchase from them for less than the market price and sell to them at more than the market price.24 We do not issue a decree forbidding him to sell [at less than the market price], lest he purchase [at less than the market price].25 [The rationale is that] he did not take a vow concerning only one individual, in which instance such a decree would be appropriate, but concerning an entire nation and if it is impossible for him to do business with one person, he will do business with another.26 Therefore, if he forbade himself from benefiting from them, he may lend both articles and money to them, but may not borrow either of these from them.27
Halacha 8
If he forbade them from benefiting from him and himself from benefiting from them, he should not do business with them, nor may they do business with him.28 He may not borrow an article from them or lend an article to them, nor borrow money from them or lend money from them.
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
When it is forbidden for a person to benefit a colleague and that colleague has nothing to eat, the person may go to a storekeeper and say: "So-and-so is forbidden to benefit from me and I don't know what to do."38 It is permitted for the storekeeper to go and give [food] to the colleague and take [payment] from that person.39
13 [Similar laws apply]40 if it is necessary to build [that colleague's] house, put up a fence for him, or harvest his field. If the person from whom it was forbidden to benefit approached workers and told them: "So-and-so is forbidden to benefit from me and I don't know what to do,"41 They may then perform these activities, go back to that person, and he may pay them. For he is paying the debt of the colleague and we already explained42 that a person [from whom one is forbidden to benefit] may pay a debt for his colleague.
Halacha 14
If the two43 were traveling on a journey and [the person who is forbidden to benefit from his colleague] does not have anything to eat, [that colleague] may give [food] to another person as a present and [the person who is forbidden] is then permitted to partake of it.44 If there is no one else with them, [the person whose property is forbidden] should put [food] on a stone and say: "This [food] is considered ownerless for everyone who desires it."45 The other person may then take it and eat.46
Halacha 15
If, [however,] he gives a colleague a present [of a feast] and tells him: "This feast is given to you as a present. Let so-and-so who is forbidden to benefit from me come and eat with us," this is forbidden.47 Moreover, even if he gave the present without saying anything, but afterwards48 said: "Do you want so-and-so to come and eat with us?" it is forbidden if it appears that initially, he gave the present solely so that ultimately so-and-so could eat with them. For example, it is a large feast and he wants his father, his teacher, or the like to partake of the feast. For [the size of] the feast indicates that he did not intend to give it to him. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 16
Any present that, were it to be consecrated [by the recipient], the consecration would not be effective, is not considered as a present.49
Whenever a person gives a colleague a present with the stipulation that he transfer it to another person, that other person acquires ownership at the time the first [recipient] transfers it to him.50 If the first recipient does not transfer it to that other person, neither the first, nor the second [recipient] acquires it.51
Halacha 17
[The following principle applies when a person's son-in-law is forbidden to benefit from him and he desires to give his daughter money so that she can benefit from it and spend it as she desires.52 He should give her a present and say: "This money53 is given to you as a present on the condition that your husband has no authority over it.54 Instead, it shall be used for what you put in your mouth, what you cloth yourself, and the like."55 Even if he said: "...on the condition that your husband has no authority over it. Instead, it shall be used for whatever you want to do with it,"56 the husband does not acquire it and she may do what she desires with it.
If, however, he gave her a present and told her. "...on the condition that your husband has no authority over it," but did not specify the purpose for which the present was being given or even did not say that it was intended for whatever she desires, the husband acquires it to derive benefit from it.57 This would be forbidden, because he is forbidden to benefit from his father-in-law.58
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
And since they are allowed, they are obligated.
|
| 2. |
For he is not returning it as a favor to him, but instead, in fulfillment of the Torah's command [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 4:2).
|
| 3. |
Or, in the present age, to charity. This is preferable to destroying it.
|
| 4. |
I.e., he will be returning it for the sake of the reward and not for the sake of the mitzvah (ibid.).
|
| 5. |
For ordinarily the person would pay a reward for the return of the lost article.
|
| 6. |
Technically, the other person has a share in these places, for they are owned communally. Nevertheless, since each person's individual share is so small, these places are considered as if they are ownerless and not as communal property (see ibid. 5:4).
|
| 7. |
I.e.., a well built for the pilgrims' journey to Jerusalem from Babylon for the pilgrimage festivals (ibid.).
|
| 8. |
For in this instance, each person's share is greater and more distinct.
