Today in Jewish History:
• Purim of the Curtains (1623)
After a respected Jew was falsely accused of stealing the royal curtains from the governor's palace, the entire Jewish community of Prague was in mortal danger.
After miraculous intervention, the real culprit confessed to the crime, sparing the Jews of the city
To commemorate this event, "Purim of the Curtains" was instituted to thank G-d for the miraculous salvation.
For the complete story, see Purim of the Curtains.
Daily Quote:
There are laws created by life, and laws that create life. Human laws are created by life, so they vary from land to land according to circumstances. The Almighty's Torah is a G‑dly law that creates life. G‑d's Torah is the Torah of truth, the same in all places, at all times...[Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak of Lubavitch (Hayom Yom, Shevat 22)]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Va'eira, 1st Portion Exodus 6:2-6:13 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Exodus Chapter 6
2God spoke to Moses, and He said to him, "I am the Lord. בוַיְדַבֵּ֥ר אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶל־משֶׁ֑ה וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֵלָ֖יו אֲנִ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:
God spoke to Moses: He called him to account since he [Moses] had spoken harshly by saying, “Why have You harmed this people?” (Exod. 5:22)-[from Tanchuma Buber, Va’era 4] וידבר א-להים אל משה: דבר אתו משפט על שהקשה לדבר ולומר (לעיל ה כב) למה הרעותה לעם הזה:
and He said to him, I am the Lord: [Meaning: I am] faithful to recompense all those who walk before Me. I did not send you [to Pharaoh] except to fulfill My words, which I spoke to the early fathers. In this sense, we find that it אִנִי ה is interpreted in many places [in Scripture] as “I am the Lord,” [meaning that I am] faithful to exact retribution. [It has this meaning] when it is stated in conjunction with [an act warranting] punishment, e.g., “or you will profane the name of your God; I am the Lord” (Lev. 19:12). When it is stated in conjunction with the fulfillment of commandments, e.g., “And you shall keep My commandments and perform them; I am the Lord” (Lev. 22:31), [it means: I am] faithful to give reward. ויאמר אליו אני ה': נאמן לשלם שכר טוב למתהלכים לפני. ולא לחנם שלחתיך כי אם לקיים דברי שדברתי לאבות הראשונים. ובלשון הזה מצינו שהוא נדרש בכמה מקומות אני ה' נאמן ליפרע, כשהוא אמור אצל עונש, כגון (ויקרא יט יב) וחללת את שם אלהיך אני ה', וכשהוא אמור אצל קיום מצות, כגון (ויקרא כב לא) ושמרתם מצותי ועשיתם אותם אני ה', נאמן ליתן שכר:
3I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob with [the name] Almighty God, but [with] My name YHWH, I did not become known to them. גוָֽאֵרָ֗א אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֛ם אֶל־יִצְחָ֥ק וְאֶל־יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב בְּאֵ֣ל שַׁדָּ֑י וּשְׁמִ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה לֹ֥א נוֹדַ֖עְתִּי לָהֶֽם:
I appeared: to the fathers. וארא: אל האבות:
with [the name] Almighty God: I made promises to them, in all of which I said to them, “I am the Almighty God.” באל שדי: הבטחתים הבטחות ובכולן אמרתי להם אני אל שדי:
but [with] My name YHWH, I did not become known to them: It is not written here לֹא הוֹדַעְךְתִּי, “but My Name YHWH I did not make known to them,” but לֹא נוֹדַעְךְתִּי, “I did not become known.” [I.e.,] I was not recognized by them with My attribute of keeping faith, by dint of which My name is called YHWH, [which means that I am] faithful to verify My words, for I made promises to them, but I did not fulfill [them while they were alive]. ושמי ה' לא נודעתי להם: לא הודעתי אין כתיב כאן אלא לא נודעתי לא נכרתי להם במדת אמתות שלי שעליה נקרא שמי ה' נאמן לאמת דברי, שהרי הבטחתים ולא קיימתי:
4And also, I established My covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their sojournings in which they sojourned. דוְגַ֨ם הֲקִמֹ֤תִי אֶת־בְּרִיתִי֙ אִתָּ֔ם לָתֵ֥ת לָהֶ֖ם אֶת־אֶ֣רֶץ כְּנָ֑עַן אֵ֛ת אֶ֥רֶץ מְגֻֽרֵיהֶ֖ם אֲשֶׁר־גָּ֥רוּ בָֽהּ:
And also, I established My covenant, etc.: And also, when I appeared to them as the Almighty God, I established and set up a covenant between Myself and them. וגם הקמתי את בריתי וגו': וגם כשנראיתי להם באל שדי הצבתי והעמדתי בריתי ביני וביניהם:
to give them the land of Canaan: To Abraham in the section dealing with [the commandment of] circumcision (Gen. 17), it is said: “I am the Almighty God… And I will give you and your seed after you the land of your sojournings” (Gen. 17:1, 8). To Isaac [it is stated], “for to you and to your seed I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath that I swore to Abraham” (Gen. 26:3), and that oath which I swore to Abraham was spoken with the [name] “Almighty God.” To Jacob [it is said], “I am the Almighty God; be fruitful and multiply, etc. And the land that, etc.” (Gen. 35:11, 12). So you see that I vowed to them [many vows], but I did not fulfill [My vows yet]. לתת להם את ארץ כנען: לאברהם בפרשת מילה נאמר (בראשית יז א) אני אל שדי וגו', (בראשית יז ח) ונתתי לך ולזרעך אחריך את ארץ מגוריך, ליצחק (בראשית כו ג) כי לך ולזרעך אתן את כל הארצות האל והקימותי את השבועה אשר נשבעתי לאברהם, ואותה שבועה שנשבעתי לאברהם באל שדי, אמרתי ליעקב (בראשית לה יא - יב) אני אל שדי פרה ורבה וגו' ואת הארץ אשר וגו', הרי שנדרתי להם ולא קיימתי:
5And also, I heard the moans of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians are holding in bondage, and I remembered My covenant. הוְגַ֣ם | אֲנִ֣י שָׁמַ֗עְתִּי אֶת־נַֽאֲקַת֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר מִצְרַ֖יִם מַֽעֲבִדִ֣ים אֹתָ֑ם וָֽאֶזְכֹּ֖ר אֶת־בְּרִיתִֽי:
And also, I heard: Just as I established and set up the covenant, it is incumbent upon Me to fulfill [it]. Therefore, I heard the moans [complaints] of the children of Israel, who are moaning. וגם אני: כמו שהצבתי והעמדתי הברית יש עלי לקיים, לפיכך שמעתי את נאקת בני ישראל הנואקים:
whom the Egyptians are holding in bondage. I remembered: that covenant [which I made with Abraham], for in the Covenant between the Parts, I said to him, “And also the nation that they will serve will I judge” (Gen. 15:14). אשר מצרים מעבדים אתם ואזכר: אותו הברית. כי בברית בין הבתרים אמרתי לו (בראשית טו יד) וגם את הגוי אשר יעבודו דן אנכי:
6Therefore, say to the children of Israel, 'I am the Lord, and I will take you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will save you from their labor, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. ולָכֵ֞ן אֱמֹ֥ר לִבְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֘ אֲנִ֣י יְהֹוָה֒ וְהֽוֹצֵאתִ֣י אֶתְכֶ֗ם מִתַּ֨חַת֙ סִבְלֹ֣ת מִצְרַ֔יִם וְהִצַּלְתִּ֥י אֶתְכֶ֖ם מֵֽעֲבֹֽדָתָ֑ם וְגָֽאַלְתִּ֤י אֶתְכֶם֙ בִּזְר֣וֹעַ נְטוּיָ֔ה וּבִשְׁפָטִ֖ים גְּדֹלִֽים:
Therefore: according to that oath. לכן: על פי אותה השבועה:
say to the children of Israel, I am the Lord: [I am] faithful to My promise. אמר לבני ישראל אני ה': הנאמן בהבטחתי:
and I will take you out: for so did I promise him [Abraham], “and afterwards they will go forth with great possessions” (Gen. 15:14). והוצאתי אתכם: כי כן הבטחתיו (שם שם) ואחרי כן יצאו ברכוש גדול:
the burdens of the Egyptians: The toil of the burden of the Egyptians. סבלת מצרים: טורח משא מצרים:
7And I will take you to Me as a people, and I will be a God to you, and you will know that I am the Lord your God, Who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. זוְלָֽקַחְתִּ֨י אֶתְכֶ֥ם לִי֙ לְעָ֔ם וְהָיִ֥יתִי לָכֶ֖ם לֵֽאלֹהִ֑ים וִֽידַעְתֶּ֗ם כִּ֣י אֲנִ֤י יְהֹוָה֙ אֱלֹ֣הֵיכֶ֔ם הַמּוֹצִ֣יא אֶתְכֶ֔ם מִתַּ֖חַת סִבְל֥וֹת מִצְרָֽיִם:
8I will bring you to the land, concerning which I raised My hand to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, and I will give it to you as a heritage; I am the Lord.' " חוְהֵֽבֵאתִ֤י אֶתְכֶם֙ אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֤ר נָשָׂ֨אתִי֙ אֶת־יָדִ֔י לָתֵ֣ת אֹתָ֔הּ לְאַבְרָהָ֥ם לְיִצְחָ֖ק וּלְיַֽעֲקֹ֑ב וְנָֽתַתִּ֨י אֹתָ֥הּ לָכֶ֛ם מֽוֹרָשָׁ֖ה אֲנִ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:
I raised My hand: I raised it to swear by My throne. [following Onkelos] נשאתי את ידי: הרימותיה להשבע בכסאי:
9Moses spoke thus to the children of Israel, but they did not hearken to Moses because of [their] shortness of breath and because of [their] hard labor. טוַיְדַבֵּ֥ר משֶׁ֛ה כֵּ֖ן אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וְלֹ֤א שָֽׁמְעוּ֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה מִקֹּ֣צֶר ר֔וּחַ וּמֵֽעֲבֹדָ֖ה קָשָֽׁה:
but they did not hearken to Moses: They did not accept consolation. I.e., they despaired completely of ever being redeemed. ולא שמעו אל משה: לא קבלו תנחומין:
because of [their] shortness of breath: Whoever is under stress, his wind and his breath are short, and he cannot take a deep breath. Similar to this [interpretation, namely that what is meant by I am the Lord is: I am faithful to fulfill My word] I heard from Rabbi Baruch the son of Rabbi Eliezer, and he brought me proof [of this explanation] from this [following] verse: “at this time I will let them know My power and My might, and they shall know that My name is the Lord” (Jer. 16:21). [Rabbi Baruch said,] We learn from this that when the Holy One, blessed be He, fulfills His words-even [when it is] for retribution-He makes it known that His name is the Lord. How much more so [does this expression apply] when he fulfills [His word] for good [because the Tetragrammaton represents the Divine Standard of Mercy]. Our Rabbis, however, interpreted it (Sanh. 111a) as related to the preceding topic, [namely] that Moses said [verse 22], “Why have You harmed…?” (Exod. 5:22). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “We suffer a great loss for those [the Patriarchs] who are lost and [whose replacement] cannot be found. I must lament the death of the Patriarchs. Many times I revealed Myself to them as the Almighty God and they did not ask Me, ‘What is Your name?’ But you asked, What is His name? What shall I say to them?’” (Exod. 3:13). [4] מקצר רוח: כל מי שהוא מיצר, רוחו ונשימתו קצרה ואינו יכול להאריך בנשימתו. קרוב לענין זה שמעתי פרשה זו מרבי ברוך ברבי אליעזר, והביא לי ראיה ממקרא זה (ירמיהו טז כא) (כי) בפעם הזאת אודיעם את ידי ואת גבורתי וידעו כי שמי ה', למדנו כשהקב"ה מאמן את דבריו אפילו לפורענות מודיע ששמו ה', וכל שכן האמנה לטובה. ורבותינו דרשוהו לענין של מעלה, שאמר משה (לעיל ה כב) למה הרעותה, אמר לו הקב"ה חבל על דאבדין ולא משתכחין. יש לי להתאונן על מיתת האבות, הרבה פעמים נגליתי אליהם באל שדי ולא אמרו לי מה שמך, ואתה אמרת (לעיל ג יג) מה שמו מה אומר אליהם:
And also, I established, etc.: And when Abraham sought to bury Sarah, he could not find a grave until he bought [one] for a very high price. Similarly, [with] Isaac, [the Philistines] contested the wells he had dug. And so [with] Jacob, “And he bought the part of the field where he had pitched his tent” (Gen. 33:19), yet they did not question My actions! But you said, “Why have You harmed [the Israelites]?” This midrash, however, does not fit the text, for many reasons: First, because it does not say, “And My Name, ה they did not ask me.” And if you say [in response to this] that He did not let them [the Patriarchs] know that this is His name, [and nevertheless they did not ask Him, (and we will explain לֹא נוֹדַעְךְתִּי like לֹא הוֹדַעְךְתִּי, I did not make known,) I will answer you that] indeed, at the beginning, when He revealed Himself to Abraham “between the parts” (Gen. 15:10), it says: “I am the Lord (אֲנִי ה), Who brought you forth from Ur of the Chaldees” (Gen. 15:7). Moreover, how does the context continue with the matters that follow this [verse]: “And also, I heard, etc. Therefore, say to the children of Israel” ? Therefore, I say that the text should be interpreted according to its simple meaning, [with] each statement fitting its context, and the midrashic explanation may be expounded upon, as it is said: “‘Is not My word so like fire,’ says the Lord, ‘and like a hammer which shatters a rock?’” (Jer. 23:29). [The rock it strikes] is divided into many splinters. וגם הקמתי וגו': וכשבקש אברהם לקבור את שרה לא מצא קבר עד שקנה בדמים מרובים, וכן ביצחק ערערו עליו על הבארות אשר חפר, וכן ביעקב (בראשית לג יט) ויקן את חלקת השדה, לנטות אהלו, ולא הרהרו אחר מדותי, ואתה אמרת (ה כב) למה הרעותה. ואין המדרש מתיישב אחר המקרא מפני כמה דברים אחת, שלא נאמר, ושמי ה' לא שאלו לי. ואם תאמר לא הודיעם שכך שמו, הרי תחלה כשנגלה לאברהם בין הבתרים נאמר (בראשית טו ז) אני ה' אשר הוצאתיך מאור כשדים. ועוד, היאך הסמיכה נמשכת בדברים שהוא סומך לכאן (פסוק ה) וגם אני שמעתי וגו' (פסוק ו) לכן אמור לבני ישראל. לכך אני אומר יתיישב המקרא על פשוטו דבר דבור על אופניו, והדרשה תדרש, שנאמר (ירמיה כג כט) הלא כה דברי כאש נאם ה' וכפטיש יפוצץ סלע, מתחלק לכמה ניצוצות:
10The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, יוַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר:
11"Come, speak to Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, and he will let the children of Israel out of his land." יאבֹּ֣א דַבֵּ֔ר אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֖ה מֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרָ֑יִם וִֽישַׁלַּ֥ח אֶת־בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מֵֽאַרְצֽוֹ:
12But Moses spoke before the Lord, saying, "Behold, the children of Israel did not hearken to me. How then will Pharaoh hearken to me, seeing that I am of closed lips?" יבוַיְדַבֵּ֣ר משֶׁ֔ה לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה לֵאמֹ֑ר הֵ֤ן בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לֹא־שָֽׁמְע֣וּ אֵלַ֔י וְאֵיךְ֙ יִשְׁמָעֵ֣נִי פַרְעֹ֔ה וַֽאֲנִ֖י עֲרַ֥ל שְׂפָתָֽיִם:
closed lips: Heb. עִרַל שְׂפָתָיִם, Literally, of “closed” lips. Similarly, every expression of (עָרְלָה) I say, denotes a closure: e.g., “their ear is clogged (עִרֵלָה) ” (Jer. 6:10), [meaning] clogged to prevent hearing; “of uncircumcised (עַרְלֵי) hearts” (Jer. 9:25), [meaning] clogged to prevent understanding; “You too drink and become clogged up (וְהֵעָרֵל) ” (Hab. 2:16), [which means] and become clogged up from the intoxication of the cup of the curse; עָרְלַתבָּשָָׂר, the foreskin of the flesh, by which the male membrum is closed up and covered; “and you shall treat its fruit as forbidden (וְעִרַלְךְתֶּם עָרְלָתוֹ) ” (Lev. 19:23), [i. e.,] make for it a closure and a covering of prohibition, which will create a barrier that will prevent you from eating it. “For three years, it shall be closed up [forbidden] (עִרֵלִים) for you” (Lev. 19:23), [i.e.,] closed up, covered, and separated from eating it. ערל שפתים: אטום שפתים. וכן כל לשון ערלה אני אומר שהוא אטום (ירמיה ו י) ערלה אזנם, אטומה משמוע, (ירמיה ט כה) ערלי לב, אטומים מהבין, (חבקוק ב טז) שתה גם אתה והערל, והאטם משכרות כוס הקללה. ערלת בשר, שהגיד אטום ומכוסה בה. (ויקרא יט כג) וערלתם ערלתו, עשו לו אוטם וכיסוי איסור, שיבדיל בפני אכילתו, (שם) שלש שנים יהיה לכם ערלים, אטום ומכוסה ומובדל מלאכלו:
How then will Pharaoh hearken to me: This is one of the ten kal vachomer inferences mentioned in the Torah. — [from Gen. Rabbah 92:7] [I.e., inferences from major to minor, such as in this case. I.e., if, because of my speech impediment, the children of Israel, who have everything to gain by listening to me, did not listen to me, Pharaoh, who has everything to lose by listening to me, will surely not listen to me.] ואיך ישמעני פרעה: זה אחד מעשרה קל וחומר שבתורה:
13So the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, and He commanded them concerning the children of Israel and concerning Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, to let the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt. יגוַיְדַבֵּ֣ר יְהֹוָה֘ אֶל־משֶׁ֣ה וְאֶל־אַֽהֲרֹן֒ וַיְצַוֵּם֙ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְאֶל־פַּרְעֹ֖ה מֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרָ֑יִם לְהוֹצִ֥יא אֶת־בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם:
So the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron: Because Moses had said, “I am of closed lips,” the Holy One, blessed be He, combined Aaron with him to be for him as a “mouth” [i.e., speaker] and an interpreter. וידבר ה' אל משה ואל אהרן: לפי שאמר משה (פסוק יב) ואני ערל שפתים, צירף לו הקב"ה את אהרן להיות לו לפה ולמליץ:
and He commanded them concerning the children of Israel: He commanded regarding them [the Israelites] to lead them gently and to be patient with them. — [from Sifrei Beha’alothecha 91] ויצום אל בני ישראל: צום עליהם להנהיגם בנחת ולסבול אותם:
and concerning Pharaoh, the king of Egypt: He commanded them concerning him [Pharaoh], to speak to him respectfully. This is its midrashic interpretation (Mechilta, Bo, ch. 13; Exod. Rabbah 7:2). Its simple meaning is that He commanded them [Moses and Aaron] concerning Israel and concerning His mission to Pharaoh. What the content of the command was is delineated in the second section [verses 29-31], after the order of the genealogy [that follows this passage]. [This second section should be here] but since [Scripture] mentioned Moses and Aaron, it interrupts the narrative with “These are the heads of the fathers’ houses” (verse 14) to inform us how Moses and Aaron were born and after whom they traced their lineage.. ואל פרעה מלך מצרים: צום עליו לחלוק לו כבוד בדבריהם, זהו מדרשו. ופשוטו צום על דבר ישראל ועל שליחותו אל פרעה. ודבר הצווי מהו, מפורש בפרשה שניה לאחר סדר היחס, אלא מתוך שהזכיר משה ואהרן הפסיק הענין באלה ראשי בית אבותם (פסוק יד) ללמדנו היאך נולדו משה ואהרן ובמי נתיחסו:
---------------------
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 106 - 107
• Hebrew text
• English text
•
Chapter 106
The psalmist continues the theme of the previous psalm, praising God for performing other miracles not mentioned previously, for "who can recount the mighty acts of God?" Were we to try, we could not mention them all!
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is everlasting.
2. Who can recount the mighty acts of the Lord, or proclaim all His praises?
3. Fortunate are those who preserve justice, who perform deeds of righteousness all the time.
4. Remember me, Lord, when You find favor with Your people; be mindful of me with Your deliverance;
5. to behold the prosperity of Your chosen, to rejoice in the joy of Your nation, to glory with Your inheritance.
6. We have sinned as did our fathers, we have acted perversely and wickedly.
7. Our fathers in Egypt did not contemplate Your wonders, they did not remember Your abundant kindnesses, and they rebelled by the sea, at the Sea of Reeds.
8. Yet He delivered them for the sake of His Name, to make His strength known.
9. He roared at the Sea of Reeds and it dried up; He led them through the depths, as through a desert.
10. He saved them from the hand of the enemy, and redeemed them from the hand of the foe.
11. The waters engulfed their adversaries; not one of them remained.
12. Then they believed in His words, they sang His praise.
13. They quickly forgot His deeds, they did not wait for His counsel;
14. and they lusted a craving in the desert, they tested God in the wilderness.
15. And He gave them their request, but sent emaciation into their souls.
16. They angered Moses in the camp, and Aaron, the Lord's holy one.
17. The earth opened and swallowed Dathan, and engulfed the company of Abiram;
18. and a fire burned in their assembly, a flame set the wicked ablaze.
19. They made a calf in Horeb, and bowed down to a molten image.
20. They exchanged their Glory for the likeness of a grass-eating ox.
21. They forgot God, their savior, Who had performed great deeds in Egypt,
22. wonders in the land of Ham, awesome things at the Sea of Reeds.
23. He said that He would destroy them-had not Moses His chosen one stood in the breach before Him, to turn away His wrath from destroying.
24. They despised the desirable land, they did not believe His word.
25. And they murmured in their tents, they did not heed the voice of the Lord.
26. So He raised His hand [in oath] against them, to cast them down in the wilderness,
27. to throw down their progeny among the nations, and to scatter them among the lands.
28. They joined themselves to [the idol] Baal Peor, and ate of the sacrifices to the dead;
29. they provoked Him with their doings, and a plague broke out in their midst.
30. Then Phineas arose and executed judgement, and the plague was stayed;
31. it was accounted for him as a righteous deed, through all generations, forever.
32. They angered Him at the waters of Merivah, and Moses suffered on their account;
33. for they defied His spirit, and He pronounced [an oath] with His lips.
34. They did not destroy the nations as the Lord had instructed them;
35. rather, they mingled with the nations and learned their deeds.
36. They worshipped their idols, and they became a snare for them.
37. They sacrificed their sons and daughters to demons.
38. They spilled innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land became guilty with blood.
39. They were defiled by their deeds, and went astray by their actions.
40. And the Lord's wrath blazed against His people, and He abhorred His inheritance;
41. so He delivered them into the hands of nations, and their enemies ruled them.
42. Their enemies oppressed them, and they were subdued under their hand.
43. Many times did He save them, yet they were rebellious in their counsel and were impoverished by their sins.
44. But He saw their distress, when He heard their prayer;
45. and He remembered for them His covenant and He relented, in keeping with His abounding kindness,
46. and He caused them to be treated mercifully by all their captors.
47. Deliver us, Lord our God; gather us from among the nations, that we may give thanks to Your Holy Name and glory in Your praise.
48. Blessed is the Lord, the God of Israel, forever and ever. And let all the people say, "Amen! Praise the Lord!"
Chapter 107
This psalm speaks of those who are saved from four specific perilous situations(imprisonment, sickness, desert travel, and sea travel) and must thank God, for their sins caused their troubles, and only by the kindness of God were they saved. It is therefore appropriate that they praise God and tell of their salvation to all.
1. Give thanks to the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is everlasting.
2. So shall say those redeemed by the Lord, those whom He redeemed from the hand of the oppressor.
3. He gathered them from the lands-from east and from west, from north and from the sea.
4. They lost their way in the wilderness, in the wasteland; they found no inhabited city.
5. Both hungry and thirsty, their soul languished within them.
6. They cried out to the Lord in their distress; He delivered them from their afflictions.
7. He guided them in the right path to reach an inhabited city.
8. Let them give thanks to the Lord, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man,
9. for He has satiated a thirsting soul, and filled a hungry soul with goodness.
10. Those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, bound in misery and chains of iron,
11. for they defied the words of God and spurned the counsel of the Most High-
12. He humbled their heart through suffering; they stumbled and there was none to help.
13. They cried out to the Lord in their distress; He saved them from their afflictions.
14. He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and sundered their bonds.
15. Let them give thanks to the Lord for His kindness, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man,
16. for He broke the brass gates and smashed the iron bars.
17. Foolish sinners are afflicted because of their sinful ways and their wrongdoings.
18. Their soul loathes all food, and they reach the gates of death.
19. They cried out to the Lord in their distress; He saved them from their afflictions.
20. He sent forth His command and healed them; He delivered them from their graves.
21. Let them give thanks to the Lord for His kindness, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man.
22. Let them offer sacrifices of thanksgiving, and joyfully recount His deeds.
23. Those who go down to the sea in ships, who perform tasks in mighty waters;
24. they saw the works of the Lord and His wonders in the deep.
25. He spoke and caused the stormy wind to rise, and it lifted up the waves.
26. They rise to the sky, plunge to the depths; their soul melts in distress.
27. They reel and stagger like a drunkard, all their skill is to no avail.
28. They cried out to the Lord in their distress, and He brought them out from their calamity.
29. He transformed the storm into stillness, and the waves were quieted.
30. They rejoiced when they were silenced, and He led them to their destination.
31. Let them give thanks to the Lord for His kindness, and [proclaim] His wonders to the children of man.
32. Let them exalt Him in the congregation of the people, and praise Him in the assembly of the elders.
33. He turns rivers into desert, springs of water into parched land,
34. a fruitful land into a salt-marsh, because of the wickedness of those who inhabit it.
35. He turns a desert into a lake, and parched land into springs of water.
36. He settles the hungry there, and they establish a city of habitation.
37. They sow fields and plant vineyards which yield fruit and wheat.
38. He blesses them and they multiply greatly, and He does not decrease their cattle.
39. [If they sin,] they are diminished and cast down through oppression, misery, and sorrow.
40. He pours contempt upon distinguished men, and causes them to stray in a pathless wilderness.
41. He raises the needy from distress, and makes their families [as numerous] as flocks.
42. The upright observe this and rejoice, and all the wicked close their mouth.
43. Let him who is wise bear these in mind, and then the benevolent acts of the Lord will be understood.
---------------------Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 12
• Lessons in Tanya
• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
• Sunday, Tevet 22, 5776 · January 3, 2016
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 12
ואף על פי כן אינו נקרא צדיק כלל
Nevertheless, he is not deemed a tzaddik at all.
מפני שיתרון הזה אשר לאור נפש האלקית על החושך וסכלות של הקליפה הנדחה ממילא
For this dominance that the light of the divine soul has over the darkness and folly of the kelipah of the animal soul, which is automatically dispelled,
אינה אלא בשלשה לבושיה הנ״ל
is limited to the divine soul’s aforementioned three garments — only in thought, speech and action does the divine soul of the Beinoni dominate his animal soul,
ולא במהותה ועצמותה על מהותה ועצמותה של הקליפה
but the essence and core of the divine soul does not dominate the essence and core of the [animal soul deriving from the] kelipah.
כי מהותה ועצמותה של נפש הבהמית שמהקליפה שבחלל השמאלי לא נדחה כלל ממקומו בבינוני
For in the Beinoni, the essence and core of the animal soul originating in kelipah, which is lodged in the left part of the heart, remains undisturbed (not displaced by the divine soul)
אחר התפלה, שאין רשפי אש אהבת ה׳ בהתגלות לבו בחלל הימני
after prayer, when the burning love of G‑d is no longer in a revealed state in the right part of his heart, as it was during prayer when the love glowed openly and was palpably felt there;
כי אם תוכו רצוף אהבה מסותרת, שהיא אהבה הטבעית שבנפש האלקית, כמו שכתוב לקמן
rather, the love is (after prayer) only on the inside — his heart is inlaid with hidden love, meaning that love which is natural to the divine soul, not the revealed love born of meditation that the Beinoni experiences during the prayer, but a natural, hidden love of G‑d, as will be discussed further in ch. 18 — that in the heart of every Jew lies hidden a natural love of G‑d.
ואזי יכול להיות סכלות הכסיל הרע בהתגלות לבו בחלל השמאלי
Then after prayer, when the love of G‑d is no longer revealed in the heart of the Beinoni, it is possible for the folly of the “wicked fool” (i.e., the animal soul) to reveal itself in the left part of the heart,
להתאות תאוה לכל ענייני גשמיות עולם הזה, בין בהיתר בין באיסור חס ושלום
craving all physical matters of this world, whether permitted (except that they should be desired and used as means of serving G‑d, whereas at this time the Beinoni craves them for their own sake, for the pleasure they provide) or whether prohibited, G‑d forbid,
כאלו לא התפלל כלל
as though he had never prayed.
אלא שבדבר איסור אינו עולה בדעתו לעשות האיסור בפועל ממש, חס ושלום
[His craving is limited] only [in that] in the case of [a craving for] a prohibited matter, it does not enter his mind to transgress in actual practice, G‑d forbid.
אלא הרהורי עבירה הקשים מעבירה יכולים לפעול לעלות למוחו, ולבלבלו מתורה ועבודה
But thoughts of sin, which are in certain respects (as explained in the previous chapter) “more heinous than actual sin,” can manage to rise to his mind, and to distract him from Torah and divine service,
וכמאמר רז״ל: ג׳ עבירות אין אדם ניצול מהן בכל יום
as our Sages say,1 “There are three sins so difficult to avoid that no man is safe from [transgressing], daily:
הרהור עבירה, ועיון תפלה כו׳
thoughts of sin, [lack of] concentration in prayer... [and slanderous gossip]“; thus the Beinoni is included in the generalization that ”no man“ avoids thoughts of sin.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Bava Batra 164b. |
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Sunday, Tevet 22, 5776 · January 3, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 155
Sanctifying the Shabbat
"Remember the Shabbat to keep it holy"—Exodus 20:8.
We are commanded to honor the Shabbat when it enters and when it leaves by pronouncing words that proclaim the greatness and holiness of the day, and its distinctness from the weekdays that precede and follow it. This mitzvah – commonly known askiddush and havdalah – is preformed over a cup of wine.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Sanctifying the Shabbat
Positive Commandment 155
Translated by Berel Bell
The 155th mitzvah is that we are commanded to make a verbal declaration when Shabbos enters and when it leaves. We must mention the greatness and exalted character of this day, and how it is distinct from the other days of the week which precede it and follow it.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statementex1 (exalted be He), "Remember the Shabbos day to sanctify it." This means that one should commemorate it through mentioning its holiness and greatness. This is the mitzvah of Kiddush.
The Mechilta says the following: " 'Remember the Shabbos day to sanctify it,' — this means one should sanctify it through reciting a blessing." The Sages said explicitly,2 "Remember [Kiddush] over wine."
The Sages also said,3 "Sanctify it when it enters and when it leaves," [the phrase, "when it leaves"] referring to Havdalah, which is also part of our commandment to remember Shabbos.
The details of this commandment are explained in the end of tractate Pesachim4, and in many places in Berachos5 and Shabbos6.
FOOTNOTES
1.Shmos 20:8.
2.Pesachim 106a.
3.See Kapach, 5731, note 71, that the apparent source is Sh'iltos D'Rav Achai, parshas Zos HaBerachah.
4.. 106a.
5.. 51b.
6.. 150b.
------------------------------------------------------------
• 1 Chapter: Terumot Terumot - Chapter 10
• 1 Chapter: Terumot Terumot - Chapter 10
• English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• Terumot - Chapter 10
Halacha 1
When a non-priests partakes of terumah unknowingly, he must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.1 Even if he knows that it is terumahand that he is warned against partaking of it, but he does not know whether or not he is liable for death,2 he is considered to have acted unknowingly and he must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.
Halacha 2
A person who eats an article [that is terumah] that is ordinarily eaten, drinks something that is ordinarily drunk, or smears himself with something ordinarily used for that purpose [is liable],3 as [derived from Leviticus 22:15]: "And they shall not defile the sacraments of the children of Israel." This includes one who smears himself.4
Whether one partakes of terumah which is ritually pure or ritually impure unknowingly, one must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.5 He is not liable for a fifth until he eats an olive-sized portion, as [indicated byibid.:14]: "When one will eat a sacrament unknowingly"; eating implies consuming no less than an olive-sized portion. Just as one is liable for eating an olive-sized portion, so too, [one is liable for] drinking an olive-sized portion.6
Halacha 3
[The following laws apply if a person] ate terumah and then ate again, drank and then drank again. If there is sufficient time to eat a half a loaf of bread7from the time he began to eat until he concluded or sufficient time to drink arevi'it from the time he began to drink until he concluded,8 [all he consumes] is combined to comprise an olive-sized portion.
Halacha 4
Terumah, terumat ma'aser whether the latter is from d'mai9or from produce from which the tithes were definitely [not separated], challah,10 and the first fruits can all be combined together to comprise an olive-sized portion11 for which one is liable for death12 or [restitution, plus] a fifth,13 for they are all called terumah [at different times in the Torah].14
According to law, one should not be liable for a fifth for [the unknowing consumption of] terumat ma'aser that is d'mai, just as one is not liable for the second tithe [from d'mai], as will be explained.15 Nevertheless, our Sages said: If one is not liable for a fifth, people will treat it with disdain.
Halacha 5
When a person partook terumah intentionally [after] receiving a warning, he is liable for lashes and is not required to make financial restitution.16 If he did not receive warning, [he is required to make financial restitution].17 If [the terumah] was ritually pure, he is required to make restitution for the principal, but is not required to add a fifth.18 If [the terumah] was ritually impure, he is required to pay only as if it were wood, because it is fit only to use as fuel.19 Accordingly, if one ate berries or pomegranates or the like that were terumah that became impure, he is not obligated to make restitution, because these are not fit to be used as fuel.20
Halacha 6
When a person eats terumah that is chametz on Pesach, whether willfully or unknowingly, whether it is ritually impure or pure, he is exempt from financial liability.21 Even if he separated terumah from matzah, but it became chametz[before he ate it], he is exempt. 22 He is not even required to pay as if it were wood, because it is not fit for use as fuel. [Instead,] since it is forbidden to benefit from it,23 it is of no value whatsoever.
Halacha 7
If, however, one unknowingly ate terumah on Yom Kippur,24 ate terumah that was perforated,25 drank wine that was terumah that was left open,26 smeared himself with wine and oil [that were terumah] at the same time, or drank oil and vinegar [that were terumah] at the same time,27 chewed raw kernels of wheat,28 or swallowed vinegar,29 he is liable to make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.
Halacha 8
When a person is satisfied and is disgusted by his food, but continues eatingterumah despite the fact that he is satisfied, he is not required to add a fifth [when making restitution, for the prooftext cited above] states: "When one will eat...." [Implied is that he is when he eats in an ordinary manner] and not when he harms himself.30 Similarly, when one chews raw kernels of barley, he is not liable, because he harms himself.
Halacha 9
When a non-priest swallowed prunes of terumah [whole31 unknowingly] and then regurgitated them, and another person came and also ate them unknowingly, the first person is required to make restitution for the principal and add a fifth32 and the second person is obligated to pay the first one as if the figs were wood.33
Halacha 10
When one feeds terumah to workers34 or to guests, they are required to make restitution for the principal and add a fifth, for they acted unknowingly.35 He must pay them for their meal,36 for ordinary produce is more valuable than theterumah,37 since a person's soul is repelled from forbidden food.38
Halacha 11
When [a non-priest] feeds terumah to his children who were below majority39or to his servants whether they are above or below majority,40 he must pay the principal, but not the additional fifth.41 [This ruling also applies to] one who partakes of terumah from the Diaspora,42 one who eats or drinks less than an olive-sized portion,43 a nazarite who unknowingly drank wine that wasterumah,44 one drinks oil [without it being mixed with other liquids] and one who smears himself with wine.45
Halacha 12
When the daughter of a priest who was married to an Israelite or disqualified [from partaking of terumah for other reasons] partook of terumah, she must make restitution for the principal, but she is not required to add a fifth.46
When a woman47 was partaking of terumah and she was told: "Your husband died," or "...divorced you," she is required to pay only the principal.48 If theterumah was chametz on the day preceding Pesach, she is exempt from making restitution. [The rationale is that then] the time is pressing and she hurried to eat without investigating.49
[These same laws apply] when a servant was partaking [of terumah] and he was told: "Your master died and left an heir who does not entitle you to eat,"50"...sold you to an Israelite," "...gave you to him as a present," or "...freed you," and when a priest was partaking [of terumah] and he discovered that he is the son of a divorcee or a woman who underwent chalitzah.51 In all of these instances, if these individuals had terumah in their mouths when they discovered that they were forbidden to partake of it, they should spit it out.52
Halacha 13
[Similarly, when a priest] was partaking [of terumah] and he was told: "You became impure," "The terumah became impure,"53 "You were impure," or "theterumah was impure,"54 he should spit it out. [The same ruling applies] if he discovered that [the terumah] was tevel, the first tithe from which terumat ma'aser had not been separated,55 or ma'aser sheni56 or consecrated property that was not redeemed, or [when partaking of the terumah,] he tasted a bug.57
Halacha 14
When there are two containers, one of terumah and one of ordinary produce, and terumah fell into one of them, but it is not known which one, we operate under the supposition that it fell into the one which [contained] terumah.58
If it is not known which one is terumah and a non-priest partakes of one of them, he is not liable for payment.59 [The rationale is that when a person seeks] to expropriate money from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him.60He must treat the other one as if it were terumah. If another person partakes of the other one, however, he is also exempt.61 If, however, one person eats them both, he must make restitution for the smaller one.62 If he did so intentionally, he is required to make restitution for the principal. If he did so unknowingly, he is required to make restitution for the principal, plus a fifth.
Halacha 15
When a person eats the additional fifth unknowingly, he must [make restitution for it and] add another fifth.63 For the fifth is considered as the principal with regard to all matters.64Similarly, he continues to add a fifth for every fifth forever.65
Whenever a person makes restitution for the principal and the additional fifth, [the grain] he gives is terumah with regard to all matters66 [with one exception]. If they were sown, the grain that grows is ordinary produce.67 If the priest wishes to forgo [the payment], he cannot.68 Whenever, [by contrast,] a person makes restitution only for the principal,69 [the grain] he gives is ordinary grain70 and if the priest desires to forgo payment, he may.