The Ramban and the Ran object to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that this ruling does not apply with regard to an entity like a synagogue that cannot be divided. In such an instance, it is considered as a communal entity and the person who took the vow is allowed to make use of it. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 224:1) quotes both views. See the Lechem Mishneh and theTurei Zahav 224:1 who elaborate in support of the Rambam's position.
|
| 9. |
The leader of the Jewish people. He is mentioned, because it is very unlikely that he will forbid a member of the people from using his property (Nedarim 48a).
|
| 10. |
I.e., the person acquiring the portion need not know about his acquisition. We follow the principle that a person can acquire property without his knowledge if it is to his benefit to do so (see Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 4:2).
|
| 11. |
In the Talmudic era, it was common that several houses would open up to a courtyard that was the combined property of the homeowners. In this halachah, we are speaking of an instance where two of those homeowners took vows forbidding them to benefit from each other.
|
| 12. |
See Hilchot Shechenim 2:1 which states that if after the division of a courtyard, each of the homeowners will receive a plot of land four cubits by four cubits as his individual property, the courtyard should be divided if one of the neighbors requests that this be done.
|
| 13. |
I.e., if it were to be divided, the homeowners would not receive a portion of land that size.
|
| 14. |
Rabbenu Nissim explains this ruling based on the principle of bereirah, i.e., retroactively, it becomes apparent that when he enters the courtyard, he is entering property that was designated as his. We are forced to accept this definition (even though generally, the principle of bereirah is not followed in questions of Scriptural Law), for there is no alternative in this instance. The person has a right to the courtyard and he cannot be forbidden from using his own property. See Siftei Cohen 226:4, Turei Zahav 226:1.
|
| 15. |
Whether it cannot be divided or whether it can be divided, but was not divided yet.
|
| 16. |
Bava Batra 57b relates that partners in a courtyard have the right to prevent each other from performing such activities. Although most partners do not exercise this right, in this instance, by failing to exercise the right, one is providing benefit to the other person (Rabbenu Nissim).
|
| 17. |
I.e., a courtyard to small for the owners to divide.
|
| 18. |
His vow imposes unnecessary hardship on the other person who has a legitimate right to the property. Hence, we compel him to sell his share of the courtyard rather than put his colleague in a situation where he might transgress.
|
| 19. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 226:2) states that the person who took the vow is forbidden to enter the courtyard. The rationale is that the Rambam's understanding is accepted, except that an additional stringency is applied, lest the person remain in the courtyard for other purposes besides entering and departing his home (Siftei Cohen 226:10).
|
| 20. |
We do not force him to sell his portion of the courtyard because he is causing difficulty only to himself and he is willing to abide by his prohibition (Radbaz).
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, citing Nedarim 46a as support for his understanding. He mentions that the Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 5:2) appears to support the Rambam's interpretation, but states that we should abide by the principle that whenever there is a difference of opinion between the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, the perspective of the Babylonian Talmud should be followed. See the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh who try to reconcile the differences in the positions of the two Talmuds. As mentioned, the Shulchan Aruch follows the Rambam's understanding, but is even more stringent.
|
| 21. |
This is speaking about a courtyard that is too small to require division (Radbaz).
|
| 22. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 226:1) states that this applies only when the other owner of the courtyard needs that person. Otherwise, he is forbidden to enter.
|
| 23. |
For thus he is suffering a loss every time he deals with them.
|
| 24. |
For they are suffering a loss every time they deal with him.
|
| 25. |
As a decree was made with regard to an individual. See Chapter 6, Halachah 16.
|
| 26. |
I.e., with regard to one individual, there is room for stringency, but this stringency is not required with regard to an entire nation, for there is (Radbaz).
|
| 27. |
I.e., we do not make a decree like we do with regard to an individual (Siftei Cohen 227:7).
|
| 28. |
For one of them, either they or he will be benefiting from the sale.
|
| 29. |
For this is a benefit that he is receiving.
|
| 30. |
For when a sage releases a vow, it is as if it never existed. Hence, it is as if he were never forbidden to approach the sage. See Chapter 4, Halachah 13, and notes.
|
| 31. |
Leket refers to crops that drop from a reaper's hand in the field. He is forbidden to pick them up again, but instead must leave them for the poor (Leviticus 19:10). Shichechah refers to crops or bundles forgotten in the field by accident. The harvesters may not return and collect, but must instead leave them for the poor (Deuteronomy 24:19). Pe'ah refers to a corner of the field which must be left unharvested, so that it could be harvested by the poor (Leviticus 19:9). See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim chs. 1,4, and 5 where these mitzvot are discussed.
|
| 32. |
In the third year of the six-year agricultural, instead of taking the second tithe to be eaten in Jerusalem in a state of holiness, it is given to the poor (Deuteronomy 14:28; Hilchot Matanot Aniyim ch. 6). The person who took the vow is allowed to benefit from these crops, because the owner of the field is not considered as giving him anything of his own. Instead, he is fulfilling a mitzvah.
|
| 33. |
Nedarim 83-84a explains this distinction. When the tithe for the poor is distributed in the granaries, it may be taken by a poor person without asking. The owner does not have the right to decided to whom he will give it. If, however, he has already brought produce from the tithe for the poor home, he has the right to choose to whom to give it.
|
| 34. |
I.e., the tithes that must be given to the Levites and terumah which must be given to the priests.
|
| 35. |
Since he is obligated to give these presents to the priests and Levites, he has no choice in the matter and must make these gifts. Generally, a person is allowed to decide which Levite and which priest, he desires to give these gifts to. In this instance, however, since he forbade all priests from benefiting from his property, there is no one to whom he can give it. Hence his right to decide is taken from him and any priest or Levite can come and take the portions.
|
| 36. |
Since the terumah and tithes may be given to others, there is no reason to take away the person's right to distribute them as he desires, for that right is of financial value (Nedarim 84b).
|
| 37. |
E.g., those mentioned in the previous halachah. See Siftei Cohen 227:9 and Turei Zahav 227:3 who rule that this concept also applies with regard to charity.
|
| 38. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:8) is even more lenient and states that he may say: "Anyone who sustains so-and-so will not suffer a loss," for he is still merely intimating that one should support him. He may not say: "Whoever hears my voice should sustain so-and-so," for that it a direct command. Nor may he tell one person: "If you sustain so-and-so, you will not suffer a loss," for then it appears as if he is appointing him as an agent for this purpose.
|
| 39. |
Since the person did not charge the storekeeper with providing the colleague with food, he is not responsible for the account [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 221:8)]. If he, nevertheless, chooses to pay it, he is not considered to have given benefit to that colleague.
|
| 40. |
The Kessef Mishneh states that the two instances are not entirely analogous, for the first involves providing the person with food necessary for his livelihood, while the second involves the performance of a task that is important, but not vital for him. Perhaps this is the reason why in the preceding halachah, the Rambam stated: "The person may go to a storekeeper," i.e., he is permitted as an initial and preferred option. In this halachah, by contrast, he states: "If the person... approached workers," i.e., the Rambam is describing a law that applies after the fact, but not initially.
|
| 41. |
The Radbaz explains that although the previous law was mentioned, it is also necessary to state this law, because it is uncommon for workers to extend credit on money do them. This is, by contrast, a common practice for storekeepers.
|
| 42. |
Chapter 6, Halachah 4.
|
| 43. |
I.e., a person who took a vow not to benefit from a person and that person.
|
| 44. |
Giving a present is not permitted in the situations described in the previous halachot, because there are other alternatives. Hence it is considered as too great a leniency. In this situation, there is no other alternative and therefore it is permitted. See Siftei Cohen 221:52.
|
| 45. |
Generally, according to Rabbinic Law, there must be three people present when an object is declared ownerless. In this instance, however, since there is no other alternative, we do not require anything more than required by Scriptural Law (Siftei Cohen 221:53).
|
| 46. |
For then he is not partaking of the property of the person from whom he is forbidden to benefit, but from ownerless property.
|
| 47. |
For he is obviously making this gift solely so that the other person may partake of it. If it is a large feast, it is obvious that a person is not preparing it for the sake of giving it to a colleague. Nedarim48b gives as an example, an instance where a person's father was forbidden to benefit from him. When he made a wedding feast for his son, he tried to employ this tactic to enable his father to attend.
|
| 48. |
The Kessef Mishneh states that there are opinions that maintain that this law applies only when the statements were made immediately after giving the feast. The wording chosen by the Rambam, however, indicates that the law applies even if he makes the statements later. The interpretation of the Kessef Mishneh is borne out by the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 5:5).
|
| 49. |
I.e., the giver tells the recipient: "I did not give you the present so that you could consecrate it."
Nedarim, loc. cit., states this principle in continuation of the above story. After the son gave the wedding feast to a colleague so that his father could attend, that colleague consecrated it. When the giver, protested saying that he had not given it to him for that purpose, the recipient complained that he was not going to serve as a medium to allow the first person to break his vow. When the Sages were asked to rule about this situation, they stated the principle mentioned by the Rambam here.
|
| 50. |
I.e., we do not say that since the first recipient is going to give to the second, the second acquires it when it is acquired by the first. This is not a situation where the first recipient is acting as an agent for the second. Instead, he acquires it first on his own behalf and then transfers it to the other person.
|
| 51. |
The first does not acquire it, because it was given to him only on condition that it be transferred to the second. Since that condition was not fulfilled, his own acquisition is not binding (see Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 3:6). The second person does not acquire it, because ownership was never transferred to him.
|
| 52. |
Ordinarily, whatever a woman acquires immediately is given to her husband's jurisdiction. While she remains the legal owner, he has the legal right to control it and use the profits as he sees fit. In this instance, this would be forbidden for the son-in-law is prohibited against benefiting from his father-in-law, as the Rambam states in the conclusion of the halachah.