Halacha 16
[The following laws apply if] a daughter of an Israelite partakes of terumah and then marries a priest. If [she partook] of terumah that had not been acquired by a priest,71 she may make restitution of the principal and the additional fifth to herself.72 If she partook of terumah that a priest had acquired, she is required to make restitution of the principal to its owner,73 but she may keep the additional fifth as her own. For whenever a person makes restitution and pays an additional fifth, he may give the additional fifth to whichever priest he desires.
Halacha 17
If she was not able to make restitution before she was divorced,74 she can no longer make restitution to herself and she is like a person who never married a priest at all.
Halacha 18
Whenever a person partakes of terumah whether unknowingly or intentionally, he may make restitution only from ordinary produce from which the terumotand the tithes have been separated. Restitution may be made from leket, shichichah, pe'ah75 ownerless grain,76 and grain from the first tithe afterterumat ma'aser was separated i.e., even if the great terumah from that crop had not been separated, for the person separated the tithes before theterumah.77
One may make restitution from the second tithes and consecrated property that were redeemed, even though they were not redeemed in an appropriate manner.78 And one may make restitution using new grain79 for old grain. One may not, however, make restitution from one type [of grain] for another type [of grain]. [This is derived from Leviticus 22:14:] "And he shall give the priest the sanctified [food]." [Implied is that it must be the same] as the sanctified food he ate.
Halacha 19
Halacha 20
When a person ate terumah that was ritually impure, he make restitution from ordinary produce whether pure or impure.82 If he partook of terumah that was ritually pure, he should make restitution with ordinary grain that is pure.83 If he made restitution from ordinary grain that was impure whether intentionally or unknowingly, the restitution he made is accepted, but he must make restitution again from ritually pure grain.
Halacha 21
When a person partook of terumah belonging to a chaver,84 he should make restitution to him. If he partook of terumah belonging to a common person,85he should make restitution to a chaver,86 and take its worth from him and give it to the common person whose terumah he ate.87 For we do not give articles that require ritually purity to a common person.
Halacha 22
When [an Israelite] stole terumah from his maternal grandfather who was a priest and consumed it [unknowingly], and afterwards, his maternal grandfather died, he may not make restitution to himself,88 but rather to another heir89 from [the priestly] tribe. Similarly, if he inherited terumah from his maternal grandfather and partook of it, a creditor collected terumah [as payment] for a debt and he partook of it or a woman [received it as part of the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah and she partook of it, they must make restitution for the principle and the additional fifth90 to a priest who is achaver and that chaver gives them the monetary equivalent of the terumah at the time they partook of it.91
Halacha 23
When a person steals terumah but does consume it, he should pay twice its worth92 to the owners.93 He may make this payment according to the worth ofterumah.94 If he stole it and ate it, he must pay twice the principal and a fifth of the principal: i.e., the principal and an additional fifth from ordinary grain,95 and the principal according to the worth of terumah.96
Halacha 24
When a person steals terumah that is consecrated to the Temple treasury97and eats it, he is not required to pay a double amount, for a double amount is not paid to the Temple treasury, as explained in the appropriate place.98 He must, however, make restitution for the principal and add two fifths, one fifth [to atone] for partaking of terumah and one fifth [to atone] for benefiting from consecrated property.99
Halacha 25
Why does the prohibition against benefiting from consecrated property fall [on this grain when it is already forbidden because of] the prohibition againstterumah?102 Because the terumah was forbidden to a non-priest and permitted to a priest. Once he consecrated it, it became forbidden to a priest. Therefore a prohibition was added to it even for an Israelite in the manner explained in the laws of forbidden relationships and forbidden foods.103
Halacha 26
When a person obtains terumah by robbery,104 he must make restitution for the principal and add one fifth.105 [The rationale is that] the fifth that he is liable for [to atone for partaking of] terumah fulfills his obligation for robbery,106 as [implied by Leviticus 22:14:] "And you shall give the priest the sacred [food]." He is liable only for the fifth [associated with atonement for] the sacred [food]. If he obtains terumah through robbery and feeds it to another person, that person must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.107
Whenever we have said that a person must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth, [the intent is that] if he ate grain worth forth [zuz], he must pay five108 from the type of grain from which he partook. Whenever we mentioned [payment of] the principal and two fifths, [the intent is that] if he ate grain worth forth [zuz], he must pay six. Whenever we mentioned [payment of] two principals and one fifth, [the intent is that] if he ate grain worth forth [zuz], he must pay nine.
Whenever he makes restitution, he must pay for the worth of the grain at the time he partook of it whether its value depreciated at the time he made restitution or appreciated.109
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
As stated in Halachah 26, the intent is one fifth of the new total. Thus if a person eats the value of four measures of grain, he must pay five. Moreover, he may not use grain that is terumah to make restitution, he must use ordinary grain (which is more expensive). This fifth becomes considered as terumah itself and must be eaten in a state of ritual purity. See also Halachah 15.
|
| 2. |
At the hand of heaven.
|
| 3. |
Since these are the ways in which one may benefit from terumah (see Chapter 11, Halachah 1), these are the ways for which one is liable for partaking of it.
|
| 4. |
The implication of the verse is that just as eating involves tangible physical satisfaction, so too, smearing oneself produces tangible physical satisfaction.
|
| 5. |
It appears that in contrast to the intentional violation of the prohibition mentioned in Halachah 5, in this instance, the transgressor should pay the full value of the terumah even if it is ritually impure. The rationale is that here a person is receiving atonement for his transgression. Hence, he is required to make full payment.
|
| 6. |
The Radbaz explains at length why although with regard to most prohibitions, the minimum measure for which one is liable for drinking is a revi'it of a log, a larger measure than an olive-sized portion, in this instance an exception is made. The basis of his explanation is that this prohibition focuses on "eating" terumah, and as stated above, intaking an olive-sized portion constitutes eating.
|
| 7. |
I.e., an equivalent of three egg-sized portions. If a person stretches out his consumption of an olive-sized beyond this time span, it s not considered as "eating," for he will not have ingested a significant amount at once. The Rabbis mention different opinions with regard to this time span, referred to as k'dai achilat pras, some as brief as 2 minutes and some as long as 9 minutes. Based on Shiurei Torah, the suggested practice is to consider k'dai achilat pras as 4 minutes with regard to eating matzah on Pesach, but 9 minutes with regard to eating on Yom Kippur. See also Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 14:9 and notes.
|
| 8. |
The time to drink a revi'it is much less than k'dai achilat pras. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that the latter measure of time should be applied in this instance as well. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh cite sources to support the Rambam's view and note that he mentions this measure of time for drinking both with regard to the prohibition against drinking on Yom Kippur (Hilchot Shevitat Esor 2:4) and the prohibition against drinking gentile wine (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 14:9). They do note, however, that in Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 8:11, however, the Rambam mentions the time span of k'dai achilat pras even with regard to drinking.
They differentiate between the rulings as follows: In all the instances involving prohibitions against eating, the Rambam mentions the time to drink a revi'it because a person will not feel satisfaction if his drinking the minimum measure is stretched out over a longer span of time. InHilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah, by contrast, the concept involves considering a person ritually impure because of his having ingested a quantity of liquid. As long as he does not wait longer than k'dai achilat pras, the liquid is still collected in his digestive system and has not begun to circulate throughout his body.
|
| 9. |
Produce that we are unsure whether or not the tithes have been separated. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 331:59) explains that the term is a composite of two Aramaic words da mai which mean: "What is this?", i.e., the person is unaware of the status of the produce with which he is dealing.
|
| 10. |
The portion of dough separated and given to the priests.
|
| 11. |
I.e., if one eats a little bit of any combination of these forbidden substances and the entire amount is an olive-sized portion, one is liable.
|
| 12. |
If the transgression was intentional.
|
| 13. |
If the transgression was performed unknowingly.
|
| 14. |
Challah is referred to as terumah in Numbers 15:20 and the first fruits are referred to as terumahin Deuteronomy 12:17.
|
| 15. |
Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 5:4. Since we are speaking about d'mai, produce from which separations are being made because of a doubt, there is no obligation according to Scriptural Law to add a fifth. With regard to ma'aser sheni, our Sages felt that if the obligation of an additional fifth was imposed, people would ignore the obligation to separate ma'aser sheni from d'mai entirely. With regard to terumat ma'aser from d'mai, they felt the converse is true. Were the obligation of an additional fifth not imposed, people would not treat the obligation to separate d'mai seriously.
|
| 16. |
A person never receives both corporal punishment and a financial penalty. Hence, he is liable only for lashes. See the notes to Chapter 6, Halachah 6, which explain why here he is punished by lashes and not required to make restitution.
|
| 17. |
When he makes restitution, the produce he gives the priest is considered as ordinary produce and not as terumah (Terumot 7:1).
|
| 18. |
An addition of a fifth was required only in the case of inadvertent transgression. In his Commentary to the Mishneh (Terumot 7:1), the Rambam explains that the additional fifth was instituted for atonement and that was possible only when the transgression was violated unintentionally. When it was violated intentionally, the sin is too great for atonement to be granted in an ordinary manner.
|
| 19. |
For terumah can only be eaten only when it is ritually pure.
|
| 20. |
Since they have no value, there is no need for restitution.
|
| 21. |
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision, noting that it is the subject of a difference of opinion between the Sages of the Mishneh (see Pesachim 32a) and the opinion stated by the Rambam does not appear to be accepted in a definitive manner. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh provide interpretations of that passage that justify the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 22. |
Pesachim, loc. cit., speaks about an instance where a person steals terumah that is matzah from a priest and ate it. Even if it became chametz in the thief's domain in which instance, the thief caused the priest a loss, the thief is not liable financially.
|
| 23. |
See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 1:2,4, et al.
|
| 24. |
When a person is forbidden to eat. In this instance, the prohibition rests on the person (thegavra) in yeshivah terminology) and not the cheftza, the article in question. Hence he is liable.
|
| 25. |
I.e., dough that is terumah is discovered with holes in it. Our Sages fear that the holes were made by a poisonous snake who deposited his venom in the dough. Hence, they forbade partaking of it (Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat Nefesh 12:1).
|
| 26. |
This too was forbidden for a similar reason. We fear that a poisonous snake drank from it and deposited his venom there (ibid.:6-7). In these two instances, although the substances are forbidden, they are forbidden only in consideration for the person's wellbeing. There is no ritual prohibition resting on the foods. Hence one is liable.
|
| 27. |
Halachah 11 states that one drinks oil or smears oneself with wine, he is liable only for the principal, for as the commentaries state there, that is not the customary manner of benefiting from these substances. In this halachah, the Rambam clarifies that if one combines the substances as he states here, this is considered as the normal pattern and one is liable.
|
| 28. |
The Ra'avad notes that there is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 6:1). The opinion cited by the Rambam is advanced by Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi while the majority of the Sages differ. Hence, he maintains that the Sages' view should be followed for, as stated in the following halachah with regard to barley, eating uncooked kernels of wheat is harmful. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's view. As stated inHilchot Berachot 3:2, one is required to make a blessing when eating such kernels. This indicates one is deriving benefit and if one derives benefit from terumah, he is required to make restitution.
|
| 29. |
It is uncommon to partake of these foods in this manner. Nevertheless, it is not so infrequent a practice to reduce one's liability.
|
| 30. |
Note the parallel with regard to the prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur (Hilchot Shivitat Esor2:7). There too the Rambam rules that consuming food in such a state is not considered as "eating."
|
| 31. |
If, however, he chewed them before swallowing them, the second person is not liable at all. For once they have been chewed, they are entirely worthless (Radbaz).
|
| 32. |
For swallowing the fruit whole is also considered eating.
|
| 33. |
After the person swallowed the figs, the sanctity of terumah within them is considered to have been desecrated. For that reason, the first person who swallowed them is required to make restitution. They become his property and the second one is liable as one who damages the property of the first.
|
| 34. |
Whom he agreed to supply with meals in addition to their wages.
|
| 35. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 6:3), the Rambam elaborates on why the responsibility is the hosts and not the guests, citing the principle (Kiddushin 42b) that a person cannot act as an agent to perform a transgression for a colleague. Instead, the transgression is solely the responsibility of the person who performed it, in this instance, the people who partook of the food.
|
| 36. |
I.e., the full price of the meal were it to have been prepared from ordinary produce.
|
| 37. |
For this reason, it is preferable for the workers to have the employer pay them rather than having him pay the principal for the terumah (Radbaz).
|
| 38. |
Note a similar ruling in Hilchot Mechirah 16:14. This principle is stated by the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot, loc. cit.) in explanation of the reason the employer is required to reimburse his workers. Seemingly, he was required to provide them with a meal. He did and they ate to their satisfaction, why then is he liable to them? Our Sages explain, based on the above principle, that since the food was forbidden, their souls did not derive true satisfaction from it and hence, he is required to give them a meal.
|
| 39. |
The children are not liable, for they are not obligated in the observance of the mitzvot.
|
| 40. |
The servants are not liable, for they have no independent financial capacity.
|
| 41. |
See Halachah 15 which states that whenever a person is required to pay only the principal, the grain that he pays is not considered as terumah.
|
| 42. |
For it is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law and the Sages did not require this additional payment.
|
| 43. |
One is not liable in this instance, because the prooftext requiring payment of the additional fifth mentions "eating," and eating or drinking less than an olive-sized portion is not considered as "eating" [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 7:3)].
|
| 44. |
Wine is forbidden to a nazirite whether it is terumah or not and our Sages explain that eating a forbidden substance is not considered "eating." In this context, a distinction can be made between eating on Yom Kippur which is an issur gavra, i.e., the food is not forbidden, the person is forbidden to partake of it, and wine for a nazirite, which is an issur cheftza, the wine itself becomes forbidden for him (Pri Megadim, Eshel Avraham 202:11). This explanation resolves an objection lodged by the Ra'avad who cites a Tosefta that rules differently than the Rambam.
|
| 45. |
In the latter two instances, these are not ordinary ways of benefiting from these products.
|
| 46. |
Since she was entitled to partake of terumah previously, a distinction is made between her and other non-priest. See the Sifra to Leviticus 22:12.
|
| 47. |
The daughter of an Israelite married to a priest who was therefore entitled to partake of terumah[the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 8:1)].
|
| 48. |
As in the previous clause.
|
| 49. |
The Kessef Mishneh explains that since it is a pressing time, it is considered as if the transgression was violated due to forces beyond her control (ones).
|
| 50. |
E.g., his son was a challal or he had no sons and his daughter was married to an Israelite (ibid.).
|
| 51. |
With regard to the servant, the same logic that applies with regard to the women mentioned previously applies to him. Since he was allowed to partake of terumah previously, he is not held responsible for the additional fifth. With regard to the priest who was disqualified, we find that he still has a certain vestige of connection to the priesthood, as evidenced by the fact that were he to bring an offering in the Temple, it would be acceptable after the fact (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash6:10). Therefore it is sufficient for him to make restitution for the principal [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].
|
| 52. |
Even though by spitting it out, he is spoiling the terumah, that is preferable to swallowing it. For until he swallows it, he is not considered to have partaken of it (Radbaz).
|
| 53. |
In these instances, when he began eating, he was permitted to do so, it is only afterwards, that he or the terumah became impure.
|
| 54. |
Thus from the outset, he should not have partaken of the terumah.
|
| 55. |
In which instance, it is forbidden to partake of it until the appropriate separations are made.
|
| 56. |
The second tithe which cannot be eaten outside of Jerusalem unless it is redeemed.
|
| 57. |
And the disgusting taste of the bug prevented him from swallowing the terumah [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].
|
| 58. |
In this instance, although there is reason to suspect that the terumah fell into the other container, we consider it as ordinary produce. The rationale is that we were operating under thechazzakah, prevailing assumption, that the container was filled with ordinary produce. Hence, unless there is a strong likelihood otherwise, we continue to operate under that perspective.
This reflects a principle that has ramifications beyond the laws of terumah. Although generally, we maintain that when there is a doubt regarding a Scriptural prohibition, we rule stringently, in this instance, since there is a plausible explanation for the lenient ruling, it is accepted. See also Chapter 13, Halachah 13-14, and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, sec. 111.
There is, however, a point that has to be clarified. In Chapter 13, it is explained that this principle applies with regard to matters of Rabbinic Law, but not matters of Scriptural Law, and yet, here we are dealing even with questions involving terumah of Scriptural status. Nevertheless, there is no difficulty, because here we are not speaking about whether it is permissible to partake of the mixture or not. That question was discussed in Chapter 13, and the ruling was rendered that it is forbidden. Here the question concerns financial restitution: Is the non-priest required to pay for the produce that he ate? With regard to this point, the Rambam explains that we can use the above reasoning.
|
| 59. |
For the additional fifth. The principal, i.e., the remaining container, must certainly be given to the priest. For if the one which was eaten was terumah, the second one should be given to him as payment for the first. And if the one that was eaten was not terumah, than the remaining one is and it must be given to the priest.
|
| 60. |
Thus if the priest seeks to expropriate the additional fifth, he must prove that the container consumed was terumah.
This is a fundamental principle in Jewish Law. Whenever there is a doubt with regard to the ownership of money or movable property, the person in physical possession of the property in question is allowed to maintain possession until the claimant proves his claim. See Hilchot Mechirah 20:5, et al.
|
| 61. |
From the additional fifth. For in this instance as well, we are not certain that he partook ofterumah.
|
| 62. |
For he definitely partook of terumah. Nevertheless, since we do not know which one wasterumah, he can only be held liable for the smaller one, because of the principle stated above.
|
| 63. |
For the fifth originally added becomes considered as terumah and compensation must be made for it.
|
| 64. |
I.e., it must be eaten in a state of ritual purity.
|
| 65. |
When Leviticus 5:24 speaks of adding a fifth, it uses a form that could be interpreted as plural, "its fifths." The implication is that he may have to add many fifths [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 6:1)].
|
| 66. |
I.e., if it becomes mixed with ordinary grain, the laws of dimua (the mixture of terumah) apply (ibid.).
|
| 67. |
In contrast, grain growing from terumah is considered as terumah (Chapter 11, Halachah 21).
|
| 68. |
For we are not speaking about a mere financial payment owed the priest, but a means of attaining atonement.
|
| 69. |
See Halachah 5 and Halachot 11-12.
|
| 70. |
I.e., none of the restrictions of terumah apply to it.
|
| 71. |
I.e., it had been separated, but had not been given to a priest.
|
| 72. |
She must separate this grain to receive atonement. Nevertheless, since as a priest's wife, she is entitled to partake of terumah, she may take the terumah she separates as her own.
|
| 73. |
That priest.
|
| 74. |
Or she was widowed and left childless (Radbaz).
|
| 75. |
See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim for a definition of these terms. They are acceptable for this purpose, because once they are acquired by a poor person, they become his private property.
|
| 76. |
Terumah need not be separated from such grain or from the presents for the poor.
|
| 77. |
The Kessef Mishneh explains that we are referring to an instance where the person separated the first tithe while the crop is still stalks of grain and gave it to the Levite before it has been winnowed. As explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 13, in such an instance, it is not necessary to separate the great terumah. If, however, it is ordinary grain from which the separations were not made in the proper order, it cannot be used to make restitution for terumah.
|
| 78. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 6:5), the Rambam explains that this refers to the second tithe that was redeemed using an unminted coin or consecrated property that was redeemed with land. The commentaries have questioned this interpretation, noting that usually redemption with such articles is not effective at all (see Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 4:9; Hilchot Arachin 7:1). They cite the Rambam's Commentary to Berachot 7:1 which interprets this term as referring to a situation where the principal was paid, but the additional fifth that is required was not.
|
| 79. |
New grain refers to grain harvested after the omer offering. Old grain refers to grain from the previous harvest.
|
| 80. |
In the seventh year and thus there is no way he can acquire the zucchini of the sixth year.
|
| 81. |
See Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 6:10 which states that the crops of the Sabbatical year may not be used to pay debts, for this is comparable to using them for commercial purposes which is forbidden.
|
| 82. |
The produce he gives as restitution will be considered as impure terumah. Hence, there is no difficulty in him giving impure produce.
|
| 83. |
For if the grain is impure, it will not be an adequate replacement.
|
| 84. |
A person who is careful to observe the laws of ritual purity. See Chapter 6, Halachah 2; Hilchot Ma'aser, ch. 10.
|
| 85. |
Who is not necessarily careful concerning the laws of ritual purity.
|
| 86. |
So that the laws of ritual purity are adhered to.
|
| 87. |
So that he is reimbursed for his loss.
|
| 88. |
Even though he is an heir, since we are speaking about stolen property, he may not maintain possession of it, but instead must remove it from his domain give it to someone else. Note the parallel in Hilchot Gezeilah 8:2-3.
|
| 89. |
Since the terumah belonged to his maternal grandfather, it is not appropriate that the restitution be given to someone who does not share a family connection with him. Hence he may give it to any member of the family who is a priest, e.g., one of his uncles (Radbaz).
|
| 90. |
This is speaking about an instance where the person did not know that the produce he ate wasterumah and thus transgressed unknowingly.
|
| 91. |
To explain this ruling: Since these individuals are not entitled to partake of terumah, they must atone for partaking of it by making restitution and adding a fifth. Nevertheless, the terumahlegitimately belonged to them. Hence, after the priest receives the grain given for atonement, he should reimburse the person for the worth of the terumah.
|
| 92. |
As is required when making restitution for theft (Exodus 22:3).
|
| 93. |
Although terumah is consecrated, it belongs to its owners. For even an Israelite has the right to give it to the priest he desires.
|
| 94. |
Which is less expensive than ordinary grain. When making restitution to atone for partaking ofterumah, it is necessary to pay with ordinary grain. In this instance, however, he need not atone for partaking of terumah. All that is necessary is to pay twice the amount of the article he stole.
|
| 95. |
To atone for partaking of terumah.
|
| 96. |
To atone for the theft.
|
| 97. |
I.e., a priest was given terumah and consecrated it to the Temple treasury [the Ramban's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 6:4)]. We are forced to say this because terumahseparated by an Israelite must be given to a priest and may not be given to the Temple treasury.
|
| 98. |
Hilchot Geneivah 2:1. When speaking about the thief's obligation to pay double, Exodus 22:8states: "He shall pay his colleague double," i.e., his colleague, another human, and not the Temple treasury (Bava Metzia 57b).
|
| 99. |
This is the standard penalty to atone for this transgression (Hilchot Meilah 1:3,5).
|
| 100. |
For the liability for terumah depends on the produce being the size of an olive.
|
| 101. |
For the liability of misusing consecrated property depends on it being worth a p'rutah,
|
| 102. |
The Rambam's question is based on the principle that, generally, once an object is forbidden because of one prohibition, it does not become forbidden again, because of a second one (seeKeritot 14a).
|
| 103. |
See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:9; Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 14:19. In these sources, it is explained that one of the exceptions to this principle is an issur mosif, a negative commandment that increases the scope of the prohibition, including entities that were not originally forbidden. See the Ramban's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).
|
| 104. |
The difference between geneivah (theft) and gezeilah (robbery) can be explained as follows: Theft implies taking a colleague's property discreetly. Robbery, by contrast, involves taking something by force against the will of its owner (Hilchos Geneivah 1:3).
|
| 105. |
And only one fifth, in contrast to the law regarding a thief in Halachah 23, where he is required to atone for the theft as well.
|
| 106. |
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, asking why the person is not liable for an additional fifth to atone for taking a false oath concerning the robbery, as required by Hilchot Gezeilah 7:1-2. The commentaries explain that according to the Rambam, it is sufficient to give one fifth, for that atones for both transgressions. Although in Halachah 24, the Rambam requires two different fifths to be given, that is because one is required to atone for partaking of consecrated property. That is a different type of transgression and that requirement is not paralleled with regard to the transgression against taking a false oath.
|
| 107. |
For he must atone for partaking of terumah unknowingly, as in Halachah 10.
|
| 108. |
I.e., the fifth is one fifth of the new total. See parallels in Hilchot Arachin 4:5; Hilchot Meialah 1:5,Hilchot Gezeilah 7:5, et al.
|
| 109. |
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, asking why is the person not required to pay the worth at the time of the robbery if the grain depreciated in price. The Radbaz explains that this is, in fact, the Rambam's intent and this halachah is speaking about an instance when he ate theterumah directly after stealing it. The Kessef Mishneh states that this halachah is not necessarily speaking about a thief, but about any person who partakes of terumah unknowingly. The time when he partakes of the terumah is equivalent to the time of theft.
|
---------------------
• 3 Chapters: Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Seven, Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Eight, Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Nine • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Seven
• 3 Chapters: Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Seven, Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Eight, Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Nine • English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download• Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Seven
Halacha 1
A person who goes beyond [his] city's Sabbath limit should be punished by lashes, as [Exodus 16:29] states: "No man should leave his place on the seventh day."1 [The term] "place" refers to the city's Sabbath limits.
The Torah did not [explicitly] state the measure of this limit. The Sages, however, transmitted the tradition that this measure was twelve mil,2 the length of the Jews' encampment [in the desert]. Thus, Moses our teacher was instructing them, "Do not go out beyond the camp."
Halacha 2
[From the above,] it follows that a person may walk throughout the expanse of [any] city, even if it is as large as Nineveh, whether or not it is surrounded by a wall.5
Similarly, it is permitted for a person to walk two thousand cubits in all directions outside the city. [When calculating these two thousand cubits, the entire area] is considered to be square, like a tablet,6so that [the area in between] its furthest corners will also be included.7
If a person goes beyond two thousand cubits up to a distance of twelve mil, he should be given "stripes for rebelliousness"8. If he goes even one cubit beyond twelve mil, he should be punished by lashing [as prescribed] by the Torah.
Halacha 3
[There is a question whether] a person [is liable] if he goes beyond the Sabbath limit, [travelling] at a height of more than ten handbreadths above the ground9 - e.g., he jumps from one pillar to another - when none of the pillars has a surface area of four handbreadths by four handbreadths.10 For there remains an unresolved question [among the Sages] whether or not the Sabbath limits apply ten handbreadths above the ground.11.
[The matter is one of question only in an instance similar to the example given.] If, by contrast, a person walks on a surface that is four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths], it is as if he is walking on the ground [even though the surface is ten handbreadths above the ground].12 The Sabbath limits apply in such an instance.
Halacha 4
A person who spends the Sabbath in a barn in the desert,13 in a corral, in a cave, or in a similar type of private domain may walk through its entire space and [may continue] to the limits of a square extending two thousand cubits in every direction [from that domain].
Similarly, a person who spends the Sabbath in an [open] valley14may walk to the limits of a square extending two thousand cubits in every direction from the place [at which he is located at the commencement of the Sabbath]. [This applies] even when he was sleeping at the time of the commencement of the Sabbath and thus did not consciously acquire the place as his Sabbath base.15
A person who is walking in an open valley and does not know how far his Sabbath limit extends may take two thousand ordinary steps. This is [his] Sabbath limit.
Halacha 5
When a person walks the two thousand cubits that he is entitled to walk and his limit ends in a barn, in a corral, in a cave, or in a city, he is allowed to proceed only to the end of his limit. We do not say that since his limit ends within a private domain, he is entitled to walk throughout that domain.16
When does the above apply? When his limit ends in the midst of the city or in the midst of the cave. If, however, that private domain is included within his two thousand cubits,17 that entire domain is considered to be only four cubits, and the remainder [of the two thousand cubits] is calculated accordingly.
Halacha 6
What is implied? If there were one thousand cubits from the place a person established as his base for the Sabbath, or from the town [in which he spent the Sabbath],18 to a city or a cave that is a thousand cubits long or less, he may walk through the entire city or cave that he encounters and [continue] beyond it for 996 cubits.
Halacha 7
If, however, [in the instance mentioned above,] the city or the cave that begins within his Sabbath limits extends one thousand and one cubits, the person may walk only one thousand cubits - i.e., he may proceed to the end of the two thousand cubits [granted] him, [but no further].
Halacha 8
A person whose Sabbath limits end in the midst of a town may, nevertheless, move an article to any place within the town by throwing it.19
When a person spends the Sabbath in an open valley, and gentiles surround him with an enclosure on the Sabbath, he may still walk only two thousand cubits - even when this measure is included within the enclosure - in any direction.20 He may, nevertheless, move an article to any place within the enclosure by throwing it, provided it was enclosed for the sake of habitation.21
Halacha 9
[The following rule applies when] a person is in the midst of a journey - whether on sea or on dry land - and [intends] to enter a city: If he comes within two thousand cubits of the city before the commencement of the Sabbath, even though he did not arrive at the city until [after] the Sabbath [had commenced], he is permitted to enter,22 to walk throughout the entire city,23and [continue] for two thousand cubits outside of it in all directions.
Halacha 10
[The following rule applies when] a person [is in the midst of a journey and intends to enter] a city, but falls asleep on the way, and does not awake until [after] the Sabbath [has commenced]: If when he awakes, he finds himself within the city's [Sabbath] limits, he is permitted to enter, to walk throughout the entire city, and [continue] for two thousand cubits outside of it in all directions.24
[This is permitted] because his intent was to journey to this city. Therefore, he is considered to have established his "place" for the Sabbath together with the inhabitants of this city, since he entered into their limits.
Halacha 11
A person who goes25 even a single cubit beyond [a city's] Sabbath limits should not reenter them. [The rationale is that] the four cubits that a person is granted in which to walk begin from the place where the person is standing. Therefore, since the person went a cubit or more beyond his Sabbath limit, he must remain in his place. He may not walk except in the four cubits that begin from the place in which he is standing, and continue in a forward direction.26
Similarly, a person who is even one cubit outside a city's Sabbath limits when darkness falls should not enter the city.27 Instead, he may proceed only two thousand cubits from the place where he was standing when the Sabbath commenced. If a person's Sabbath limit ends in the midst of the city, he may proceed [no further] than the end of his Sabbath limit, as has been explained.28
If one of a person's feet is inside [a city's] Sabbath limits and his other foot is outside the Sabbath limits [when the Sabbath commences], he may enter.29
Halacha 12
[The following rules apply to] a person who left the Sabbath limits unintentionally - e.g., gentiles took him outside [the limits], he was possessed by an undesirable temperament,30 or he inadvertently went beyond [the limit]: He may walk no more than four cubits.
If he returned [within his previous Sabbath limits] voluntarily, he may walk no more than four cubits. If [the forces that caused him to depart] returned him, it is as if he had never departed.31
If [these forces] left him in a private domain - e.g., the gentiles placed him in a barn, a corral, a cave, or another city - he may walk throughout that domain.32Similarly, if he inadvertently left his Sabbath limits [and entered] a domain of this nature, and became conscious of his actions while in this domain, he may walk throughout that domain.33
Halacha 13
When a person voluntarily left the Sabbath limits, he may walk only within four cubits, even when he was returned to his [original] Sabbath limits involuntarily34 - e.g., he was taken back by gentiles or because of an undesirable temperament.
Similarly, if he voluntarily left the Sabbath limits, he may walk only within four cubits even when he is within a private domain - e.g., a barn or a corral.35
A person who sets out on the Mediterranean Sea may walk throughout the ship and carry throughout the ship, even though he is outside the Sabbath limits that he originally established as his Sabbath base.36
Halacha 14
Whenever a person leaves his Sabbath limits unintentionally, and is surrounded by an enclosure on the Sabbath,37 he may walk throughout [the area of] that enclosure, provided it does not exceed two thousand cubits.38
When this enclosure that is created without his knowledge overlaps part of the Sabbath limit that he left [an additional leniency is granted]. Since he is allowed to walk throughout that enclosure, he may reenter his Sabbath limits. Once he enters, [he may proceed freely,] as if he had never left.39
Halacha 15
[The following rules apply when] any of the individuals whose movement is restricted to four cubits must relieve himself: He may leave [these four cubits], move away [an appropriate distance], relieve himself,40 and then return to his place.41
If when moving away to relieve himself, the person enters a portion of the Sabbath limits that he originally left: since he has entered, [his] entry [is accepted as fact], and it is as though he had never departed.42 [This leniency applies] provided he originally left unintentionally. If he left intentionally, he may walk only [within] four cubits, even if he reentered [his original limits].43
Halacha 16
[The following rules apply to] all individuals who are sanctioned by the court [to leave their Sabbath limits] - e.g., witnesses who are going to testify regarding their sighting of the moon,44 - and all others who are allowed to depart because of a mitzvah:45 When they reach their destination, they may proceed two thousand cubits in all directions.46 Should they become located in a city, they [are governed by] the same [rules as] the inhabitants of that city, and may proceed two thousand cubits beyond the city in all directions.
Halacha 17
[The following rules apply when] a person was sanctioned to depart [from his Sabbath limits], but in the midst of his journey, he was informed that the mitzvah that he had intended to perform had already been completed: He may proceed two thousand cubits in all directions. If a portion of the Sabbath limit from which he departed overlaps these two thousand cubits, he may return to his [original] place, and it is as though he had never departed.
All those who depart [from the Sabbath limits] to rescue Jewish lives from gentiles, from a [flooding] river, or from an avalanche, are granted two thousand cubits [in which to walk] from the place where they rescue them. [When Jews are rescued from gentiles, but] the gentiles' position is strong, and the rescuers fear spending [the remainder of] the Sabbath in the place where they rescue them, they may return to their [original] place, [carrying] their weapons.47
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 321) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 24) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
Having covered all the prohibitions associated with the performance of labor on the Sabbath, in this and the next chapter the Rambam focuses on another Biblical prohibition associated with the Sabbath - the prohibition against departing from one's location. With regard to this prohibition, it is also significant to consult Hilchot Eruvin, Chapters 6-8, which mention extending the Sabbath limits mentioned here through a convention of Rabbinic origin known as eruv t'chumim.
|
| 2. |
A mil is approximately one kilometer.
There are those who interpret the Rambam's ruling here as a change in his position from Sefer HaMitzvot, which can be interpreted as stating that the limit of two thousand cubits has its source in the Torah itself. In a responsa, however, the Rambam explicitly states that his statements inSefer HaMitzvot were intended to be general in nature, to be clarified in the Mishneh Torah.
It must also be noted that there are many authorities (among them the Ramban and the Rashba) who maintain that the Sabbath limits are a Rabbinic prohibition. (According to this view, the allusion to Exodus 16:29 is merely an asmachta.) Significantly, there is an early reference in the Rambam's works (Commentary to the Mishneh, Sotah 5:3) which supports this view.
The fundamental basis for these positions can be explained as follows: The measure of twelve milis mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud (Eruvin 1:10), but not in the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud (Eruvin 17a) cites a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and other Sages. Rabbi Akiva maintains that the Torah established a Sabbath limit of two thousand cubits, but the other Sages differ. According to the Rambam, the ruling of the Jerusalem Talmud is accepted. According to the other view, this represents a difference of opinion between the majority opinion in the Babylonian Talmud (which appears to state that the Torah did not establish Sabbath limits) and the Jerusalem Talmud. Generally, when there is a difference between the majority opinion in the Babylonian Talmud, and the Jerusalem Talmud, the majority opinion of the Babylonian Talmud is accepted.
The Rabbinic origin of the prohibition of two thousand cubits is universally accepted. It would appear that the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 404:1) accepts the position that the entire concept of Sabbath limits is a Rabbinic institution. The Ramah, however, requires that consideration be taken of the Rambam's view.
Note also the Tzafenat Paneach, which emphasizes that all authorities agree that the observance of limits on travel on the holidays is Rabbinic in origin.
|
| 3. |
According to the Rambam, as a safeguard to the prohibition of the Torah. According to the other view, as an independent prohibition.
|
| 4. |
See Numbers 35:5.
|
| 5. |
Nineveh is used as a classic example of a metropolis because of the description of the city's size in the Book of Jonah (3:3, 4:11). Significantly, the Talmud (Eruvin 61b) gives Antioch as the example, and not Nineveh.
The entire city is considered to be the person's "place," in the wording used in Exodus (loc. cit.). Hence, as long as he stays within the city's confines, or goes less than two thousand cubits beyond them, he is not considered to have "left his place."
With the expression, "whether or not, it is surrounded by a wall," the Rambam touches on a Halachic point of particular relevance in the diaspora where it is not common for a city to have aneruv. There is a question if the term "city" used throughout this chapter refers to all cities, or only to those surrounded by a wall.
The rationale behind the latter thesis is that only when a city is surrounded by a wall is it a private domain, and fit to be described as a person's "place." When the city lacks a wall, the person's place is his individual domain. See Rashi, Eruvin 61b, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 396:1.
The Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss to these halachot, and more specifically, in his gloss to Hilchot Eruvin 7:4), explains that the Rambam does not subscribe to this restriction, and considers even a city without a wall as "one's place" even if it is forbidden to carry within it.
|
| 6. |
There is a difference of opinion among the Sages of the Mishnah (Eruvin 4:8) whether the city is considered to be the center of a circle with a radius of two thousand cubits, or the center of a square whose sides are twice that length. The Rambam follows the latter opinion, thus expanding the permitted area to include the corners of the square.
The determination of the limits of the city's boundaries from which these two thousand cubits are measured is discussed at the beginning of the following chapter.
|
| 7. |
The Maggid Mishneh states that although the corners of the square are included, one is allowed to walk 2800 cubits (the approximate distance to the corner of the square) only when one is, in fact, pointed in the direction of that diagonal. One may not arbitrarily rotate the area encompassed by the square so that one will always be walking along its diagonal.
|
| 8. |
This is the punishment given for the violation of a Rabbinic prohibition.
|
| 9. |
Since a public domain and a carmelit extend only to a height of ten handbreadths, the Sages questioned whether or not this same concept applied with regard to the Sabbath limits.
|
| 10. |
A surface less than four handbreadths by four handbreadths is not comfortable to use. Therefore, it is a matter of question (Rashi, Eruvin 43a).
|
| 11. |
The Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh cite one of the Rambam's responsa, which states that this entire question applies on dry land only. On the sea or on a river, all authorities agree that if the sea or river is more than ten handbreadths deep, the Sabbath limits do not apply.
The rationale for this leniency is that the laws concerning the Sabbath limits are also derived from the encampment of the Jews in the desert, and there the Sabbath limits were measured only on the land, and more particularly, in a public domain. When a domain is classified within the category of carmelit, e.g., seas and rivers, the establishment of the Sabbath limits is merely Rabbinic in origin. Therefore, since the case at hand - whether the Sabbath limits apply above ten handbreadths - is a point in question, we follow the principle: When in doubt regarding a point of Rabbinic law, the more lenient view should be followed. (See Chapter 30, Halachah 13 and notes, for a further discussion of this issue.)
|
| 12. |
Eruvin 43a uses the expression, "It is like thick ground."
|
| 13. |
The intent is a private domain that is located outside a city and that was enclosed for the purpose of dwelling, or that is less than 5000 square cubits (Rashba, as quoted by the Maggid Mishneh). (See Chapter 16, Halachah 12, and Hilchot Eruvin 7:4.)