|
| 53. |
If he gives her the food itself, it is not necessary to make any stipulations (Radbaz, Siftei Cohen222:1).
|
| 54. |
Tosafot Yom Tov (Nedarim 11:8) states that from Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 3:13, it appears that the inclusion of this part of the statement is not an absolute necessity. As long as he specifies that the present is being given for a specific purpose alone, the husband does not acquire rights to it. Rav Yosef Caro does not accept this option, however, in his Kessef Mishneh and quotes the Rambam's wording from this halachah in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 222:1; see Siftei Cohen 222:2).
|
| 55. |
Since the father has designated the money for a specific purpose, it may be used only for that and thus the son never acquires a right to it. The rationale is closely related to the concept of a vow. Just as a vow can determine how property may be used even after it leaves the domain of the person who took the vow, so, too, the father can determine how his property may be used even after it leaves his domain.
This ruling teaches that even though it is to the husband's benefit that his wife eats or is clothed - indeed, he is responsible to provide for these needs of hers - the husband is not considered to have benefited from this present (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Nedarim 11:8).
|
| 56. |
In this instance, even though the specific purpose for which the present was given was not stated at the outset, when the woman decides what she desires to do with the present, retroactively, it is as if it was given for that purpose alone.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this point, noting that although the law stated in the first clause is accepted by all authorities, the one stated in this clause is the subject of a difference of opinion between the Sages Rav and Shmuel in Nedarim 88b. The Rambam's ruling follows the opinion of Shmuel although generally, with regard to matters involving the Torah's prohibitions, the halachah follows that of Rav. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh state that other Rishonim also follow Shmuel's perspective and give logical support for it. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 222:1) quotes both views without stating which should be followed.
|
| 57. |
See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 3:13. The rationale is that the giver does not have the prerogative of negating the rights given the husband by the Rabbis.
|
| 58. |
Nevertheless, the present is binding. The husband should purchase something that brings income with the money. That article belongs to his wife. He should give the proceeds to charity, since he is not allowed to benefit from them (Radbaz)
|
---------------------
• 3 Chapters: Mamrim Mamrim - Chapter 7, Avel Avel - Chapter 1, Avel Avel - Chapter 2 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Mamrim - Chapter 7
Audio: Listen | Download• Mamrim - Chapter 7
INTRODUCTION
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 states:
If a person will have a wayward and rebellious son who does not heed the voice of his father or the voice of his mother and they chastise him, but he does not heed them. His father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city and to the gate of his place. They say to the elders of his city: "This son of ours is wayward and rebellious. He does not heed our voice; he is gluttonous and a lush." All of the men of his city will clout him with stones, killing him, and you shall remove evil from your midst. All Israel shall hear and fear.
Our Sages (primarily in Sanhedrin 68b ff) interpret this passage precisely, explaining how each term used in the passage teaches us a different concept. In the chapter that follows, the Rambam summarizes and organizes their teachings, giving us a clear-cut picture of the requirements of the mitzvah. It is important to emphasize that there is a difference of opinion among our Sages if the judgment of "a wayward and rebellious son" ever took place (Sanhedrin71a). Some maintain that such a judgment was never issued. Indeed, from all the particulars mentioned by the Rambam, one can understand that it could be impossible for such a judgment to have been issued. Others maintain that they know of an instance where an individual was executed because of this transgression.
Sanhedrin 72a asks: Is eating the gluttonous meal (to be described by the Rambam) a sufficient cause for a person to be executed? In resolution, our Sages explain that the Torah considered the ultimate fate of such a person. He will be drawn after his natural tendencies and continue to steal and eat gluttonously. Ultimately, he will become a robber and slay people in order to support his habit. It is preferable, the Torah maintains, for him to be executed early in life, before he commits such severe sins.
Halacha 1
It is explicitly stated that the wayward and rebellious son described in the Torah should be stoned to death. Now the Torah does not administer a punishment unless a warning was issued first. Where was the warning issued? In Leviticus 19:26: "Do not eat upon the blood," which can be interpreted to mean: "Do not partake of food that will lead to the shedding of blood." This refers to the meal eaten by the wayward and rebellious son who is executed only because of the hateful feast of which he partook as Deuteronomy 21:20 states: "He is gluttonous and a lush." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this was interpreted to mean that he ate meat and drank wine in a ravenous manner.
Halacha 2
There are many particulars involved in the meal for which he is liable for eating. All of these are conveyed by the Oral Tradition. He is not liable for stoning until he steals from his father and buys meat and wine at a cheap price. He must then eat it outside his father's domain, together with a group that are all empty and base. He must eat meat that is raw, but not entirely raw, cooked but not entirely cooked, as is the practice of thieves. He must drink the wine as it is thinned as the alcoholics drink. He must eat a quantity of meat weighing 50dinarim in one sitting, and drink half a log of this wine at one time.
If he stole from his father and partook of such a meal inside his father's domain, or stole from others and partook of this hateful meal in his father's domain or in another's domain, he is not liable. If the meal involves a mitzvah, even a mitzvah of Rabbinic origin, or the meal involves a transgression, even a transgression of Rabbinic origin, he is not liable. This may be inferred from the phrase (Ibid.): "He does not heed our voice"; i.e., through eating this meal, he violates only his parents' command. This excludes one who through this meal violates the words of the Torah or who partakes of it for the sake of a mitzvah.
What is implied? If he partook of such a hateful meal together with a wicked company for the sake of a mitzvah, or he partook of the second tithe in Jerusalem, even if they eat a meal comforting the bereaved which is a mitzvah of Rabbinic origin, he is not liable. Similarly, if he ate meat from animals that were not ritually slaughtered or which were trefe, teeming animals or crawling animals, and even if he ate on a communal fast day, a transgression of Rabbinic origin, he is not liable for execution.
Halacha 3
If he partook of any type of food, but did not partake of meat, even if he partook of fowl, he is not liable. If he partook of this meal from meat, but reached the sum of 50 dinarim by including fowl, he is liable. If he drank other beverages, but did not drink wine, he is not liable.
Halacha 4
When he ate raw meat and undiluted wine, he is not liable. The rationale is that this is an occasional occurrence and not something that a person will be drawn after. Similarly, if he ate this meal of salted meat on the third day after it was salted, or drank fresh grape juice, he is not liable. For a person will not be drawn after such matters.
Halacha 5
For this transgression, the Torah does not punish a child who has not come to the age where he is responsible for the observance of mitzvot. Similarly, a man who has matured and is independent is not stoned to death, because he ate and drank such a hateful meal.
What is implied? According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this law concerns a youth of thirteen between the time he grew two pubic hairs and the time at which his entire male organ is surrounded by pubic hair. After the entire male organ is surrounded by pubic hair, he is considered as independent and is not executed by stoning.
Halacha 6
The entire period for which a "wayward and rebellious son" is liable is only three months from the time he manifests signs of physical maturity. For it is possible that his wife will conceive and her fetus will be recognizable within three months. This is derived from Deuteronomy 21:18: "If a person will have a wayward and rebellious son..."; a son, and not a "wayward and rebellious father."
Thus one may conclude that if one's pubic hair surrounds the entire organ before the three months are completed, he is not liable.
Halacha 7
How is the judgment of a "wayward and rebellious son" adjudicated? First, his father and mother bring him to a court of three judges and tell them: "Our son is wayward and rebellious." They bring two witnesses who testify that he stole from his father and bought meat and wine with what he stole and partook of the meal described above after being warned. This is the first testimony.
He receives lashes as are administered to all of those who are obligated to be lashed, as Deuteronomy 21:20 states: "they chastise him, but he does not heed them." Should he steal from his father a second time and partake of such a meal, his father and mother bring him to a court of 23 judges. They bring two witnesses who testify that he stole and partook of this meal after being warned. This is the second testimony. It is acceptable if the first two witnesses also deliver the latter testimony.
After their testimony is heard, the youth is examined to see if his pubic hair surrounded his entire male organ. If that is not the case and it is not three months after he became thirteen, he complete the judgment against him as is done with all those executed by the court and he is stoned to death. He is not stoned to death unless the three judges who originally sentenced him to be lashed are present. This is implied by the phrase: "This son of ours," i.e., the one that was lashed in your presence."
Halacha 8
If his father and his mother forgave him before he was sentenced, he is not liable.
Halacha 9
If he fled before he was sentenced to death and afterwards, his pubic hair surrounded his organ, he is not liable. If he fled after he was sentenced, even if he grows old, whenever he is discovered, he should be stoned to death. For whenever a person has been sentenced to death, it is as if he has already been slain and he has no blood.
Halacha 10
If his father desires to convict him and his mother does not desire, or his mother desires and his father does not desire, he is not judged as a "wayward and rebellious son," as implied by Deuteronomy 21:19: "His father and mother shall take hold of him."
If one of the parents has had his arm amputated, was lame, dumb, blind, or deaf, the son is not judged as a "wayward and rebellious son." These concepts are derived as follows: "His father and mother shall take hold of him" - This excludes parents with amputated arms" "And bring him out" - this excludes the lame. "They say" - this excludes the dumb. "This son of ours" - This excludes the blind. "He does not heed our voice" - This excludes the dumb.
Halacha 11
There is a Scriptural decree that a "wayward and rebellious son" should be stoned to death. A daughter, by contrast, is not judged in this manner. The rationale is that she does not have the tendency to become habituated to eating and drinking. For this reason, the Torah states: "A son," i.e., and not a daughter. A tumtum and an adrogynus are also excluded.