Halachah 2 emphasizes that a person's "place" can refer to the entire city in which he lives. Similarly, in this instance, since this private domain is a distinct entity, it is considered to be the person's "place," and the calculation of a person's Sabbath limits begins from the end of its borders.
|
| 14. |
I.e., a carmelit that is not enclosed (Chapter 14, Halachah 4). Needless to say, the same laws would apply in a public domain (Maggid Mishneh).
In this instance, the four square cubits surrounding the place where he is standing at the commencement of the Sabbath is considered his "place," and the two thousand cubits are calculated accordingly (Rashba, as quoted by the Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 15. |
This point is the subject of a difference of opinion among our Sages (Eruvin 4:5). There are opinions that maintain that a person must consciously acquire his place on the Sabbath. Otherwise, he is allowed to move within a square of four cubits alone. Eruvin 46a substantiates the opinion that the Rambam quotes as halachah.
|
| 16. |
The Hagahot Maimoniot quotes sources that allow a person to proceed throughout a domain - but no further - even though his Sabbath limits end within that domain. This view is also cited by the Ramah (Orach Chayim 408:1).
|
| 17. |
These concepts also apply in regard to a city. If it is included within the two thousand cubits of a person's Sabbath limits, it is only considered as four cubits. In this context, the commentaries clarify that when the urban area of a city is included within a person's two thousand cubits, but the city possesses some pasture land that extends beyond the two thousand cubits, the pasture land is not significant, and the city is still counted as four cubits (Ra'avad, as quoted by the Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 18. |
In this instance, we have based our translation on Rav Kapach's Yemenite manuscripts of theMishneh Torah, because the precise meaning of the wording employed in the standard printed text is extremely difficult to comprehend.
|
| 19. |
Needless to say, this ruling applies when the town is surrounded by an eruv. Eruvin 42b states that it is necessary to state this law, lest one think that this would be forbidden lest a person be drawn after the article he threw.
|
| 20. |
As stated in Chapter 16, Halachah 22, an enclosure that is erected on the Sabbath is significant - and therefore, the person is allowed to carry within it. Nevertheless, the erection of such an enclosure does not have any effect on the extent of a person's Sabbath limits, because these are established at the commencement of the Sabbath.
|
| 21. |
See Chapter 16, Halachah 1.
|
| 22. |
This refers to a classic instance recorded in the Mishnah, Eruvin 4:2. Once, when several Rabbis were traveling together with Rabban Gamliel on a ship, they had not reached port before the commencement of the Sabbath. After the ship docked, the Sages asked Rabban Gamliel if they might disembark or not. He assured them that they might, because at the commencement of the Sabbath, he had looked to see that they were within two thousand cubits of the city.
|
| 23. |
Regardless of its size, even if it is more than 2000 cubits. It is considered as if the person had already entered the city before the commencement of the Sabbath.
|
| 24. |
This also refers to a classic instance that occurred concerning Rabbi Tarfon. Eruvin 45a states that he was on his way to a city when night fell on Friday. Unsure of whether or not he was within the city limits, he did not proceed any further and spent the night in the fields. In the morning, the shepherds found him and told him, "Rabbi, the city is right in front of you. Why don't you enter?" He indeed did so, and lectured in the house of study throughout the entire day.
The Ra'avad questions why the Rambam quotes the story of Rabbi Tarfon, which is a baraita, rather than the Mishnah, Eruvin 4:4. The Mishnah states that a person who was journeying toward a city, but sat down to rest at nightfall, may enter the city on the Sabbath, if he has already passed within its Sabbath limits. Although the person was unsure whether or not he entered the Sabbath limits, since he was actually within those limits and desired to be in the city on the Sabbath, he is given the privileges of the city's inhabitants.
If, however, the person did not have a desire to be within the nearby city, or specifically stated "This is my place for the Sabbath," he may walk no more than 2000 cubits from that specific place, despite the fact that he is within the city limits. Since he consciously segregated himself from the inhabitants of the city, he is not granted their privileges (Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruchand Ramah, Orach Chayim 400:1).
|
| 25. |
This refers to a person who left the city's Sabbath limits either intentionally, for purposes not directly associated with a mitzvah, unintentionally, or because of forces beyond his control, as mentioned in the following halachah.
|
| 26. |
A key to the understanding of this halachah and the questions it has raised among the commentaries is the principle of הבלעת תחומים, the overlapping of boundaries. What this means is that when a person has a Sabbath limit already established, but leaves - either intentionally or because of forces beyond his control - he is given a new Sabbath limit in which he may walk. If the boundaries of that new limit overlap into his previous Sabbath limit, he may return there and walk freely within that limit.
To apply these principles to the case at hand: When a person leaves his Sabbath limits voluntarily, the place at which he stops is considered to be his base for the remainder of the Sabbath. He is granted only four cubits in which to walk. Moreover, as indicated in the notes on Chapter 12, Halachah 15, the Rambam maintains that this does not mean that the person may walk four cubits in all directions, but that he may walk four cubits in one of the four directions. Once he walks four cubits to one side, however, he may not walk four cubits in the other direction.
In the case of a person who willfully departs from the Sabbath limits, he is considered to have chosen the four cubits in front of him. Therefore, it is only within these four cubits that he may walk; he may not turn back in the direction of his original place at all.
This is the explanation given by the Maggid Mishneh for the Rambam's ruling. The Maggid Mishneh questions, however, the restriction imposed by the Rambam: Why must we say that the person is restricted to the four cubits in front of him? The person has the choice of four cubits in any direction. If he chooses the four cubits behind him, he will be able to reenter his previous Sabbath limits, and, based on the principle of הבלעת תחומים mentioned above, he would then be able to conduct himself as any other member of the city. Why prevent him from utilizing this option?
This objection - first mentioned by the Ra'avad - is echoed by Rav Yosef Karo in the Kessef Mishneh. In the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 405:1), however, Rav Karo quotes the Rambam's decision. Based on the above principles, the Magen Avraham 405:1 allows a person to return to his previous Sabbath limits if he leaves the city's Sabbath limits unintentionally or because of forces beyond his control, provided the four cubits in which he is allowed to walk overlap his previous Sabbath limits. If, however, he intentionally leaves the city's Sabbath limits, no leniency is allowed, as the Rambam states.
|
| 27. |
Since the person is outside the city's Sabbath limits, he is more than two thousand cubits away. Thus, he cannot enter the city unless he transgresses and goes beyond his own Sabbath limits.
|
| 28. |
In Halachot 5 and 7. The Maggid Mishneh raises an obvious question: Since the person is located more than two thousand cubits outside the city, how is it possible for his Sabbath limits to end within the city? [Significantly, when quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:3) omits this clause.]
The Maggid Mishneh answers that this refers to a situation in which a person was traveling to a city when night fell on Friday, and consciously decided to be considered as an individual, rather than as a member of the city. (See the notes on Halachah 10.)
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam is speaking of a second location, a town other than the one that the person originally desired to enter. The Or Sameach offers a unique explanation, stating that this refers to a situation where the person was more than two thousand cubits outside the city, and thus beyond its Sabbath limits. Nevertheless, there was a large cave included within his two thousand cubits. Since that cave is considered to be only four cubits, it is possible that his own Sabbath limits will extend into the city.
|
| 29. |
He may conduct himself as a member of the city with regard to its Sabbath limits. Although the Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, the Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:2) follow the Rambam.
|
| 30. |
More literally, this phrase would be rendered as "an evil spirit." Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 4:1, the source for this halachah), which interprets this phrase as referring to "any malfunction in a person's intellectual functioning, whatever the cause may be."
|
| 31. |
And he may walk within its limits at will. Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 405:8), which follows the ruling of Rabbenu Asher and allows a person to walk through his city at will, even if he returned voluntarily. The rationale is that since this was his original Sabbath limit, it is as though he had never departed.
|
| 32. |
In this instance, we apply the principle that an entire domain can be considered to be four cubits. This ruling is the subject of a difference of opinion in the Mishnah cited above, and there areGeonim who follow the more stringent ruling and restrict the person to four cubits in this situation as well. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 405:6) and the other later authorities follow the Rambam's decision.
|
| 33. |
For Eruvin 43b equates acting without awareness of the prohibition involved to being taken away forcefully by gentiles.
|
| 34. |
Needless to say, according to the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch mentioned previously in Note 31, one would be allowed to walk freely in such circumstances.
|
| 35. |
The Maggid Mishneh relates that the Rashba differs with this decision, maintaining that, in this instance, we should also apply the principle that an entire domain can be considered to be four cubits. It is, however, the Rambam's view that is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim405:6).
|
| 36. |
This ruling also reflects a classic incident related by the Mishnah (Eruvin 4:1): Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Yehoshua were on a ship that left the port of Plandarsin on the Sabbath. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar walked throughout the ship despite the fact that it had traveled beyond their original Sabbath limits. (This follows the ruling in Halachah 12, that if gentiles take a person outside his Sabbath limits, but place him in an enclosed area, he may walk throughout the entire area. The gentiles took the Sages outside their Sabbath limits, but since the ship was enclosed, they were allowed to walk throughout its confines.)
The Mishnah continues, stating that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehoshua remained within the four cubits in which they were standing. Nevertheless, the Mishnah explains that this was merely a stringency they accepted upon themselves and not a binding obligation.
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:7) accepts the more lenient view and allows one to proceed throughout a ship's confines. It must be emphasized, however, that this leniency applies only when there are barriers around a ship's deck. When the barriers surrounding a ship's deck are removed, one may proceed throughout the ship only when it is moving. If it is anchored, the passengers may move only four cubits.
|
| 37. |
As stated in Halachah 8, and in Chapter 16, Halachah 22, an enclosure that is erected on the Sabbath is significant. Therefore, this situation is considered analogous to that of a person who leaves his Sabbath limits unintentionally and enters an enclosed domain.
|
| 38. |
The Rambam does not grant the person any greater leniency than if he had been located in that place when the Sabbath began, and afterwards gentiles surrounded it with an enclosure. (See Halachah 8.)
The Ra'avad and the Rashba differ and explain that greater leniency should be granted in this instance. Halachah 8 is speaking about establishing a person's place at the beginning of the Sabbath. Hence, if the enclosure is not erected at that time, it is not significant. This halachah is speaking about a person who is removed from his Sabbath limits against his will. Since we follow the principle that any enclosure is considered to be merely four cubits - whatever the size of that enclosure - he should be granted permission to walk throughout its limits, and 1996 cubits beyond it.
|
| 39. |
In this instance as well, the Rambam is referring to a well known Talmudic incident. Eruvin 43b relates that Rav Nechemiah, one of Rav Nachman's students, had taken a Sabbath stroll, and while lost in thought had strayed beyond the Sabbath limits.
"Your student, Nechemiah, is beset by disturbance," Rav Chisda told Rav Nachman.
"Make a human partition around him [see Chapter 16, Halachah 23] and let him enter," Rav Nachman replied.
|
| 40. |
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 406:1), which questions if this leniency applies when the person must urinate, or if it applies only when he must defecate.
|
| 41. |
Here we see how important the consideration of human dignity is. Even the prohibitions of our Sages - which the Torah obligates us to fulfill - are waived because of it (Rashi, Eruvin 41b).
This would appear to indicate that, according to the Rambam - who rules that the Sabbath limit of twelve mil has its source in the Torah - a person who travels more than twelve mil beyond his Sabbath limits may not move beyond four cubits, even to relieve himself (Minchat Chinuch, Mitzvah 24).
|
| 42. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states that one may intentionally move toward one's Sabbath limits in search of a private place to relieve oneself. Nevertheless, if such a place presents itself before one is able to return to his Sabbath limits, he must avail himself of it. He may then move far enough away so as not to be bothered by the odor, but then he must confine himself to a square of four cubits.
|
| 43. |
As mentioned in Halachah 13, even if he was returned to his Sabbath limits by gentiles, the restrictions against his walking freely are not lifted.
|
| 44. |
See Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 3:2-4, which describes how witnesses who saw the new moon should proceed to Jerusalem to give testimony, even if it is necessary to violate the Sabbath laws.
|
| 45. |
Rosh HaShanah 2:6 explains that this refers to individuals who leave their Sabbath limits in an attempt to save lives - e.g., a midwife or a person who goes to rescue people from drowning, from an attack, or from an avalanche, as mentioned in the following halachah.
|
| 46. |
Rosh HaShanah (ibid.) explains that originally such people were considered to be individuals who leave their Sabbath limits voluntarily, and therefore could proceed no more than four cubits. Rabban Gamliel was the one who granted this leniency.
|
| 47. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 23, where these concepts have been explained.
|
Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Eight
Halacha 1
Whenever there is a home that is outside a city, but seventy and two thirds cubits - i.e., the length of one of the sides of [a square] 5000 square cubits in area1 - or less from the city, it is considered to be part of the city and joined to it. When two thousand cubits are measured in all directions from the city, this house [is considered to be on the extremity of the border2 and] the measurement [begins] from there.3
Halacha 2
If one house is within seventy cubits of a city, another house is within seventy cubits of the first, and a third within seventy cubits of the second [and so on], they are all considered to be one city, although the chain extends for a distance of several days walk. When [the Sabbath limits] are measured, they are measured from the last house, provided this house is a dwelling4 four cubits by four cubits5 or more [in area].
Halacha 3
[The following are considered to be dwellings in the context mentioned above:] a synagogue that has a dwelling for its attendants, a temple of a false deity that has a dwelling for its priests, a storeroom that has a dwelling, a bridge or a grave that has a dwelling,6 a structure four cubits by four cubits that has three walls but no roof, watchtowers,7, a house built [on an island]8 at sea,9 a structure with two walls and a roof,10 a cave with a building at its entrance that is used as a dwelling. All of these are included as part of the city, provided they are located within seventy and a fraction cubits of it.
From this house on the extremity [of the city], we consider it as if a line is extended along the length of the entire city, and we measure two thousand cubits outward from that line.
Halacha 4
The following [structures] are not added [as the furthest extremities of a city's boundaries]: a structure with two walls and no roof - despite the fact that people dwell within it - a bridge, a grave, a synagogue, a temple to false deities, and a storehouse that do not have dwellings; a cistern, a trench, a cave,11 a dovecote, and a house on a ship.12 All of these are not added [to a city's boundaries].
Halacha 5
[The following rule applies when] two towns are located next to each other: If the distance between them is 141 1/3 cubits [or less], so that [the distance between them] is seventy and a fraction [as measured] from one town and seventy and a fraction [as measured] from the other town, they are considered to be a single city. Accordingly, [the inhabitants of] each town can walk throughout the other town and two thousand cubits outside of it.
[The following rules apply when] three villages are located in a triangle: If there are two thousand cubits or less between the village in the middle and both of the villages on the extremities, and there are 282 2/3 cubits [or less] between the villages on the extremities, so that if the middle village were placed on the line between them, there would be 141 1/3 cubits [or less] between it and both13 of them,14 they are all considered to be a single city. When [a Sabbath limit] is measured, it is measured two thousand cubits in all directions from [the single unit created from] these three [villages].
Halacha 6
When a city is rectangular or square, since it has four angles that are equal, we leave it as it is, and measure two thousand cubits in each direction on all four sides.
17
17
If it is circular, we construct an [imaginary] square around it, considering it as the center of that square. We measure two thousand cubits from the sides of that square in all directions. Thus, [the inhabitants] gain [the area] at the corners.
Halacha 7
Similarly, if a city is triangular in shape, or if it has many different sides, we construct a square around it, and afterwards measure two thousand cubits from each side of that square.
When we construct a square around a city, we construct this square according to the compass directions,18 making each of its sides face one of the four directions and extend in a straight line vertically or horizontally.
Halacha 8
When a city is [shaped like a trapezoid,] one side being shorter than the other, we consider both sides to be of the length of the longer side.
[The following rules apply when a city] is L-shaped or crescent-shaped: If there are less than four thousand cubits between the two points on the extremities,19 we measure [the Sabbath limit] from [the imaginary line that connects these points].20 When there are more than four thousand cubits between the two points on the extremities, we measure [the Sabbath limit] from [the vertex of] the crescent.21
Halacha 9
[The following rules apply to] a city located at the edge of a river:22 If there is a dock four cubits wide at the river bank, so that one can stand on it and use the river, the river is considered to be part of the city. Thus, [the Sabbath limit of] two thousand cubits is measured from the other bank of the river, because the dock causes the river to be considered part of the city.
If there is no dock, the measurement begins from the edge of the houses,23and [the width of] the river is included in the two thousand cubits.
Halacha 10
[The following laws apply to] the dwellers of huts:24 [The Sabbath limits] should be measured from the entrance to their homes.25 If [in that area] there are three courtyards with two houses26 in each, [the entire area] is established [as a unit].27 A square is constructed around it, and two thousand cubits are measured [from its borders], as all other cities.
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
When does the above apply? When a plumb line descends directly [into the crevice], for then [the slopes of the crevice] cannot be used.33 If, however, the plumb line does not descend directly,34 one should not span [the crevice with the measuring rope], unless the crevice is two thousand cubits or less in depth.
Halacha 13
With regard to a valley with a gradual descent, one should ascend and descend, measuring by approximation.35 If the valley is more than fifty cubits wide and thus cannot be spanned [by the measuring rope], [the measurers] should go to a place where they can span the gap,36 measure the span [there], see the parallels to [the place they are] measuring, and return to their task.
Halacha 14
Halacha 15
[The following rules apply when the measurers] reach a mountain: If the slope of the mountain ascends ten handbreadths within a length of five cubits, [the measurers should] measure the span [above the mountain],42 and return to their [ordinary] measurement.
If its height rises acutely, its slope ascending ten handbreadths within a length of four cubits, [all that is necessary is] to approximate [its length], and then one may proceed further.
If a mountain is so wide that [the measuring rope] cannot span it - i.e. it is more than fifty cubits wide - it should be measured by approximation, small portions at a time. This is the meaning of the expression,43 "In the mountains, they measured by approximation."
Halacha 16
What is implied [by the directive to] measure mountains or valleys that cannot be spanned by approximation? Two people hold a rope four cubits long. The person above should hold the upper end at the level of his feet, while the person below should hold the lower end at the level of his heart.44 The person standing above then descends to the level of the person standing below, who, in turn, descends further to the extent of the rope. [The entire process should be repeated and] continued until the entire area has been measured.
When [the measurers] go to span a mountain or a valley,45 they should not depart from the Sabbath limits, lest passersby see them and say, "The Sabbath limits passed by here."
Halacha 17
We rely only on the measurement by an expert46 who is proficient in the measuring of land. If the Sabbath limits [of a city] had been established and an expert came and measured [them again], increasing them in some places and decreasing them in others, we accept his ruling regarding the limits that he increased.47
Similarly, if two experts came and measured the Sabbath limits, one giving a larger measure and the other giving a smaller measure, we accept the ruling of the one who gives the larger measure,48 provided that the inconsistency is not greater than the difference between the diagonal [and the border of] a city.49
Halacha 18
What is implied? We can say that the reason the latter increased the measure was the following: The first erred and measured the two thousand [cubits] from the corner of the city diagonally.50 Therefore, he reduced its measurement, and the distance between the border of the Sabbath limits and the city will be less than two thousand [cubits]. [By contrast,] the second person [who measured] measured the two thousand [cubits] from the edge of the city [and therefore produced a larger figure]. We do not, however, consider the possibility of the first person's making any greater mistake.
Accordingly, if the latter measure is less than 580 cubits51 more than the original measure, it is accepted. A larger increase, however, is not accepted.
Halacha 19
Even when a servant or a maidservant52 says, "The Sabbath limits reach here,"53 their statements are accepted. An adult's statement is accepted if he says, "We would proceed until this place when I was a child." His testimony is relied on in this instance, 54since our Sages stated that the lenient approach should be accepted in these rulings, and not the more stringent one, because the measure of two thousand cubits is a Rabbinic institution.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Eruvin 5:2) which notes the difference between the figures mentioned here and the precise mathematical terms. See also Tosafot Yom Tov, Eruvin 5:2.
|
| 2. |
See Halachot 6 and 7, which state that a square should be made to include the furthermost extremities of the city, and the Sabbath limits should be measured from there.
|
| 3. |
The Maggid Mishneh notes that the Rambam appears to be saying that the Sabbath limits are measured from the edge of the city. He notes that there are opinions (see Eruvin 5:2) that grant a city a karpef (a seventy and two-thirds cubit extension) even if it is not close to another city. According to those views, the Sabbath limits are calculated seventy and two thirds cubits from the city's boundaries. The Rambam (Commentary on the Mishnah) rejects that view.
The Rambam's opinion is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 398:5). The other view is accepted by the Tur and quoted by the Ramah.
|
| 4. |
The intent is a permanent dwelling. A temporary structure, or a building that does not have facilities for lodging is not sufficient, as explained in the following halachot.
|
| 5. |
The Magen Avraham 398:6 emphasizes that this does not include all structures with a total area of sixteen square cubits. Each side of the building must be at least four cubits. (See a parallel inHilchot Mezuzah 6:2.)
|
| 6. |
Rav David Arameah explains that it was common for a bridge to have a dwelling for a toll collector, and a grave to have a dwelling for a watchman.
|
| 7. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Ma'aser 3:7).
|
| 8. |
The bracketed additions are based on Rashi's commentary (Eruvin 55b).
|
| 9. |
Such a house is useful in unloading cargo from ships (Magen Avraham 398:7).
|
| 10. |
The Ra'avad notes that the question of whether such a structure is acceptable is left unresolved by Eruvin, loc. cit. Accordingly, he rules stringently. The Rambam's position is, however, followed by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 398:6).
|
| 11. |
The commentaries on Eruvin 55b state that the latter three are excluded even if there are people who inhabit them.
|
| 12. |
Because it is not anchored permanently and may depart, it is considered to be a temporary dwelling (Magen Avraham 398:10).
|
| 13. |
See the Chatam Sofer (Orach Chayim, Responsa 94), which emphasizes that each of the exterior villages can be no more than 141 1/3 cubits from the imaginary line leading to the middle village. It is not sufficient that there be a total sum of less than 282 2/3 cubits between the two villages.
|
| 14. |
This phrase and the phrase that precedes it create a difficulty. From the phrase, "there are 282 2/3 cubits [or less] between the villages on the extremities," one would assume that this rule does not apply when the two villages on the extremities are separated by a greater distance. Nevertheless, the phrase "if the middle village were placed on the line between them, there would be 141 1/3 cubits [or less] between it and both of them," appears to imply that even were the distance between the two villages on the extremities to exceed 282 2/3 cubits, as long as the villages on the extremities are not more than 141 1/3 cubits from the place the middle city would take up, it is acceptable.
From the diagram that the Rambam drew to accompany his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin5:3), the former interpretation would appear appropriate. (Similarly, the Ra'avad interprets the Rambam's intent in this manner and, therefore, objects.) Nevertheless, both the Maggid Mishnehand the Radbaz state that the width of the city should be added to the sum of 282 2/3 cubits. TheShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 398:8) quotes the Rambam's wording verbatim. The Ramah, however, clarifies the ruling according to the interpretation of the Maggid Mishneh.
|
| 15. |
This refers to a wall on which there are no dwellings (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 16. |
Rashi (Eruvin 26a) explains that when a wall is erected after an area has been settled, the wall causes the entire village to be considered as if it were four cubits in length. Therefore, we measure from the wall. When, by contrast, the wall was erected before the houses were built, the wall is not halachically significant. Accordingly, the Sabbath limits are measured from the houses. Based on the Rambam's statement's in Halachah 2, it is questionable if he would accept this interpretation.
|
| 17. |
Eruvin 55a and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 398:1) state that even if the sides of such a city are not positioned directly north and south, nothing is added to its size, because it is rectangular or square in shape.
|
| 18. |
This applies even when the total area of the square is increased by constructing it in this fashion.
|
| 19. |
I.e., if the Sabbath limits of the houses on the extremities overlap, the houses are considered to be part of a single entity.
|
| 20. |
This applies regardless of the distance from the vertex of the crescent to the imaginary line connecting its extremities. Even if it is more than two thousand cubits, the entire area is considered to be a single unit (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 21. |
This applies to the house at the vertex. The Rashba considers each of the sides of the crescent to be a separate city. Sefer Ha'Itim considers every house to be an entirely separate entity. TheMagen Avraham 398:2 states that the entire crescent is considered to be a single entity. According to this conception, the only difference between this instance and the previous clause is that one may not walk more than two thousand cubits away from the houses in the open area between them.
Based on the rulings of Rabbenu Asher and the Tur, the Ramah mentions two leniencies: a) Even when the two extremities of the crescent are more than four thousand cubits away from each other, the entire area of the crescent until the points on the either side which are four thousand cubits removed, is, nevertheless, considered to be a single entity.
b) If the space from the vertex of the crescent to the imaginary line connecting the two extremities is less than two thousand cubits, the entire area is considered to be a single entity even though there are more than four thousand cubits between each side.
|
| 22. |
Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi - and subsequently the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 398:9) - interpret this as referring to a river that usually dries up and is filled with water only during the rainy season.
|
| 23. |
The city itself, however, is considered to be a collective entity (Maggid Mishneh). Note Rashi (Eruvin 61a), who follows a different perspective entirely, stating that, because there is no dock, the city is not considered as a permanent location, and every home is judged to be an individual entity.
|
| 24. |
More specifically, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Ma'asrot 3:7), the Rambam defines the Hebrew צריפין as referring to "V-shaped lean-tos made from reeds and wood."
|
| 25. |
These huts are not considered to be permanent dwellings. Hence, their aggregate is not considered to be a unit. Note, however, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 398:10), who states that if a group of such dwellings is surrounded by a wall ten handbreadths high or a trench ten handbreadths deep, they are considered to be a single unit.
|
| 26. |
This refers to permanent structures built of wood and/or stone.
|
| 27. |
The three courtyards, each containing two houses, are sufficient to be classified as a city (Eruvin59a). Since we are classifying the permanent houses as a city, that status is conferred upon the area as a whole, including also the huts.
|
| 28. |
Eruvin 58a interprets Exodus 27:18, "its width fifty by fifty," as an indication that the width of fifty cubits should be measured with a rope of that size.
|
| 29. |
For when the rope is shorter, the measurers may pull it tightly and extend its length (Rashi, Eruvin58a).
|
| 30. |
For when the rope is longer, it may sag and cause the measure to be shortened (Rashi, Eruvin58a).
|
| 31. |
I.e., rather than measure the length of the incline, the entire valley should be measured as a unit of fifty cubits or less.
|
| 32. |
The Maggid Mishneh states that this represents the Rambam's interpretation of the statements of Abbimi (Eruvin 58b). Rabbenu Asher offers a different interpretation of that passage, which is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 399:4).
|
| 33. |
For the incline is too steep.
|
| 34. |
And thus the slopes of the incline can be used for various purposes.
|
| 35. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 5:4). See Halachah 16 for an explanation of the process followed.
|
| 36. |
Provided it is within the Sabbath limits. He should not, however, go beyond the Sabbath limits, lest an observer notice his measurements and mistakenly think that the place is within the Sabbath limits (Eruvin 58b and Halachah 16 above).
|
| 37. |
Tosafot, Eruvin 58a, states that the intent is not actually to pierce the wall, but that one would be required to erect poles extending above the wall and measure from them.
|
| 38. |
The Rambam is referring to a wall whose sides are not straight, and hence the determination of its exact thickness is difficult.
|
| 39. |
I.e., its incline is gentle enough to allow the public to ascend it without difficulty.
|
| 40. |
The Rambam's ruling follows the version of Eruvin 58a that appears in the texts of several earlygeonim. The standard printed text of the Talmud differs. In his gloss, the Ra'avad refers to the version of the standard text.
|
| 41. |
And thus its thickness can be measured easily at either side. It must be measured exactly. The leniency granted in the first clause applies to a wall that ascends gradually, but not gradually enough to make it easily accessible for public use.
|
| 42. |
By erecting a pole equivalent to the height of the mountain on either side (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 399:4).
|
| 43. |
Eruvin 5:4.
|
| 44. |
In this way, the rope will be held horizontally, on more or less an even plane.
|
| 45. |
Which cannot be measured in the normal manner, as mentioned in Halachot 13 and 15. See also Halachah 19.
|
| 46. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 5:5), the Rambam defines this as a person who knows engineering and is proficient in the measurement of land.
|
| 47. |
The Rambam's wording appears to imply that one accepts the opinion of the expert only with regard to the Sabbath limits that he increased, but not with regard to those that he decreased. TheMaggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh note that although the Rambam is quoting the wording of the Mishnah (Eruvin, loc. cit.), the Talmud (Eruvin 59a) explains that the ruling of the expert must be accepted even with regard to those places where he decreased the Sabbath limit. The Kessef Mishneh notes that even in his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam follows this interpretation.
Note, however, Merkevet HaMishneh, which explains the Rambam's ruling here according to its simple interpretation. When the original measurement of a city's Sabbath limits was made by ordinary people, the expert's advice must be adhered to entirely, whether it is more stringent or more lenient. When, however, the original limits were also established by experts, the situation resembles the latter clause of the halachah, and the second expert's opinion is followed only when it is more lenient.
|
| 48. |
Because, as stated in Halachah 19, the more lenient opinion is accepted, since the Sabbath limit of two thousand cubits is a Rabbinic institution.
|
| 49. |
We do not say that the difference between the two figures could only be a minute measure because of imprecision. Instead, we allow the possibility of a major error, as explained in the following halachah.
|
| 50. |
Instead of measuring 2000 cubits on the diagonal, the person should have measured approximately 2800, as explained in Chapter 27, Halachah 2, and notes. Measuring only 2000 cubits on the diagonal causes the entire measure to become reduced.
|
| 51. |
I.e., if the diagonal of a square is 2000, the side will be approximately 1420. The figure stated by the Rambam is not exact, as the commentaries mention in detail.
|
| 52. |
There are two difficulties regarding the statements of a servant or maidservant. First, they are not acceptable witnesses. Also, as a whole, such individuals are known to be less than careful with regard to ritual observance.
|
| 53. |
I.e., the servant's statements were intended to increase the Sabbath limit of a city by saying that the limit originally established was greater than the one observed at present.
|
| 54. |
Generally, a person's testimony is accepted only when he qualifies as a witness at the time he saw an event take place and at the time he gives his testimony. Since a child is not an acceptable witness, testimony of this nature would ordinarily be rejected. In this instance, however, it is accepted. (See Hilchot Edut 14:3 for other examples of instances in which similar testimony is accepted.)
|
Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Nine
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment from the Torah1 to sanctify the Sabbath day with a verbal statement,2 as [implied by Exodus 20:8]: "Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it" - i.e., remember it with [words of] praise [that reflect its] holiness.3
This remembrance must be made at the Sabbath's entrance and at its departure: at the [day's] entrance with the kiddush that sanctifies the day, and at its departure with havdalah.4
Halacha 2
Halacha 3
This is the text of the havdalah prayer:
Blessed are You God, our Lord, King of the universe, who distinguishes between the holy and the mundane, between light and darkness, between Israel and the nations, and between the seventh day and the six days of activity.10 Blessed are You, God, who distinguishes between the holy and the mundane.
Halacha 4
The essence [of the mitzvah] of sanctifying the Sabbath [is to do so] at night.11 If a person does not recite kiddush at night - whether consciously or inadvertently - he may recite kiddush12 throughout the entire [Sabbath] day.13
A person who does not recite havdalah at night may recite [this blessing] on the following day,14 and [indeed] may recite [this blessing] until [nightfall] on Tuesday15 [if he does not fulfill his obligation beforehand].
[Although the havdalah blessing may be recited at a later time,] one should recite the blessing on a flame only on Saturday night.16
Halacha 5
A person is forbidden17 to eat or to drink wine from the commencement of the Sabbath onward18 until he recites kiddush. Similarly, after the conclusion of the day, a person is forbidden to begin to eat, drink, perform labor,19 or taste anything until he recites havdalah. Drinking water is, however, permitted.20
Should a person forget or transgress and eat or drink before reciting kiddushor havdalah, he may nevertheless recite kiddush or havdalah afterwards.21
Halacha 6
It is a mitzvah [instituted by] our Sages to recite kiddush over [a cup of] wine22and to recite havdalah over [a cup of] wine.
Although one recites havdalah in one's [evening] prayers, one is required to recite [this blessing] over a cup [of wine].23 [Nevertheless,] once a person has said "[Blessed is He24] who distinguishes between the holy and the mundane," he is permitted to perform labor25 even though he has not recitedhavdalah over a cup [of wine].
Halacha 7
What is the procedure he should follow: He should take a cup that contains arevi'it28 or more, wash it thoroughly inside, and rinse its outside.29 He should fill it with wine, hold it in his right hand, lifting it above the ground more than a handbreadth,30 without supporting it with his left hand.
One recites the blessing [borey pri] hagefen and then the kiddush. It is, however, common custom among the Jewish people first to recite the passage Vayechulu,31 then the blessing [borey pri] hagefen and then thekiddush
Halacha 8
[The mitzvah of] kiddush [may be fulfilled] only in the place of one's meal.34What is implied? A person should not recite the kiddush in one house35 and eat his meal in another.36 One may, however, recite kiddush in one corner and eat one's meal in another.
[One might ask:] Why is kiddush recited in the synagogue? Because of the guests who eat and drink there.37
Halacha 9
A person who desires to partake of bread more than of wine, and similarly, a person who has no wine, should wash his hands, recite the blessing hamotzi, and then recite kiddush. Afterwards, he should break bread and eat.
Havdalah, by contrast, may not be recited over bread, but only over wine.38
Halacha 10
A person who had intended to recite kiddush over wine on Friday night, but forgot, and before he recited kiddush washed his hands [with the intention of partaking of bread], should recite kiddush over bread. He should not recitekiddush over wine after washing his hands [to partake of] a meal.39
It is a mitzvah to recite a blessing over wine on the Sabbath day before partaking of the second [Sabbath] meal.40 This is called "the great kiddush."41One recites only the blessing borey pri hagefen, partakes of the wine,42washes one's hands, and begins the meal.
[On the Sabbath day as well,] a person is forbidden to taste any food before he recites kiddush.43 This kiddush may also be recited only in the place where one eats one's meal.
Halacha 11
A person may recite kiddush over a cup [of wine] on Friday before sunset, even though the Sabbath has not commenced.44 Similarly, he may recitehavdalah over a cup [of wine] before sunset, even though it is still Sabbath.45For the mitzvah of remembering the Sabbath involves making [a statement to this effect] at the entrance and the departure of the Sabbath, or slightly before these times.
Halacha 12
A person who is in the midst of eating [a meal] on Friday when the Sabbath commences should spread a cloth46 over the table,47 recite kiddush,48complete his meal,49 and recite grace.50
A person who is in the midst of eating [a meal]51 on the Sabbath when the Sabbath departs should complete his meal,52 wash his hands,53 recite grace over a cup of wine,54 and afterwards recite havdalah over [this cup].55 If he is sitting and drinking,56 he should interrupt his drinking,57recite havdalah, and begin drinking again.
Halacha 13
A person who is eating and completes his meal at the commencement of the Sabbath should recite grace first and then recite kiddush on a second cup of wine.58 He should not recite grace and kiddush on the same cup [of wine], because two mitzvot should not be performed with the same cup [of wine].59For both the mitzvah of kiddush and the mitzvah of grace are mitzvot that emanate from the Torah itself.
Halacha 14
Kiddush may be recited only on wine that is fit to be offered as a libation on the altar.60 Therefore, if one mixed even a drop of honey61 or yeast62 the size of a mustard seed in a large barrel [of wine], kiddush may not be recited upon it.
This is the ruling that we follow universally in the west. There is, however, an opinion that allows kiddush to be recited on such wine.63 [This view] explains that the term "wine that is fit to be offered as a libation on the altar" excludes only wine with an unpleasant fragrance,64 wine that was left uncovered,65or wine that was cooked.66 Kiddush may not be recited on any of these wines.
Halacha 15
Wine that tastes like vinegar may not be used for kiddush although its fragrance is that of wine.67 Similarly, we may not recite kiddush over [the beverage produced from] pouring water over the dregs of wine, although it tastes like wine.
When does the above apply? When the ratio between the water poured over the dregs and the beverage produced is less than three parts to four parts. If, however, the ratio is more than three parts to four parts, [the beverage produced is considered to be] diluted wine, and kiddush may be recited over it.68
Halacha 16
When a person drinks from a vessel containing wine, even if he drinks only a small amount from a vessel that contains many revi'iot [of wine],69 he has blemished the wine and invalidated it. We may not recite kiddush over the remainder,70 because it is regarded like the remnants left over in a cup.71
Halacha 17
Although the fragrance of wine resembles vinegar, if its flavor resembles wine,kiddush may be recited over it.72 Similarly, [kiddush may be recited over] diluted wine.73
We may recite kiddush over raisin wine, provided it is made from raisins that [are not entirely dried out] - i.e., if one presses them, they will release a concentrated syrup.
Halacha 18
Just as we recite kiddush on Friday night and havdalah on Saturday night, so too, we recite kiddush on the night of a holiday's commencement andhavdalah on the night following a holiday and on the night following Yom Kippur, for they are all "Sabbaths of God."79
Halacha 19
[The following is] the text of the kiddush recited on festivals:
Blessed are You, God our Lord, King of the universe, who has chosen us83from all the nations, and raised us above people of all tongues. He chose us and made us great; he showed us favor and glorified us.And God our Lord gave us with love festivals for rejoicing, holidays and [unique] seasons for gladness, [including] this festive day of holy convocation, this festival of- Matzot, Shavuot, [or] Sukkot -the season of - our freedom, the giving of our Torah, [or] our happiness -in love, as a commemoration of the exodus from Egypt.For You have chosen us and sanctified us from all the nations and given us as an inheritance Your holy seasons for rejoicing and gladness. Bless are You, God, who sanctifies Israel and the seasons.84
When [a holiday] occurs on the Sabbath, one should mention the Sabbath [in the midst of the passage], and conclude in the same manner as one concludes in prayer, "[Blessed...] who sanctifies the Sabbath,85 Israel and the seasons."
Halacha 20
On Rosh HaShanah, one should say:
...And God our Lord gave us with love this day of holy convocation for remembrance,86 recalling the sounding [of the shofar],87 a holy convocation in love, as a commemoration of the exodus from Egypt.For You have chosen us and sanctified us from all the nations, and Your words are true and everlasting. Blessed are You God, the King of the entire earth,88 who sanctifies Israel and the Day of Remembrance.
When [Rosh HaShanah] occurs on the Sabbath, one should conclude "[Blessed...] who sanctifies the Sabbath, Israel and the Day of Remembrance," as one concludes in prayer.
Halacha 21
Halacha 22
What blessings should be recited on the night of a holiday that falls on a Sunday? At the outset, one recites the blessing [borey pri] hagefen. Afterwards, one should recite the kiddush for the holiday. Then one should recite the blessing over fire,92 and after that havdalah. One should concludehavdalah, "...who distinguishes between the holy and the holy."93 [In conclusion,] one recites the blessing Shehecheyanu.94
Halacha 23
On the night of every holiday95 and on the night of Yom Kippur, we recite the blessing Shehecheyanu.96 We do not recite the blessing Shehecheyanu on the seventh day of Pesach, because it is not a holiday in its own right,97 and we have already recited the blessing Shehecheyanu at the beginning of the Pesach festival.98
Halacha 24
This is the order of havdalah on Saturday night: [First,] one recites the blessing over the wine;99 afterwards, one recites the blessing over the spices,100 and then over the flame.
Which blessing is recited over the flame? "[Blessed... King of the universe,] who creates the lights of fire."101 Afterwards, one recites havdalah.
Halacha 25
We do not recite the blessing over the flame until we derive benefit from its light to the extent that one could differentiate between the coin of one country and that of another.102
We may not recite the blessing over a flame belonging to gentiles,103 for it may be assumed that their gatherings are associated with the worship of false divinities.104 We may not recite the blessing on a flame [kindled for] the worship of false divinities105 or on a flame [kindled for the sake of] the deceased.106
Halacha 26
When a Jew lights a flame from a gentile's [flame], or a gentile from a Jew's [flame], we may recite a blessing upon it.107 [If, however,] a gentile [lights a flame] from another gentile's [flame], we may not recite a blessing upon it.108
[The following rules apply when a person] is walking outside a large city and sees light: If most of the city's inhabitants are gentiles, he may not recite this blessing. If most are Jewish, he may.
At the outset, one should not recite this blessing over the fire of a furnace, an oven, or a range.109 If coals [are glowing to the extent that] were one to put a sliver of wood between them, they would catch fire of their own accord, we may recite a blessing over them.110
We may recite this blessing over the light of the House of Study if there is an important person there for whom the light is kindled. We may recite a blessing over the light of a synagogue if there is a chazan who lives there.111
Halacha 27
We may recite the blessing over a fire that is kindled on the Sabbath for the sake of a sick person or for a woman after childbirth.114
On Saturday night, we may recite the blessing over light produced from wood or stone, for this was the manner in which fire was first created by man.115We may not, by contrast, recite a blessing over such a flame on the night following Yom Kippur. For on the night following Yom Kippur, we recite the blessing only on a light that has rested.116 When, however, a fire is kindled on Yom Kippur for the sake of a sick person or for a woman after childbirth, we may recite the blessing upon it, for it "rested from sin."
Halacha 28
When a holiday falls in the middle of the week,117 one recites [the following passage] as havdalah:
[Blessed are You...] who distinguishes between the holy and the mundane, between darkness and light, between Israel and the gentiles, between the Sabbath and the six days of activity....
One uses the same text as one uses on Saturday night. [The fact that it is not the Sabbath does not present a difficulty, for] one is merely listing the types of distinctions [that God has created within our world].
[On the night following a holiday,] one need not recite the blessing over spices, nor the blessing over light.118 Similarly, we are not required to recite the blessing over spices on the night following Yom Kippur.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 155) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 31) count this as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot.
|
| 2. |
Sefer HaMitzvot states: "With this mitzvah, we are commanded to make statements... that acknowledge the greatness and glory of this day, and how it is distinguished from the days that precede it and those that follow it."
Although the Sabbath is by nature a holy day, this mitzvah requires that we consciously - and verbally - acknowledge this holiness. As the Rambam mentions in Halachah 6, our Sages required that this acknowledgement be recited over a cup of wine. Nevertheless, according to the Torah itself, it is sufficient to make these statements in the prayer service.
|
| 3. |
As the Rambam states in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 12:3, this mitzvah is incumbent on women as well as on men. This concept is derived as follows: In the first mention of the Ten Commandments (Exodus, Chapter 20), we are commanded to "remember" (zachor) the Sabbath. In Moses' review of that event (Deuteronomy, Chapter 5), however, he uses the expression, shamor, "observe."
Sh'vuot 20b teaches that these two terms were related by God "in a single breath" - i.e., they are two complementary expressions of respect for the Sabbath. Accordingly, all the individuals obligated to keep the mitzvah of "Observe" must also keep the mitzvah of "Remember." Since women are obligated to keep the mitzvah of "Observe" - i.e., to adhere to the prohibitions against forbidden labor - they are also obligated to "Remember" the Sabbath (Berachot 20b).
|
| 4. |
As the Rambam clearly states in Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.), his intent is that the mitzvah of remembering the Sabbath encompasses both kiddush and havdalah. The Maggid Mishneh cites opinions that maintain that the mitzvah to "remember the Sabbath" applies only at the commencement of the Sabbath, but not at its conclusion. According to this view, the obligation to recite havdalah is Rabbinic in origin, without any connection to the Biblical commands, "Remember" and "Observe."
Among the practical distinction between these two approaches is the conception of a woman's obligation to recite havdalah. According to the Rambam, there is no difference between a woman's obligation and that of a man. The other view, by contrast, allows for the conception that women are not obligated to recite the havdalah prayer.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 296:8) cites both opinions (but appears to favor the Rambam's view). The Ramah suggests that a woman should fulfill her obligation by listening to a man's recitation of this prayer. When this is not possible, a woman should recite the havdalahherself. A man who has fulfilled his obligation should not, however, recite the prayer for the sake of a woman (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 296:19; Mishnah Berurah 296:35-36).
|
| 5. |
Although the Sabbath is part of the internal rhythm of creation, it was given to the Jewish people alone as a heritage to observe and make part of their lives.
|
| 6. |
For in the narrative of creation, God rested on the Sabbath day.
|
| 7. |
In the Bible, the term "convocation of holiness" refers to the festivals. The Sabbath is the first and foremost of these holy days. Therefore, in Leviticus, Chapter 23, when the festivals are mentioned, the Sabbath is mentioned first.
|
| 8. |
In the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. II, Chapter 31, the Rambam explains the connection between the exodus from Egypt and the Sabbath. In Egypt, the Jews were slaves and unable to control when they could cease work and rest. By ceasing work every week, they recall God's kindness in delivering them.
The Ramban (in his Commentary on the Torah, Deuteronomy 5:15) offers a different explanation. The exodus from Egypt expresses God's infinite power. If a person doubts the narrative of creation, he can resolve those questions by considering the historical evidence of the miracles of the exodus.
|
| 9. |
Herein, there is a unique homiletic point. God's choice of the Jewish people is expressed, not in granting them dominion over other nations or bestowing inordinate resources of wealth and prosperity upon them, but rather in granting them the Sabbath and its atmosphere of holiness and peace.
Rav Zerachiah HaLevi notes that the three times God's desire and favor are mentioned this passage refer to the three dimensions of the Jews' connection with the Sabbath: the Sabbath of creation, the Sabbath of the exodus, and "the age that is all Sabbath and rest for life everlasting" - i.e., the era of the Redemption.
|
| 10. |
All four of the distinctions mentioned are reflected in the transition from the Sabbath to the weekdays. For, as we progress from day to night on the eve between the Sabbath and the days of activity that follow, the Jews - and not the people of the world at large - pass from an atmosphere of restful holiness to involvement with the mundane details of their existence.
|
| 11. |
For this marks the transition from the weekdays to the Sabbath. More particularly, the most select way of performing the mitzvah is to recite the kiddush shortly after nightfall (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 271:16).
|
| 12. |
Note that the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 271:8) describes the recitation of the blessing at this time as compensation for the mitzvah of sanctifying the Sabbath at night.
When reciting kiddush during the day, one should recite the entire blessing usually recited on Friday night. The passage Vayechulu should not, however, be recited (Ramah, Orach Chayim, loc. cit.).
|
| 13. |
Until sunset. Between sunset and the appearance of three stars on Saturday night, the blessing should be recited without mentioning God's name (Mishnah Berurah 271:39).
|
| 14. |
In Talmudic times, this situation was wont to occur because wine was scarce. People would often be unable to obtain wine on Saturday night, but would be able to secure it the following day.
At present, the most common example of the delay of the recitation of the havdalah occurs when the fast of Tish'ah B'Av is observed on a Sunday. In that instance, havdalah is not recited until Sunday night.
|
| 15. |
The first three days of the week are still associated with the previous Sabbath. Therefore, the recitation of havdalah is still appropriate (Pesachim 106a).
There are authorities who differ, maintaining that one may not recite havdalah after sunset on Sunday. Also, the Halachot Gedolot states that a person who has eaten before reciting havdalahmay no longer recite this prayer from Sunday onward. Although the later authorities do not accept these views, they do urge that the recitation of havdalah not be delayed any later than necessary.
|
| 16. |
The blessing over a flame was incorporated into the havdalah ceremony to commemorate the discovery of fire by Adam directly after the conclusion of the first Sabbath. Thus, reciting this is appropriate only on Saturday night. Similarly, when havdalah is recited from Sunday onward, the blessing over the spices is also omitted (See Halachah 29, and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim299:5).
|
| 17. |
Whenever the performance of a mitzvah is associated with a specific time, our Sages forbade partaking of a meal from the time when the obligation to perform the mitzvah begins until one actually performs it. With regard to kiddush and havdalah, however, they were more stringent and forbade even tasting food until one performs the mitzvah. They enforced this stringency because the most favorable manner of performing both these mitzvot is to do so at the beginning of the evening (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 271:9).
|
| 18. |
I.e., from sunset onwards. The procedure to be followed by a person who begins a meal before sunset and continues eating is described in Halachah 12. The restrictions mentioned in this halachah also apply to a person who accepts the Sabbath before its actual commencement (Mishnah Berurah 271:11).
|
| 19. |
Needless to say, the performance of labor is not mentioned with regard to kiddush, for performing labor on the Sabbath is forbidden regardless.
|
| 20. |
The Maggid Mishneh maintains that this leniency applies both before kiddush and beforehavdalah. However, based on the rulings of the Rashba, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim271:4, 299:1) states that drinking water before reciting kiddush is forbidden. One may, however, drink water before havdalah.
|
| 21. |
The performance of one undesirable act is not reason to perform another. As soon as one becomes conscious of the obligation to recite kiddush or havdalah, he should cease eating and fulfill the mitzvah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 271:4).
|
| 22. |
The Magen Avraham 271:1 explains that the Rabbinic obligation to recite kiddush over wine does not replace the Biblical commandment entirely. Accordingly, the recitation of the Sabbath prayers in the Shemoneh Esreh of the evening service represents the fulfillment of one's obligation to sanctify the Sabbath.
Although one is also required to recite kiddush before one's meal to fulfill the obligation instituted by our Sages, there is room for certain leniency, because one has already fulfilled one's obligation according to the Torah. For example, a person who is certain that he has recited the evening service, but is in doubt whether or not he has recited kiddush, should not recite the latter prayer. Note, however, Sefer HaKovetz, which interprets these concepts in a different manner.
|
| 23. |
In Hilchot Tefillah 2:12, the Rambam mentions the inclusion of havdalah in our evening prayers by the addition of the passage Attah Chonantanu to the fourth blessing of the Shemoneh Esreh.
When the Men of the Great Assembly ordained the prayers and blessings for the Jewish people, the Jewish people were needy and could not afford wine. Therefore, these Sages ordained the recitation of havdalah in prayer. Afterwards, when the fortunes of the people improved, the Sages ordained that they should recite this blessing over a cup of wine, like kiddush.
Subsequently, our people's prosperity suffered and the Sages reinstituted the blessing into the prayer service. Nevertheless, in order to prevent the matter from being totally dependent on socio-economic factors, they established the following guidelines: A person should recite thehavdalah prayers in the Shemoneh Esreh of the evening service. Afterwards, he should try to obtain wine in order to fulfill the mitzvah as the Sages prescribed. If, however, this is not possible, his recitation of the prayer in the evening service is sufficient to fulfill his obligation.
|
| 24. |
Here, the Rambam is not necessarily referring to a person who recited the passage Attah Chonantanu in the evening prayers. To be permitted to perform labor, it is sufficient to recite the phrase, "Blessed be He who distinguishes between the holy and the mundane," without reciting God's name or mentioning His sovereignty. Indeed, this is a frequent practice for women, who do not always recite the evening service.
|
| 25. |
But not to eat or to drink.
|
| 26. |
For we follow the principle תדיר ושאינו תדיר, תדיר קודם Whenever a person has a choice of reciting two blessings, one frequently recited and one less frequently recited, he first recites the one that is more frequently recited.
|
| 27. |
This refers to the ritual washing before partaking of bread. The order suggested by the Rambam is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 271:12). Significantly, the Ramah states that it is preferable to wash one's hands and recite the blessing before reciting kiddush. (See Halachah 10 and notes.) He writes that this is the common practice in the Ashkenazic community. (Significantly, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 271:23 and the Mishnah Berurah 271:62 differ and suggest adhering to the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch.)
|
| 28. |
A revi'it is 86.6 cubic centimeters according to Shiurei Torah and 150 cubic centimeters according to the Chazon Ish.
|
| 29. |
These are the requirements Berachot 51a mentions with regard to a cup of blessing. In contrast to Rashi, the Rambam considers the term "cup of blessing" as referring primarily to the cup over which kiddush is recited. He does, however, also apply these principles to the cup over which grace is recited. (See Hilchot Berachot 7:15.)
Based on this distinction, the cup must also be whole, without a crack or chip; it should be filled to the brim; and no one should have drunk from the wine in the cup beforehand (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 271:18).
|
| 30. |
The Rambam is speaking about Arab countries, where people would eat while sitting on mats on the ground. When eating at a table, one is obligated to lift the cup a handbreadth above the table.
|
| 31. |
This recitation of this passage acknowledges God's creation of the world. Accordingly, Shabbat119b states, "Whoever recites the passage Vayechulu on Friday night is considered to be God's partner in creation."
The Rokeach mentions that we should recite Vayechulu three times on Friday night - and this, indeed, is our practice: once in the Shemoneh Esreh of the evening service, once communally after the Shemoneh Esreh, and once in Kiddush.
|
| 32. |
A cheekful is slightly more than half of a revi'it (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 271:13). This, however, refers to a cheekful of an ordinary person. More particularly, the measure of a "cheekful" depends on the size of an individual person's mouth - i.e., were a person to swish the wine in his mouth to one side, that cheek would look full (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 271:24;Mishnah Berurah 271:68).
|
| 33. |
These people are not required to partake of a revi'it. Indeed, they may fulfill their obligation forkiddush by reciting Amen, without partaking of the wine at all (Magen Avraham 271:30). Nevertheless, it is preferable that everyone be given from the cup of kiddush or have cups of wine before them (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 271:14).
|
| 34. |
Tosafot (Pesachim 101a) derive this law from the exegesis of Isaiah 58:13: "And you shall call the Sabbath, 'a delight.' It explains that "calling the Sabbath" - reciting kiddush - must be in the place of "a delight," one's Sabbath meal.
|
| 35. |
We have translated the word בית as "house" according to its literal meaning. The Maggid Mishneh, however, suggests that in this context, the term should be rendered as "room" - i.e., one may move from one corner to another in the same room, but not from one room to another in the same house. (See also Hilchot Berachot 4:5 and commentaries, where this term is used in a similar context.)
The Maggid Mishneh mentions, however, that there are authorities who interpret בית as "house." According to their view, if two rooms are in the same house, one may recite kiddush in one and eat the Sabbath meal in the other, provided one has this intention when reciting kiddush. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 273:1) rules according to this interpretation.
|
| 36. |
Even if the person had the intent of eating his meal in the second place when he recited kiddushand does so without any unnecessary interruption, he does not fulfill his obligation and must recite kiddush again.
|
| 37. |
I.e., the kiddush is not part of the prayer service, but was instituted merely for the sake of these individuals. Nevertheless, in one of his responsa, the Rambam writes that after the custom of reciting kiddush in the synagogue was established, it should be continued even if there are no guests present in the synagogue. [At present, this custom is not usually followed in the Sephardic community, and there are many communities in the Ashkenazic community that have also discontinued it.]
|
| 38. |
Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi explains the difference between the two blessings: Kiddush was instituted as the beginning of the Sabbath meal. Hence, it is also appropriate that it be recited over bread. Havdalah, by contrast, has no connection with a meal. Therefore, bread may not be used.
|
| 39. |
In this ruling, the Rambam follows the interpretation of Pesachim 106b suggested by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi and other Rishonim. There are, however, other interpretations of this passage, which lead to the ruling of the Ramah (cited in Note 27) that one should always wash one's hands before reciting kiddush.
(Although the Ramah's view is not accepted by the later authorities, the Mishnah Berurah 271:62 states that it is of sufficient weight to be relied on in the case described by the Rambam here: a person who desired to recite kiddush over wine, but washed his hands previously. Rather than recite the kiddush over bread, the person may recite kiddush over wine.)
|
| 40. |
Pesachim 106a relates that this practice is derived from Exodus 20:8: "Remember the Sabbath day"; a remembrance must be made on the day itself. (See also Chapter 30, Halachah 9.)
|
| 41. |
The Maggid Mishneh explains that this term is used as a euphemism, as one calls the blind sagi nahor, "of great light."
|
| 42. |
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling and rejects the concept of reciting kiddush on the Sabbath day. In his rebuttal of the Ra'avad's words, the Maggid Mishneh states that it is impossible to recite kiddush on the Sabbath day on bread. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav 289:2, however, uses the Ra'avad's ruling to reach a third position, that although kiddush is required during the day as well as at night, one may recite the kiddush on bread.
|
| 43. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 289:1) permits one to drink water before prayer, because "the obligation to recite kiddush is not incumbent on one at that time." This leniency has been extended by the later authorities to drinking coffee, and by some to partaking of pastry.
|
| 44. |
From this time onward, the person must observe all the Sabbath laws. Note the Magen Avraham267:1, which states that a person may only recite kiddush from plag haminchah onward - i.e., no more than one and a quarter "seasonal" hours (שעות זמנוית) before sunset.
|
| 45. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 293:3) prescribes this leniency only for a person who is אנוס, "pressured by forces beyond his control." Needless to say, even after reciting havdalah, the person must observe all the Sabbath laws. The blessing over fire should not be recited until sunset.
|
| 46. |
I.e., as soon as the sun sets, one must cease eating and cover the table for kiddush. (See also Chapter 30, Halachah 4, which states that one should not plan to eat a meal on Friday afternoon, so that one will enter the Sabbath with an appetite.)
|
| 47. |
The bread should always be covered during kiddush. In this instance, covering it serves a further purpose, making it appear as if it had been placed on the table in honor of the Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 271:10).
|
| 48. |
The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 271:4) state that if one had been drinking wine previously, one should recite kiddush over a cup of wine without reciting the blessing borey pri hagefen.
|
| 49. |
From the Rambam's wording, it would appear that he does not require the recitation of the blessing hamotzi when one resumes eating. Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi and Rabbenu Asher differ and require the recitation of this blessing, because at the time the person recited kiddush it was forbidden for him to partake of bread.
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) mentions both opinions. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 271:11 and theMishnah Berurah 271:18 suggest following the Rambam's view. For whenever there is an unresolved question of whether or not a blessing should be recited, the practice is not to recite it.
|
| 50. |
When one partakes of a portion of food the size of an olive after nightfall, one is obligated to mention the Sabbath in the grace, for this is considered to be one of the Sabbath meals (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 271:13; Mishnah Berurah 271:30).
|
| 51. |
This refers to a meal including bread that he began before sunset. If one did not begin eating before sunset, eating or drinking is forbidden. (See Halachah 5.) Moreover, if one is eating or drinking, but is not in the midst of a meal including bread, one is obligated to cease eating at sunset. There are, however, certain opinions that allow one to begin eating after sunset or to continue partaking of foods outside a meal until a half hour before the appearance of the stars (Mishnah Berurah 299:1).
|
| 52. |
I.e., one is allowed to continue eating after nightfall. Although the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol requires one to interrupt one's meal and recite havdalah directly after the appearance of three stars, this opinion is not accepted by the later authorities (Ramah, Orach Chayim 299:1).
|
| 53. |
For mayim acharonim, the washing that precedes grace.
|
| 54. |
For it is preferable - although not obligatory - to recite grace over a cup of wine. (See Hilchot Berachot 7:15.)
|
| 55. |
The Ra'avad and others raise questions concerning the Rambam's decision. For Pesachim 102b states, as the Rambam himself quotes in the following halachah, "we do not observe mitzvot in bundles" - i.e., one cup of wine should not be used to fulfill two separate mitzvot.
The Maggid Mishneh offers a possible resolution for the Rambam's ruling: The above principle applies only when the two mitzvot are connected with two different times - e.g., kiddush and grace, as mentioned in the subsequent halachah. For grace is associated with the preceding meal, and kiddush with the Sabbath day that will follow. In contrast, in the present halachah, bothhavdalah and grace are associated with the previous time - the Sabbath - and the previous meal. Nevertheless, the Maggid Mishneh himself agrees with the Ra'avad that the Rambam's ruling should be followed only in a situation where one does not have another cup of wine available. This opinion is also quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 299:4) and accepted by the later authorities.
[Rav Kapach offers another justification for the Rambam's ruling, based on the final phrase of the following halachah, which states that both kiddush and grace are "mitzvot of the Torah."Havdalah, Rav Kapach explains, is Rabbinic in origin and therefore can be combined with grace and recited over a single cup. Although this resolution appears closest to the Rambam's wording in these two halachot, it is difficult to reconcile with the Rambam's statements at the beginning of the chapter and in Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 155) that the mitzvah of recitinghavdalah has its source in the Torah itself.]
|
| 56. |
For drinking - even drinking wine - is not considered significant enough to override the obligation to recite havdalah.
|
| 57. |
He must stop drinking at sunset (or half an hour before the appearance of the stars), but preferably should not recite havdalah until after the appearance of three stars.
|
| 58. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 271:6) also quotes the opinion of Rabbenu Asher, and states that reciting grace in such a situation generates several doubts: whether or not to mention the Sabbath in grace, whether or not to partake of the cup over which grace was recited, and whether or not a second meal is required so that kiddush will be "in the place of a meal."
Therefore, it is preferable to recite kiddush in the midst of the meal, as mentioned in the previous halachah, to eat a small amount on the Sabbath, and then to recite grace. The Ramah suggests following this view.
|
| 59. |
See the notes on the previous halachah.
|
| 60. |
See Hilchot Issurei Mizbe'ach 5:1, 6:9. (See also Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 11:9-10, which mentions these concepts with regard to the prohibition against using wine employed by gentiles for their libations.)
|
| 61. |
Needless to say, this also applies to sugar.
|
| 62. |
These are forbidden to be offered on the altar in any form, as derived from Leviticus 2:11, which states, "You shall present no leavening agent and no sweetener...."
|
| 63. |
The western lands the Rambam refers to are Morocco and Muslim Spain.
The Jerusalem Talmud (Pesachim 10:1) states that one may use sweetened wines for kiddush. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 272:8) mentions both opinions. The Ramah states that it is customary to follow the more lenient view. This issue is very significant, for almost all commercially produced wines have sugar added to them.
|
| 64. |
This applies even if the wine's taste is unaffected (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:1).
|
| 65. |
In Talmudic times, wine that was left uncovered was forbidden, out of fear that poisonous snakes might have deposited venom in it. (See Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat HaNefesh 11:6-8,10.) At present, this circumstance is extremely rare, and it is customary to partake of wine even after it has been left uncovered. Nevertheless, such wine is unacceptable for kiddush, because using it for a mitzvah is not considered respectful (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 272:1; Mishnah Berurah272:3).
|
| 66. |
In this instance as well, there are many authorities who differ with the Rambam and permit the use of such wine, based on the Jerusalem Talmud (loc. cit.). Here, also, the Shulchan Aruch(loc. cit. 272:8) mentions both opinions, and the Ramah states that it is customary to follow the more lenient view. This issue is also very relevant today, for many wines and grape juices undergo pasteurization before being sold.
|
| 67. |
Indeed, as the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 204:4) states, it is not proper to recite the blessing borey pri hagefen over this beverage.
|
| 68. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 204:5) emphasizes that this law depends on the strength of the wine. Our wines are not as strong as those of the Talmudic period, and hence the ratio of one to four is not sufficient to require the blessing borey pri hagefen. This law is also relevant with regard to commercially produced wines, which are often heavily diluted before being sold.
|
| 69. |
The Ra'avad states that this restriction applies only when one drinks from a cup of wine and not from a larger container. The Rambam's view is, however, accepted by the later authorities. (SeePesachim 106a, which mentions opinions that follow both views.)
|
| 70. |
The Mishnah Berurah 271:43 questions whether a person who only has wine from which others have drunk should recite kiddush over it, or whether he should recite kiddush over bread instead.
|
| 71. |
I.e., wine into which bread has been dipped. Beitzah 21b states that such wine is unfit for human consumption and should be given only to chickens. Even if wine has not been spoiled to this extent, after a person has drunk from a cup, reciting kiddush over it is forbidden.
|
| 72. |
After stating this law, however, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 272:3) states that it is preferable to use wine that is choice in all respects for the mitzvah.
|
| 73. |
Indeed, as stated in Hilchot Berachot 7:15, wine should be diluted before using it for a "cup of blessing." (See, however, the notes on Halachah 15 regarding the extent of the dilution.)
|
| 74. |
Although grape juice was acceptable as a wine libation only after the fact (בדיעבד, Hilchot Issurei Mizbe'ach 6:9), it is acceptable for kiddush. Nevertheless, using wine that has fermented is a more favorable way of performing the mitzvah (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 272:2; Mishnah Berurah272:5).
|
| 75. |
Needless to say, the grapes must be squeezed before the commencement of the Sabbath.
|
| 76. |
For if there is no wine available, kiddush may - and should - be recited over bread.
|
| 77. |
Since havdalah may not be recited over bread, these beverages should be used as an alternative.
This is the Maggid Mishneh's interpretation of the Rambam's ruling, based on Pesachim 107a. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 272:9), however, mentions other views: that one may recitekiddush over beer in places where wine is not easily available, and that of Rabbenu Asher, which states that, at night, one should recite kiddush on bread if wine is not available. During the day, however, it is preferable to recite kiddush over other beverages. The Ramah states that Rabbenu Asher's view should be followed.
If wine is easily available, however, kiddush should not be recited on these other beverages. With regard to havdalah, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 296:2) states that it is preferable to recitehavdalah over a cup of wine from which a person has drunk, rather than to use another beverage. Although this ruling is not accepted by the later authorities, Shulchan Aruch HaRav296:8 states that a person who possesses wine at home should not recite havdalah over other beverages.
|
| 78. |
It must be emphasized that the term חמר מדינה, "a beverage used as a substitute for wine in one's country," must be widely used in that country. If it is not, it is not acceptable. (See Mishnah Berurah 296:9.)
Water (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.), milk and oil (Mishnah Berurah 272:25), and apple cider and borscht (Mishnah Berurah 296:10) are also not considered acceptable. From these exclusions, we can appreciate the types of beverages that are acceptable.
|
| 79. |
From the Rambam's description of the holidays as "Sabbaths of God," he appears to be implying that the mitzvah of reciting kiddush on these days is included in the mitzvah to "remember the Sabbath," which is the source for the mitzvah of reciting kiddush on the Sabbath. A similar intent appears in the comments of the Mechilta on that verse.
The Magen Avraham 271:1 cites the Maggid Mishneh as differing with this interpretation and stating that the obligation to recite kiddush on holidays is Rabbinic in origin.
|
| 80. |
For chol hamo'ed has a lesser level of holiness, since the prohibitions against performing the forbidden labors do not apply. There are, however, restrictions against work, as stated in Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov, Chapter 7.
|
| 81. |
For the Sabbath represents a higher level of holiness, since even the labors associated with the preparation of food are prohibited.
|
| 82. |
Since the holiday represents a lower level of holiness, it is not appropriate to say havdalah, but only kiddush. (See the conclusion of Chapter 5, where the two final points are mentioned.)
|
| 83. |
God's choice of the Jewish people is mentioned at the outset in the kiddush for festivals, but not at the beginning of the kiddush for the Sabbath. Our Rabbis explain that God's choice of the Jewish people is associated with the exodus and the giving of the Torah. Since the uniqueness of the Sabbath was established before these events, it takes primacy. The festivals, by contrast, were established to commemorate those events that are directly associated with God's choice of the Jewish people.
Significantly, the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah mention a slightly different text for this blessing. Instead of beginning "who has chosen us," it begins "who has sanctified us."
|
| 84. |
See Hilchot Tefillah 2:5. The sanctity of the Jewish people is mentioned before the sanctity of the festivals, because God sanctifies the Jews and it is they - through their keeping the calendar through the sanctification of the months - who sanctify the festivals (Beitzah 17a).
|
| 85. |
The sanctification of the Sabbath is mentioned first, because the Sabbath is sanctified by God directly, independent of the spiritual service of the Jewish people (ibid.).
|
| 86. |
Leviticus 23:24 refers to Rosh HaShanah as "a day of recalling the sounding of the shofar."Numbers 29:1 refers to it as "a day of sounding the shofar." On this basis, our Rabbis understand "recalling" as a separate concept, and describe Rosh HaShanah as "the Day of Remembrance," the day when we ask God to remember us for good.
|
| 87. |
In many communities, the text of this phrase is generally יום תרועה, "a day of sounding [the shofar]." Only on the Sabbath, when the shofar is not sounded, is the text employed by the Rambam used.
|
| 88. |
As indicated by Rosh HaShanah 16a, our divine service on Rosh HaShanah centers on the acceptance of God as our King. Therefore, this concept is mentioned in the conclusion of this blessing.
|
| 89. |
This law appears to corroborate the thesis that the Rambam sees kiddush on the holidays as an obligation with a source in the Torah itself. Therefore, he clarifies that just as Halachah 6 states that the Sages instituted the obligation that kiddush be recited over wine on the Sabbath, they imposed a similar obligation on holidays.
|
| 90. |
See Halachah 9.
|
| 91. |
See Halachah 10.
|
| 92. |
It is customary merely to look at the festive candles on the table. One need not hold them together and gaze at one's nails, as is the usual custom on Saturday night.
|
| 93. |
Merkevet HaMishneh notes that in Hilchot Tefillah 2:14, the Rambam states that in one's prayers during the evening service, one should add the phrase "You distinguished between the holiness of the holidays and the holiness of the Sabbath." He does not, however, recommend making this addition in havdalah. It is, however, customary in most communities to make this addition.
|
| 94. |
See the following halachah.
|
| 95. |
This also includes the second day of the holiday celebrated in the diaspora and the second day of Rosh HaShanah.
|
| 96. |
As the Rambam states in Hilchot Berachot 11:9, the blessing Shehecheyanu is recited when performing any mitzvah that we are obligated to fulfill only at a specific time. This also applies to the mitzvah of observing the festivals. Needless to say, on Yom Kippur the blessing is recited in the synagogue, and not during kiddush. On Yom Kippur, women should recite this blessing while lighting candles and should not repeat it in the synagogue.
|
| 97. |
Shemini Atzeret is, by contrast, considered to be a festival in its own right (Sukkah 47a), and we recite the blessing Shehecheyanu on that day and on Simchat Torah.
|
| 98. |
See Sukkah 47b, which states that this wording implies that a person who failed to reciteShehecheyanu on the first day of the festival may compensate by reciting it later.
|
| 99. |
Significantly, the Rambam does not mention the custom of reciting the passage containing select Biblical verses beginning Hiney E-l Yeshuati.
|
| 100. |
See Halachah 29.
|
| 101. |
Berachot 52b explains that this wording is chosen because there are many colors of light in a flame.
|
| 102. |
Note the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Berachot 8:6), from which it appears that one is actually required to derive benefit from the havdalah light. (In this context, see the Midrash Sachar Tov, commenting on Psalms 35:10, which mentions the custom of gazing at one's nails in the light of the havdalah candles.) The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 298:4), by contrast, states that one must stand close enough to the light to benefit from it, implying that there is no obligation actually to derive benefit from the light.
|
| 103. |
The Mishnah (loc. cit.) also mentions spices belonging to gentiles. The Rambam omits mention of this subject here, relying on his discussion of the prohibition against using such spices in Hilchot Berachot 9:7-9.
|
| 104. |
Significantly, according to Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, Berachot 52b appears to offer this rationale only with regard to spices belonging to gentiles. With regard to a gentile's flame, it offers another reasoning: because the gentile's flame has not rested on the Sabbath. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam also quotes Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's view. In these halachot, however, he mentions this principle only in Halachah 27, appearing to indicate that the need for a candle to "rest" on the Sabbath applies only to candles lit by Jews. Since the gentiles are not bound by the Sabbath laws, this principle does not apply to them at all.
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:5) quotes Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's view and forbids using a candle that a gentile lit during the day. With regard to a candle lit by a gentile at night, see the following halachah.
|
| 105. |
In his explanation of these laws in his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam states:
The prohibition against benefiting from entities associated with false divinities is detailed in Chapters 7 and 8 of Hilchot Avodat Kochavim.
|
| 106. |
For this was kindled to give honor to the deceased and not to provide light for others to benefit from (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:12).
|
| 107. |
The Maggid Mishneh specifies that this does not refer to a flame lit at a gathering of gentiles.Shulchan Aruch Rav 298:9 and the Mishnah Berurah 298:20 explain that this decision was rendered even though one might think it proper to forbid using a light taken from a gentile at night, lest one use a light kindled by the gentile during the day. According to the Rambam, however, the meaning is that since a Jew is involved, there is no intention for the worship of false divinities.
|
| 108. |
According to the Rambam, it would appear that we suspect that the gentiles lit the flame for the sake of worshiping their divinities.
In contrast, the Magen Avraham 298:11 states that this is a decree, lest the gentile light from a flame kindled on the Sabbath directly after the Sabbath's conclusion. He continues postulating that, after the fact, a person who recites a blessing over such a flame is considered to have fulfilled his obligation.
|
| 109. |
This ruling reflects the Rambam's conception of Berachot 53a. Since these fires are not generally kindled for the purpose of producing light, one should not use them for the blessing. Nevertheless, since it is customary to benefit also from their light, one fulfills his obligation.
Significantly, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 298:10) and most other authorities follow Rav Hai Gaon's interpretation of the passage, which explains that directly after these flames are kindled, one may not recite a blessing over them, since they are then intended for purposes other than producing light. When, however, those purposes have been accomplished and the flames continue burning, one may recite the blessing over them.
|
| 110. |
Note the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:9), which states that this law applies only when the fire was kindled for the purpose of producing light. Otherwise, a blessing should not be recited.
|
| 111. |
Candles are often lit in synagogues and houses of study as a token of respect for the place, and not to produce light. Therefore, it is not proper to recite a blessing over this light unless it was lit for the benefit of an individual, so that he will use it for his needs.
|
| 112. |
Because it produces a large quantity of light with different colors of flame (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 298:4; Mishnah Berurah 298:5). Note Rav Tanchum of Jerusalem, who interprets the Hebrew אבוקה as referring to a beeswax candle. Although his interpretation is not accepted, it is customary to use beeswax for this mitzvah (ibid.).
|
| 113. |
On the night following Yom Kippur, by contrast, we are obligated to search for a candle that burned throughout the day, over which to recite the blessing (Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:1).
|
| 114. |
Although this fire was kindled on the Sabbath, since it was permitted to do so, it may be used for the mitzvah. If, however, it was kindled on the Sabbath in transgression of the law, it may not be used, for the light used for this blessing must have "rested from sin" on the Sabbath (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 115. |
Bereshit Rabbah 12:6) relates that after the sun set following the first Sabbath, Adam became frightened. G‑d prepared two boards for him. He struck them together and brought forth fire.
|
| 116. |
I.e., we do not recite the blessing over light that was kindled on that night, but on a candle that had burned throughout the holiday. It is, however, acceptable to use a candle that was lit from a candle that burned throughout the holiday (Shulchan Aruch and Ramah, Orach Chayim 624:5).
|
| 117. |
I.e., from Sunday to Thursday. As mentioned in Halachah 18, when a holiday falls on Friday,havdalah is not said.
|
| 118. |
There is a slight imprecision with the Rambam's wording, for it is not customary to recite the blessing for spices at this time, and we are forbidden to recite the blessing over light.
|
| 119. |
See Beitzah 16a, which mentions that God grants us an extra soul on the Sabbath, but takes away this gift after the Sabbath's conclusion. This gift is granted on the Sabbath alone, and not on festivals. Hence the distinction mentioned in the previous halachah.
|
| 120. |
See Berachot 43b, which describes fragrance as an element that brings joy to the soul.
|
---------------------
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Sunday, Tevet 22, 5776 · 03 January 2016
"Today's Day"
Wednesday Tevet 22 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Sh'mot, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 106-107.
Tanya: Nevertheless, such a (p. 49)...and so forth. (p. 51).
My father proclaimed at a farbrengen: Just as wearing tefillin every day is a Mitzva commanded by the Torah to every individual regardless of his standing in Torah, whether deeply learned or simple, so too is it an absolute duty for every person to spend a half hour every day thinking about the Torah-education of children, and to do everything in his power - and beyond his power - to inspire children to follow the path along which they are being guided.
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Sunday, Tevet 22, 5776 · 03 January 2016
"Today's Day"
Wednesday Tevet 22 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Sh'mot, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 106-107.
Tanya: Nevertheless, such a (p. 49)...and so forth. (p. 51).
My father proclaimed at a farbrengen: Just as wearing tefillin every day is a Mitzva commanded by the Torah to every individual regardless of his standing in Torah, whether deeply learned or simple, so too is it an absolute duty for every person to spend a half hour every day thinking about the Torah-education of children, and to do everything in his power - and beyond his power - to inspire children to follow the path along which they are being guided.
---------------------•
---------------------
Daily Thought:
Only You
All this universe was made only for your journey. And all this universe was made only for the other guy’s journey. And for mine as well.
In our mind it is impossible. We are finite. When we put our minds to one idea, there is no room for any other. If one point is at the center, there is no center left for any other.
But G‑d is infinite. He can have as many points of focus as He wishes without diminishing the centrality of any of them in the slightest.
Each one of us is absolutely the most important thing in the universe.
No comments:
Post a Comment