Halacha 12
When an operation is performed on a tumtum and it is discovered that he is a male, he is not judged as a "wayward and rebellious son." The rationale isDeuteronomy 21:18 states: "If a person will have a wayward and rebellious son...." Implied is that he must be a son at the time he receives the warning.
Halacha 13
An announcement must be made concerning the execution of a "wayward and rebellious son." What type of announcement is made? A declaration is written and sent to the entire Jewish people: "In this-and-this court, we stoned so-and-so because he was a "wayward and rebellious son.'
Halacha 14
A "wayward and rebellious son" is like all others executed by the court; their estate is inherited by their heirs. Even though the person's father caused him to be stoned to death, the father inherits all of his possessions.
Blessed be God who grants assistance.
Avel - Chapter 1
HILCHOT EVEL
They include four mitzvot: one positive commandment and three negative commandments:
They are:
1. To mourn for one's close relatives; even a priest must become impure and mourns for his close relatives. A person should not mourn for individuals executed by the court. For this reason, I have included these laws in this book,2 for they relate to the mitzvah of burying the dead on the day of their passing which is a positive commandment.3 2. For a High Priest not to become impure because of his close relatives;
3. For him not to enter under the same shelter as a corpse;
4. For an ordinary priest not to become impure because of a corpse except for that of his close relatives. These mitzvot are explained in the coming chapters.
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment to mourn for one's close relatives,1 as implied byLeviticus 10:20: "Were I to partake of a sin offering today, would it find favor in God's eyes?" According to Scriptural Law, the obligation to mourn is only on the first day which is the day of the person's death and burial. The remainder of the seven days of mourning are not required by Scriptural Law. Although the Torah states Genesis 50:10: "And he instituted mourning for his father for seven days," when the Torah was given, the laws were renewed.
Moses our teacher ordained for the Jewish people the seven days of mourning and the seven days of wedding celebrations.
Halacha 2
From when is a person obligated to mourn? When the grave is covered. But until the corpse has been buried, a mourner is not bound by any of the prohibitions incumbent on a mourner. For this reason, King David washed and anointed himself when his son died, before he was buried.
Halacha 3
When does the obligation to mourn and count the seven and the thirty days of mourning for people executed by the gentile authorities who they do not allow to be buried? When their relatives despair of asking permission from the king to bury them, even though they did not despair of stealing their corpses to bury them.
Halacha 4
When a person drowned in a river or was consumed by a wild beast, we begin mourning for him when we despair of finding his corpse. If his corpse was found limb by limb, we do not begin counting the days of mourning until his head and the majority of his body is found or they despair of finding the remainder of his corpse.
Halacha 5
When it is customary for people to send a corpse to another city to be buried and they do not know when the burial will take place, from the time they turn back from accompanying the corpse, they are obligated to count the seven and thirty days of mourning and begin mourning rites.
Halacha 6
We do not mourn for stillborn infants. Whenever a human offspring does not live for 30 days, he is considered as stillborn. Even if he died on the thirtieth day, we do not mourn for him.
Halacha 7
If we know for certain that he was born after a full nine months of pregnancy, we mourn for him even if he died on the day of his birth.
Halacha 8
A fetus from a full term pregnancy that was stillborn, a child born in the eighth month of pregnancy who died even after living 30 days, or a fetus that emerged cut or crushed even though it endured a full term pregnancy is considered stillborn. We do not observe mourning rites for them and we do not engage in activity on their behalf.
Halacha 9
We observe mourning rites for all of those executed by the government, even when they were executed by the government's laws and the Torah granted it license to execute them. We don't withhold anything from them. Their estate is given to the government, but they are buried in their ancestral plots.
We do not, by contrast, observe mourning rites for those executed by the court. We do, however, observe the rites of bitter regret (aninut), for aninut is an expression of the feelings in one's heart. They are not buried with their ancestors until their corpses have decomposed. Their estate, however, is granted to their heirs.
Halacha 10
We do not conduct mourning rites for all those who deviate from the path of the community, i.e., people who throw off the yoke of the mitzvot from their necks and do not join together with the Jewish people in the observance of the mitzvot, the honoring of the festivals, or the attendance of synagogues and houses of study. Instead, they are like free and independent people like the other nations. Similarly, we do not mourn for heretics, apostates, and people who inform on Jews to the gentiles. Instead, their brothers and their other relatives wear white clothes, robe themselves in white, eat, drink, and celebrate for the enemies of the Holy One, blessed be He, have perished. Concerning them, Psalms139:21 states: "Those who hate You, O God, will I hate."
Halacha 11
When a person commits suicide, we do not engage in activity on their behalf at all. We do not mourn for him or eulogize him. We do, however, stand in a line to comfort the relatives, recite the blessing for the mourners and perform any act that shows respect for the living.
What is meant by a person who commits suicide? Not necessarily one who climbs up on a roof, falls, and dies, but rather, one who says: "I am going up to the top of the roof." If we see him climb up immediately in anger or know that he was distressed and see him fall and die, we presume such a person is one who committed suicide. If, however, we see him strangled and hanging from a tree or slain and lying on the back of his sword, we presume that he is like all other corpses. We engage in activity on his behalf and do not withhold anything from him.
Avel - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
These are the relatives for whom a person is obligated to mourn according to Scriptural Law: His mother, his father, his son, his daughter, his paternal brother and paternal sister. According to Rabbinic Law, a man should also mourn for his wife if she dies while they are married. And a woman should mourn for her husband. Similarly, a person should mourn for a maternal brother and sister.
Halacha 2
Even a priest who does not become impure for his maternal brother and sister or for his paternal sister who is married, mourns for them. For his married paternal sister who is married, he is required to mourn by Scriptural Law.
Halacha 3
A person who has a son or a brother born by a maid-servant or a gentile woman should not mourn for them at all. Similarly, when a person and his sons convert or a person and his mother are freed from slavery, they do not mourn for each other.
Similarly, a person does not observe either the rites of aninut or the mourning rites for a wife whom he has consecrated, but not married. Similarly, she does not observe either of these rites for him.
Halacha 4
Whenever a person is obligated to mourn for a relative, he also mourns with that relative in his presence according to Rabbinical Law.
What is implied? If a person's grandson, his son's maternal brother, or son's mother dies, he is obligated to rend his garments in the presence of his son and follow the mourning rites while in his presence. Outside his presence, he is not obligated. Similar laws apply with regard to other relatives.
Halacha 5
With regard to a wife with whom one is married: Although one must mourn for her, he does not mourn together with her for her other relatives with the exception of her father and her mother. He observes the rites of mourning for them in her presence.
When a man's father-in-law or mother-in-law dies, he overturns his bed and observes the mourning rites together with his wife within her presence, but not outside her presence. Similarly, when a woman's father-in-law or mother-in-law dies, she observes the rites of mourning in her husband's presence. With regard to other relatives, by contrast, e.g., the brother of one's wife or her son dies or when the brother of one's husband or his son dies, they do not observe the mourning rites in respect for each other.
Similarly, it appears to me that if the wife of a person's relative dies or the husband of one of his relatives, e.g., the wife of one's son or the husband of one's daughter, one need not observe mourning rites for them. Similar concepts apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 6
See how severe the mitzvah of mourning is! For the prohibition against ritual impurity is superseded so that a priest can tend to his relatives' burial and mourn for them, as Leviticus 21:2-3 states: "Except to one's flesh, to whom he is close, to his mother... to her shall he become impure." This is a positive commandment; if he does not desire to become impure, we force him to become impure against his will.
To whom does the above apply? To males who are commanded against contracting ritual impurity. Different rules apply to female members of the priestly family. Since they are not commanded against contracting ritual impurity, they are also not commanded to become impure when tending to their relatives' burial. If they desire, they may become impure and if not, they do not become impure.
Halacha 7
A priest is forced to contact ritual impurity to tend to his deceased wife. This obligation is Rabbinic in origin. Our Sages had her considered as an unattended corpse. Since she has no other heir aside from him, there will be no one else to tend to her. He becomes impure only for a wife he has married. If he has merely consecrated her, he does not become impure for her.
Halacha 8
Similarly, a priest does not become impure for any of those individuals for whom we do not mourn as stated above: e.g., those executed by the court, those who deviate from the ways of the community, stillborn infants, and those who commit suicide.
Until when does the mitzvah to become impure apply? Until the grave is covered. Once the grave is covered, however, the graves of one's close relatives are like those of any other corpse. If a priest becomes impure for their sake, he should be punished by lashes.
Halacha 9
A priest should not become impure for the sake of a wife whom he is forbidden to marry. Therefore if a woman heard a report that her husband died and hence remarried, and then her first husband came, neither husband should become impure for her sake, for she is forbidden to remain married to either of them.
A priest may, however, become impure for the sake of his mother, even though she is a challalah and he may become impure for the sake of his son, his daughter, his brother and his sister even though they are of tarnished lineage. Even if they are illegitimate, he should become impure for their sake.
Halacha 10
When a priest's sister is married - even to another priest, he does not become impure for her sake, "as Leviticus 21:3 states: "his virgin sister who is close to him who has not been with a man." "Virgin" excludes a girl who has been raped or seduced. Should we also exclude a woman who attain majority or a woman who lost her signs of virginity because of reasons other than relations? The Torah teaches: "who has not been with a man," i.e., excluded is only one who lost her virginity because of a man. "Who has not been with a man" - this also excludes a sister who has been consecrated. He does not become impure, for her sake even if she is consecrated to a priest.
Halacha 11
If, however, a priest's sister is divorced after consecration, before marriage, he must become impure for her sake. The phrase "who is close to him" includes a sister divorced after consecration.
Halacha 12
A priest does not become impure for the sake of his maternal brother and sister, as implied by Leviticus 21:2-3: "To his son and to his daughter, to his brother and to his sister." Just as we are speaking of a son who is fit to inherit his father's estate; so, too, he must be fit to inherit the estates of his brother and sister.
Halacha 13
A priest does not become impure for the sake of relatives whose family connection is doubtful, as implied by Leviticus 21:3: "to her shall he become impure." He becomes impure for those whose connection is definite and not for those whose connection is doubtful. Accordingly, in an instance where children become intermingled, there is a son concerning whom there is a question whether he was born after seven months from conception to his mother's later husband or after nine months to her first husband, and all the like, he does not become impure for their sake due to the doubt.
Similarly, in all cases concerning divorce that involve a question concerning the validity of the divorce or an invalid bill of divorce, , the priest does not become impure for the sake of his wife.
Halacha 14
A priest may not become impure for the sake of a limb severed from his father while alive, nor for the sake of one of his father's bones. Similarly, when one's father's bones are being collected - even if his entire backbone is intact - a priest may not become impure for their sake.
Halacha 15
If his father's head is decapitated, he may not become impure for his sake. This is implied by Leviticus 21:2: "To his father," i.e., at a time when his corpse is intact and not when it is impaired. Similar laws apply with regard to other relatives.
The prohibition against contact with ritual impurity is bypassed with regard to one's relatives; it is not released entirely. For this reason, a priest is forbidden to become impure for the sake of another corpse at the time he has become impure for the sake of his relatives. This is implied by Leviticus 21:3: "to her shall he become impure," i.e., to her alone. He does not become impure for the sake of others together with her. He should not say: "Since I became impure for the sake of my father, I will go gather so-and-so's bones" or "...touch so-and-so's grave."
Therefore when the relative of a priest dies, care must be taken to bury him at the edge of the cemetery, so that he will not have to enter the cemetery and become impure because of other graves when he buries his dead.
---------------------
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Tuesday, Cheshvan 28, 5776 · 10 November 2015
"Today's Day"
Friday Cheshvan 28 5704
Torah Lesson: Chumash: Tol'dot, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 135-139.
Tanya: To understand the (p. 597) ...on Pekudei.) (p. 599).
The concept of Divine Providence is this: Not only are all particular movements of the various creatures directed by Providence, and not only is that Providence itself the life-force and maintained existence of every creature - but even more, the particular movement of any creature is in general terms related to the grand design of Creation... The aggregate of all individual acts brings to completion G-d's grand design in the mystery of all Creation.
Ponder this: If the swaying of a blade of grass is brought about by Divine Providence and is crucial to the fulfillment of the purpose of Creation, how much more so with regard to mankind in general, and Israel (the people close to him)1 in particular!
FOOTNOTES
1. Tehillim 148:14; Siddur p. 36.---------------------• Daily Thought:
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Tuesday, Cheshvan 28, 5776 · 10 November 2015
"Today's Day"
Friday Cheshvan 28 5704
Torah Lesson: Chumash: Tol'dot, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 135-139.
Tanya: To understand the (p. 597) ...on Pekudei.) (p. 599).
The concept of Divine Providence is this: Not only are all particular movements of the various creatures directed by Providence, and not only is that Providence itself the life-force and maintained existence of every creature - but even more, the particular movement of any creature is in general terms related to the grand design of Creation... The aggregate of all individual acts brings to completion G-d's grand design in the mystery of all Creation.
Ponder this: If the swaying of a blade of grass is brought about by Divine Providence and is crucial to the fulfillment of the purpose of Creation, how much more so with regard to mankind in general, and Israel (the people close to him)1 in particular!
FOOTNOTES
1. Tehillim 148:14; Siddur p. 36.---------------------• Daily Thought:
Separation Anxiety
Within every love, there is fear: The fear of separation from that which you love.
A child fears separation from her parents, a lover from his beloved, the body fears separation from the soul, and the soul from its Source Above.
So what do you love? Look at your worries and you will know. If you see the in worry over your debts and financial future, then it is the material world you love—because you believe in the material world and you see it as the source of all good.
If you sit and fret over the comments of others and the glances they throw at you, then it is social acceptance that you love, that you have made into your god.
Cleave to the Source of Life and your heart will have no room for fear of this world.
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment