Vayak'hel: Exodus 35:1 Moshe assembled the whole community of the people of Isra’el and said to them, “These are the things which Adonai has ordered you to do. 2 On six days work is to be done, but the seventh day is to be a holy day for you, a Shabbat of complete rest in honor of Adonai. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death. 3 You are not to kindle a fire in any of your homes on Shabbat.”
4 Moshe said to the whole community of the people of Isra’el, “Here is what Adonai has ordered: 5 ‘Take up a collection for Adonai from among yourselves — anyone whose heart makes him willing is to bring the offering for Adonai: gold, silver and bronze; 6 blue, purple and scarlet yarn; fine linen, goat’s hair, 7 tanned ram skins and fine leather; acacia-wood; 8 oil for the light, spices for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense; 9 onyx stones and stones to be set, for the ritual vest and the breastplate.
10 “‘Then let all the craftsmen among you come and make everything Adonai has ordered: 11 the tabernacle with its tent, covering, fasteners, planks, crossbars, posts and sockets; 12 the ark with its poles, ark-cover and the curtain to screen it; 13 the table with its poles, all its utensils and the showbread; 14 the menorah for the light, with its utensils and lamps, and the oil for the light; 15 the incense altar with its poles; the anointing oil; the fragrant incense; the screen for the entranceway at the entrance to the tabernacle; 16 the altar for burnt offerings, with its poles and all its utensils; the basin with its base; 17 the tapestries for the courtyard, with their posts and sockets; the screen for the gateway of the courtyard; 18 the tent pegs for the tabernacle; the tent pegs for the courtyard, with their ropes; 19 the garments for officiating, for serving in the Holy Place; and the holy garments for Aharon the cohen and the garments for his sons, so that they can serve in the office of cohen.’”
20 Then the whole community of the people of Isra’el withdrew from Moshe’s presence;
Daily Quote:
A gathering of the righteous is a joy for them and a joy for the world; a gathering of the wicked is an ruination for them and a ruination for the world[Talmud, Sanhedrin 71b]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Vayak'hel, 2nd Portion Exodus 35:21-35:29 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Exodus Chapter 35
21Every man whose heart uplifted him came, and everyone whose spirit inspired him to generosity brought the offering of the Lord for the work of the Tent of Meeting, for all its service, and for the holy garments. כאוַיָּבֹ֕אוּ כָּל־אִ֖ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־נְשָׂא֣וֹ לִבּ֑וֹ וְכֹ֡ל אֲשֶׁר֩ נָֽדְבָ֨ה רוּח֜וֹ אֹת֗וֹ הֵ֠בִ֠יאוּ אֶת־תְּרוּמַ֨ת יְהֹוָ֜ה לִמְלֶ֨אכֶת אֹ֤הֶל מוֹעֵד֙ וּלְכָל־עֲבֹ֣דָת֔וֹ וּלְבִגְדֵ֖י הַקֹּֽדֶשׁ:
22The men came with the women; every generous hearted person brought bracelets and earrings and rings and buckles, all kinds of golden objects, and every man who waved a waving of gold to the Lord. כבוַיָּבֹ֥אוּ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֖ים עַל־הַנָּשִׁ֑ים כֹּ֣ל | נְדִ֣יב לֵ֗ב הֵ֠בִ֠יאוּ חָ֣ח וָנֶ֜זֶם וְטַבַּ֤עַת וְכוּמָז֙ כָּל־כְּלִ֣י זָהָ֔ב וְכָל־אִ֕ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֥ר הֵנִ֛יף תְּנוּפַ֥ת זָהָ֖ב לַֽיהֹוָֽה:
with the women: Heb. עַל הַנָּשִׁים, lit., [the jewelry was still] on the women. The men came with the women and [stood] near them. (The reason the Targum [Onkelos] left the passage in its simple sense is that he does not render וַיָּבֹאוּ הָאִנָשִׁים as וַאִתוֹ גַבְרַיָא, and the men came, but he renders: וּמַיְתַן, [and the men] brought, meaning that they brought bracelets and earrings while they were still on [i.e., being worn by] the women, as Rashi writes on “spun the goat hair” (verse 26), [which signifies that the women spun the hair while it was still on the goats].) על הנשים: עם הנשים וסמוכין אליהם:
bracelets: Heb. חָח. This is a round golden ornament placed on the arm, and it is the צָמִיד. חח: הוא תכשיט של זהב עגול נתון על הזרוע, והוא הצמיד:
and buckles: Heb. וְכוּמָז. This is a golden ornament placed over a woman’s private parts. Our Rabbis explain the name כּוּמָז as [an acrostic]: כַּאן מְקוֹם זִמָּה, [meaning] here is the place of lewdness. -[from Shab. 64a] וכומז: כלי זהב הוא נתון כנגד אותו מקום לאשה. ורבותינו פירשו שם כומז כאן מקום זמה:
23And every man with whom was found blue, purple, or crimson wool, linen, goat hair, ram skins dyed red or tachash skins, brought them. כגוְכָל־אִ֞ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־נִמְצָ֣א אִתּ֗וֹ תְּכֵ֧לֶת וְאַרְגָּמָ֛ן וְתוֹלַ֥עַת שָׁנִ֖י וְשֵׁ֣שׁ וְעִזִּ֑ים וְעֹרֹ֨ת אֵילִ֧ם מְאָדָּמִ֛ים וְעֹרֹ֥ת תְּחָשִׁ֖ים הֵבִֽיאוּ:
And every man with whom was found: Blue wool or purple wool or crimson wool or ram skins or tachash skins, all brought [them]. וכל איש אשר נמצא אתו: תכלת או ארגמן או תולעת שני או עורות אילים או תחשים כולם הביאו:
24Everyone who set aside an offering of silver or copper brought the offering for the Lord, and everyone with whom acacia wood was found for any work of the service, brought it. כדכָּל־מֵרִ֗ים תְּר֤וּמַת כֶּ֨סֶף֙ וּנְח֔שֶׁת הֵבִ֕יאוּ אֵ֖ת תְּרוּמַ֣ת יְהֹוָ֑ה וְכֹ֡ל אֲשֶׁר֩ נִמְצָ֨א אִתּ֜וֹ עֲצֵ֥י שִׁטִּ֛ים לְכָל־מְלֶ֥אכֶת הָֽעֲבֹדָ֖ה הֵבִֽיאוּ:
25And every wise hearted woman spun with her hands, and they brought spun material: blue, purple, and crimson wool, and linen. כהוְכָל־אִשָּׁ֥ה חַכְמַת־לֵ֖ב בְּיָדֶ֣יהָ טָו֑וּ וַיָּבִ֣יאוּ מַטְוֶ֗ה אֶֽת־הַתְּכֵ֨לֶת֙ וְאֶת־הָ֣אַרְגָּמָ֔ן אֶת־תּוֹלַ֥עַת הַשָּׁנִ֖י וְאֶת־הַשֵּֽׁשׁ:
26And all the women whose hearts uplifted them with wisdom, spun the goat hair. כווְכָ֨ל־הַנָּשִׁ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֨ר נָשָׂ֥א לִבָּ֛ן אֹתָ֖נָה בְּחָכְמָ֑ה טָו֖וּ אֶת־הָֽעִזִּֽים:
spun the goat hair: This constituted a superior skill, for they [the women] spun it on the backs of the goats. -[from Shab. 74b] טוו את העזים: היא היתה אומנות יתירה, שמעל גבי העזים טווין אותן:
27And the princes brought the shoham stones and filling stones for the ephod and for the choshen; כזוְהַנְּשִׂאִ֣ם הֵבִ֔יאוּ אֵ֚ת אַבְנֵ֣י הַשֹּׁ֔הַם וְאֵ֖ת אַבְנֵ֣י הַמִּלֻּאִ֑ים לָֽאֵפ֖וֹד וְלַחֽשֶׁן:
And the princes brought: Heb. וְהַנְשִׂיאִם. Rabbi Nathan said: What prompted the princes [lit., what did the princes see] to donate for the dedication of the altar first [before the rest of the Israelites] while [in contrast] they did not donate first for the work of the Mishkan? This is what the princes said, “Let the community donate what they will donate, and what[ever] they are missing [i.e., whatever is left to be donated] we will complete.” Since the community completed everything, as it is said: “And the work was sufficient” (Exod. 36:7), the princes said, “What are we to do?” So they brought the shoham stones, etc. Therefore, they brought [donations] first for the dedication of the altar. Since at first they were lazy [i.e., they did not immediately donate], a letter is missing from their name, and וְהַנְשִׂיאִם is written [instead of וְהַנְשִׂיאִים, with additional “yud” s]. [from Num. Rabbah 12:16, Sifrei Num. 7:2, Midrash Chaseroth V’Yetheroth p. 268, Midrash Tanchuma Pekudei 11] והנשאם הביאו: אמר ר' נתן מה ראו נשיאים להתנדב בחנוכת המזבח בתחלה, ובמלאכת המשכן לא התנדבו בתחלה, אלא כך אמרו נשיאים יתנדבו צבור מה שמתנדבין, ומה שמחסירים אנו משלימין אותו. כיון שהשלימו צבור את הכל, שנאמר (שמות לו ז) והמלאכה היתה דים, אמרו נשיאים מה עלינו לעשות, הביאו את אבני השהם וגו', לכך התנדבו בחנוכת המזבח תחלה. ולפי שנתעצלו מתחלה נחסרה אות משמם והנשאם כתיב:
28and the spice and the oil for lighting and for the anointing oil, and for the incense. כחוְאֶת־הַבֹּ֖שֶׂם וְאֶת־הַשָּׁ֑מֶן לְמָא֕וֹר וּלְשֶׁ֨מֶן֙ הַמִּשְׁחָ֔ה וְלִקְטֹ֖רֶת הַסַּמִּֽים:
29Every man and woman whose heart inspired them to generosity to bring for all the work that the Lord had commanded to make, through Moses, the children of Israel brought a gift for the Lord כטכָּל־אִ֣ישׁ וְאִשָּׁ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר נָדַ֣ב לִבָּם֘ אֹתָם֒ לְהָבִיא֙ לְכָל־הַמְּלָאכָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֧ה יְהֹוָ֛ה לַֽעֲשׂ֖וֹת בְּיַד־משֶׁ֑ה הֵבִ֧יאוּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל נְדָבָ֖ה לַֽיהֹוָֽה:
---------------------
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 97 - 103
• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 97
1. When the Lord will reveal His kingship, the earth will exult; the multitudes of islands will rejoice.
2. Clouds and dense darkness will surround Him; justice and mercy will be the foundation of His throne.
3. Fire will go before Him and consume His foes all around.
4. His lightnings will illuminate the world; the earth will see and tremble.
5. The mountains will melt like wax before the Lord, before the Master of all the earth.
6. The heavens will declare His justice, and all the nations will behold His glory.
7. All who worship graven images, who take pride in idols, will be ashamed; all idol worshippers will prostrate themselves before Him.
8. Zion will hear and rejoice, the towns of Judah will exult, because of Your judgments, O Lord.
9. For You, Lord, transcend all the earth; You are exceedingly exalted above all the supernal beings.
10. You who love the Lord, hate evil; He watches over the souls of His pious ones, He saves them from the hand of the wicked.
11. Light is sown for the righteous, and joy for the upright in heart.
12. Rejoice in the Lord, you righteous, and extol His holy Name.
Chapter 98
This psalm describes how Israel will praise God for the Redemption.
1. A psalm. Sing to the Lord a new song, for He has performed wonders; His right hand and holy arm have wrought deliverance for Him.
2. The Lord has made known His salvation; He has revealed His justice before the eyes of the nations.
3. He has remembered His kindness and faithfulness to the House of Israel; all, from the farthest corners of the earth, witnessed the deliverance by our God.
4. Raise your voices in jubilation to the Lord, all the earth; burst into joyous song and chanting.
5. Sing to the Lord with a harp, with a harp and the sound of song.
6. With trumpets and the sound of the shofar, jubilate before the King, the Lord.
7. The sea and its fullness will roar in joy, the earth and its inhabitants.
8. The rivers will clap their hands, the mountains will sing together.
9. [They will rejoice] before the Lord, for He has come to judge the earth; He will judge the world with justice, and the nations with righteousness.
Chapter 99
This psalm refers to the wars of Gog and Magog, which will precede the Redemption.
1. When the Lord will reveal His kingship, the nations will tremble; the earth will quake before Him Who is enthroned upon the cherubim,
2. [before] the Lord Who is in Zion, Who is great and exalted above all the peoples.
3. They will extol Your Name which is great, awesome and holy.
4. And [they will praise] the might of the King Who loves justice. You have established uprightness; You have made [the laws of] justice and righteousness in Jacob.
5. Exalt the Lord our God, and bow down at His footstool; He is holy.
6. Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among those who invoke His Name, would call upon the Lord and He would answer them.
7. He would speak to them from a pillar of cloud; they observed His testimonies and the decrees which He gave them.
8. Lord our God, You have answered them; You were a forgiving God for their sake, yet bringing retribution for their own misdeeds.
9. Exalt the Lord our God, and bow down at His holy mountain, for the Lord our God is holy.
Chapter 100
This psalm inspires the hearts of those who suffer in this world. Let them, nevertheless, serve God with joy, for all is for their good, as in the verse: "He whom God loves does He chastise." The psalm also refers to the thanksgiving sacrifice-the only sacrifice to be offered in the Messianic era.
1. A psalm of thanksgiving. Let all the earth sing in jubilation to the Lord.
2. Serve the Lord with joy; come before Him with exultation.
3. Know that the Lord is God; He has made us and we are His, His people and the sheep of His pasture.
4. Enter His gates with gratitude, His courtyards with praise; give thanks to Him, bless His Name.
5. For the Lord is good; His kindness is everlasting, and His faithfulness is for all generations.
Chapter 101
This psalm speaks of David's secluding himself from others, and of his virtuous conduct even in his own home.
1. By David, a psalm. I will sing of [Your] kindness and justice; to You, O Lord, will I chant praise!
2. I will pay heed to the path of integrity-O when will it come to me? I shall walk with the innocence of my heart [even] within my house.
3. I shall not place an evil thing before my eyes; I despise the doing of wayward deeds, it does not cling to me.
4. A perverse heart shall depart from me; I shall not know evil.
5. He who slanders his fellow in secret, him will I cut down; one with haughty eyes and a lustful heart, him I cannot suffer.
6. My eyes are upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me; he who walks in the path of integrity, he shall minister to me.
7. He that practices deceit shall not dwell within my house; the speaker of lies shall have no place before my eyes.
8. Every morning I will cut down all the wicked of the land, to excise all evildoers from the city of the Lord.
Chapter 102
An awe-inspiring prayer for the exiled, and an appropriate prayer for anyone in distress.
1. A prayer of the poor man when he is faint [with affliction], and pours out his tale of woe before the Lord.
2. O Lord, hear my prayer, let my cry reach You!
3. Hide not Your face from me on the day of my distress; turn Your ear to me; on the day that I call, answer me quickly.
4. For my days have vanished with the smoke; my bones are dried up as a hearth.
5. Smitten like grass and withered is my heart, for I have forgotten to eat my bread.
6. From the voice of my sigh, my bone cleaves to my flesh.
7. I am like the bird of the wilderness; like the owl of the wasteland have I become.
8. In haste I fled; I was like a bird, alone on a roof.
9. All day my enemies disgrace me; those who ridicule me curse using my name.1
10. For I have eaten ashes like bread, and mixed my drink with tears,
11. because of Your anger and Your wrath-for You have raised me up, then cast me down.
12. My days are like the fleeting shadow; I wither away like the grass.
13. But You, Lord, will be enthroned forever, and Your remembrance is for all generations.
14. You will arise and have mercy on Zion, for it is time to be gracious to her; the appointed time has come.
15. For Your servants cherish her stones, and love her dust.
16. Then the nations will fear the Name of the Lord, and all the kings of the earth Your glory,
17. when [they see that] the Lord has built Zion, He has appeared in His glory.
18. He turned to the entreaty of the prayerful, and did not despise their prayer.
19. Let this be written for the last generation, so that the newborn nation will praise the Lord.
20. For He looked down from His holy heights; from heaven, the Lord gazed upon the earth,
21. to hear the cry of the bound, to untie those who are doomed to die,
22. so that the Name of the Lord be declared in Zion, and His praise in Jerusalem,
23. when nations and kingdoms will gather together to serve the Lord.
24. He weakened my strength on the way; He shortened my days.
25. I would say: "My God, do not remove me in the midst of my days! You Whose years endure through all generations.”
26. In the beginning You laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.
27. They will perish, but You will endure; all of them will wear out like a garment; You will exchange them like a robe, and they will vanish.
28. But You remain the same; Your years will not end.
29. The children of Your servants will abide; their seed shall be established before You.
FOOTNOTES
1.When swearing, they would say, “If I am lying, may I become like the miserable Jews” (Metzudot).
Chapter 103
David's prayer when he was ill, this psalm is an appropriate prayer on behalf of the sick, especially when offered by the sick person himself while his soul is yet in his body. He can then bless God from his depths, body and soul. Read, and find repose for your soul.
1. By David. Bless the Lord, O my soul; and all my being, His holy Name.
2. My soul, bless the Lord; forget not all His favors:
3. Who forgives all your sins, Who heals all your illnesses;
4. Who redeems your life from the grave, Who crowns you with kindness and mercy;
5. Who satisfies your mouth with goodness; like the eagle, your youth is renewed.
6. The Lord executes righteousness and justice for all the oppressed.
7. He made His ways known to Moses, His deeds to the Children of Israel.
8. The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and of great kindness.
9. He will not contend for eternity, nor harbor ill will forever.
10. He has not dealt with us according to our transgressions, nor requited us according to our sins.
11. For as high as heaven is above the earth, so has His kindness been mighty over those who fear Him.
12. As far as the east is from the west, so has He distanced our transgressions from us.
13. As a father has compassion on his children, so has the Lord had compassion on those who fear Him.
14. For He knows our nature; He is mindful that we are but dust.
15. As for man, his days are like grass; like a flower of the field, so he sprouts.
16. When a wind passes over him, he is gone; his place recognizes him no more.
17. But the kindness of the Lord is forever and ever upon those who fear Him, and His righteousness is [secured] for children's children,
18. to those who keep His covenant, and to those who remember His commands to do them.
19. The Lord has established His throne in the heavens, and His kingship has dominion over all.
20. Bless the Lord, you His angels who are mighty in strength, who do His bidding to obey the voice of His speech.
21. Bless the Lord, all His hosts, His servants who do His will.
22. Bless the Lord, all His works, in all the places of His dominion. My soul, bless the Lord!
---------------------
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 30
• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Monday, Adar I 20, 5776 · February 29, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 30
ואפילו בבחינת סור מרע, יכול כל איש משכיל למצוא בנפשו שאינו סר לגמרי מהרע בכל מכל כל
Even in the category of “turn away from evil,” every thinking man can discover within himself that he does not turn completely and totally away from evil,
במקום שצריך למלחמה עצומה כערך הנ״ל, ואפילו פחות מערך הנ״ל
in a situation requiring a battle of the level i.e., magnitude described above, i.e., the battle required of the kal shebekalim, or even in a situation requiring a battle of a lesser magnitude.
כגון להפסיק באמצע שיחה נאה, או סיפור בגנות חברו
For example, he may find that he does not summon up the strength to stop in the middle of a pleasant gossip, or in the middle of relating a tale discrediting his fellow,
ואפילו גנאי קטן וקל מאד, אף שהוא אמת, ואפילו כדי לנקות עצמו
as he ought to do even if it is a very slight slur, and even if it be true, and even though his purpose in relating it is to exonerate himself —
כנודע מהא דאמר רבי שמעון לאביו רבינו הקדוש: לאו אנא כתביה אלא יהודא חייטא כתביה, ואמר לו: כלך מלשון הרע עיין שם בגמרא, ריש פרק י׳ דבבא בתרא
as is known from what Rabbi Shimon said to his father Rabbeinu HaKadosh concerning a problematic bill of divorce that was improperly written: “I did not write it, Yehudah the tailor wrote it,” where the slur was a minor one, and the purpose was self-vindication — and yet his father replied: “Keep away from slander.” (Note there in theGemara, Tractate Bava Batra, 1 beginning of ch. 10.)
וכהאי גוונא כמה מילי דשכיחי טובא
The same applies to very many similar things which occur frequently.
There, too, one will find that he does not resist his evil impulse as he ought to, even in the category of “turn away from evil.”
ובפרט בענין לקדש עצמו במותר לו, שהוא מדאורייתא, כמו שכתוב: קדושים תהיו וגו׳, והתקדשתם וגו׳
This is especially true with regard to sanctifying oneself by refraining from indulgence in permitted matters — and this is a Biblical commandment, 2 derived from the verses: 3 “You shall be holy,” and “Sanctify yourselves,” etc.
וגם דברי סופרים חמורים מדברי תורה וכו׳
Moreover, even according to the opinion that this commandment is not of Biblical origin, yet4 “Rabbinic enactments are even stricter than Biblical laws,” etc. — and yet one will often find himself succumbing to self-indulgence when the temptation is strong and requires a battle to overcome it.
אלא שכל אלו וכיוצא בהן הן מעוונות שהאדם דש בעקביו
But all these and similar matters are among5 “the sins which people trample underfoot,” insensitive to their importance,
וגם נעשו כהיתר מחמת שעבר ושנה וכו׳
and which have come to be regarded as permissible because they are committed repeatedly. 6
All the above-mentioned calculations, then, can lead one to conclude that he is no better than the kal shebekalim. Like thekal shebekalim, he too fails to wage war against his evil impulse when it is required of him. Yet this still does not explain the requirement that one consider oneself lower than every man. In what way is he worse than the kal shebekalim? In answer, the Alter Rebbe continues:
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | 164b. |
| 2. | See ch. 27. |
| 3. | Vayikra 19:2; 20:7. |
| 4. | Sanhedrin 88b. |
| 5. | Avodah Zarah 18a. |
| 6. | Yoma 86b. |
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Monday, Adar I 20, 5776 · February 29, 2016Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 306
Taking a Mother Bird together with Her Young
"Do not take the mother [bird] together with the children"—Deuteronomy 22:6.
When we encounter a bird's nest, it is forbidden to take the mother together with the chicks.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Taking a Mother Bird together with Her Young
Negative Commandment 306
Translated by Berel Bell
The 306th prohibition is that we are forbidden from taking the entire bird's nest — the mother and the chicks — when hunting.1
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,2 "You must not take the mother along with her young." This prohibition has a remedial positive commandment,3 "You must first chase away the mother." If one can no longer send her away and thereby fulfill the positive commandment — e.g. if the mother died before she could be sent away — the punishment is lashes.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the end of tractate Chulin.4
FOOTNOTES
1.According to Kapach, 5731, note 81, the Rambam means to exclude the case where one is merely passing by and doesn't need them for food. In such a case, one should leave them alone, as the Rambam writes in Guide to the Perplexed, Part 3, Chapter 48.
2.Deut. 22:6.
3.Ibid. 22:7. See P148.
4.138ff.
------------------------------------------------------------
• 1 Chapter: Beit Habechirah Beit Habechirah - Chapter 2 • English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Beit Habechirah - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
The Altar is [to be constructed] in a very precise location,1 which may never be changed,2 as it is said (II Chronicles 22:1): "This is the Altar for the burnt offerings of Israel."
Isaac was prepared as a sacrifice on the Temple's [future] site, as it is said (Genesis 22:2): "Go to the land of Moriah,"3 and in Chronicles (II 3:1), it is said: "Then, Solomon began to build the House of the Lord in Jerusalem, on Mt. Moriah, where [the Lord] appeared to David, his father, in the place that David had prepared,4 in the threshing floor of Ornan, the Jebusite."
Halacha 2
It is universally accepted5 that the place on which David and Solomon built the Altar,6 the threshing floor of Ornan, is the location where Abraham built the Altar on which he prepared Isaac for sacrifice.
Noah built [an altar] on that location when he left the ark.7 It was also [the place] of the Altar on which Cain and Abel brought sacrifices.8 [Similarly,] Adam, the first man, offered a sacrifice there and was created at that very spot,9 as our Sages said: "Man was created from the place where he [would find] atonement."10
Halacha 3
The dimensions of the Altar must be very precise. Its design has been passed down from one to another [over the course of the generations].
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
The Altar constructed by Moses, and, [similarly,] that built by Solomon, and that erected by the [returning] exiles, and that to be built [in the Messianic age] are all ten cubits high.17 Though the Torah states [Exodus 27:1]: "Its height will be three cubits," [that refers to] the surface on which the wood for the sacrifices was arranged.18
The length and breadth of the Altar built by the [returning] exiles and, similarly, the one to be built in the Messianic Age, is 32 cubits by 32 cubits.19
Halacha 6
The 10 cubits of the Altar's height [were not measured in a consistent manner.]20 Sometimes the measure of a "cubit" was six handbreadths, while in other cases, the cubit's measure was five handbreadths.21 In all other cases, the cubits mentioned in the dimensions of the Temple are six handbreadths.
Halacha 7
The [Altar's] dimensions and design were as follows:24 Five handbreadths up and five handbreadths in25 [form a step called] the base. Thus, the [remaining area of the Altar] was 30 cubits and two handbreadths by 30 cubits and two handbreadths.26
Thirty handbreadths [further] up and 5 handbreadths [further] in is [called] the surrounding ledge.27
Thus, its area was 28 cubits and four handbreadths by 28 cubits and four handbreadths.28
Go up eighteen handbreadths, place a hollow, rectangular structure in each corner of this surface [thus, creating the Altar's] four horns.
Halacha 8
Each horn was five handbreadths high.33 The area of each horn was a cubit by a cubit. [All] four horns were hollow.34
Thus, the surface on which [the wood for the sacrifices] was arranged was 18 handbreadths above [the surrounding ledge.]
Half of the Altar's height [began] 6 handbreadths below the end of the surrounding ledge.35
Halacha 9
A scarlet band36 is girded around the middle of the Altar six handbreadths below the surrounding ledge to separate between the blood [to be cast on] the upper [portion of the Altar]37 and the blood [to be sprinkled on] the lower [portion of the Altar].38
Thus, the distance from the earth to the surface on which [the wood for the sacrifices] was arranged was a handbreadth less than nine cubits.39
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
There were two holes in the southwest corner [of the Altar's base],44resembling two thin nostrils. They were called Shittin.45 The blood46 [which was poured onto the Altar] would run off through them and be mixed together in the drainage canal in that corner.47 From there, it would flow out to the Kidron River.48
Halacha 12
Halacha 13
The ramp51 was constructed to the south of the Altar.52 Its length was 32 cubits, and its width, sixteen cubits. It consumed 30 cubits on the ground adjacent to the Altar, and extended [further, covering] one cubit of the base and one cubit of the surrounding ledge.53
There was a small space54 between the ramp and the Altar so that the limbs [of the sacrifices] would have to be tossed to reach the Altar.55
The height of the ramp was nine cubits minus a sixth of a cubit. It equaled that of [the surface on which the wood for the sacrifices] was arranged.56
Halacha 14
Halacha 15
Two tables were [placed] on the left side of the ramp:
One of marble, on which the limbs [of the sacrifices to be offered on the Altar] were placed,62 and
One of silver, on which sacrificial vessels were placed.
Halacha 16
When we build the Altar, it must be made as one solid block, resembling a pillar. No empty cavity may be left at all.63
We must bring whole stones, both large and small.64 Then we must create a liquid with lime, pitch, and molten lead, and pour it [over the stones] into a large mold of its dimensions.65 We must build it in this manner, ascending [level by level].66
We must place a block of wood or stone in the southeast corner of the structure, equal to the measure of [the missing portion of the Altar's] base.67Similarly, [blocks] must be placed in each horn until the building is completed.68 Then, the blocks may be removed from the structure, thus leaving the southeast corner without a base, and the horns, hollow.
Halacha 17
The four horns, the base, and a square shape are absolute requirements for the Altar. Any Altar which lacks [either] a horn, a base, a ramp, or a square shape, is unfit for use, for these four are absolute requirements.69
However, the measures of length, width, and height, are not absolute requirements,70 provided they are not less than a cubit by a cubit [in area,] and three cubits high. [The latter were] the dimensions of the surface [on which the wood for the sacrifices] was arranged for the altar [in the Sanctuary that accompanied the Jews] in the desert.71
FOOTNOTES
1.
As emphasized by the various events mentioned in this and the following halachot.
The location of the Altar within the Temple Courtyard is discussed in Chapter 5, Halachot 12-16.
2.
In this context, we can understand the Rambam's choice of words, when describing the achievements of the Mashiach (Hilchot Melachim 11:1): "He will build the Sanctuary in its place." There, he does not state "its precise location," for although the Messianic Temple in its entirety will also be built on Mt. Moriah, certain aspects of it will not correspond exactly to the Temples. Nevertheless, even then, the Altar in particular will be positioned in precisely the same location as before.
3.
Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer relates that the altar which Abraham constructed on Mt. Moriah had twelve stones. Later, when Jacob journeyed to Charan (Genesis, ch. 28), he slept on Mt. Moriah and "took from the stones of the place and put them at his head." The stones he collected were the twelve used by Abraham. God fused them all into a single stone and the unified rock was embedded in the very foundation of the earth. That stone was referred to as Even HaShtiah, (see also Chapter 4, Halachah 1) "the foundation stone." It was located in the Holy of Holies.
Thus, Abraham's altar was apparently not built on the site of the altar to be built by his descendants, but rather, at the ultimate location of the Holy of Holies. However, this difficulty can be resolved. Jacob "took from the stones," and moved them from their original place, the Altar's future site, to a different location, that of the Holy of Holies.
4.
Though David was not allowed to build the Temple, he purchased the site, constructed an altar, and offered sacrifices there.
Zevachim 62a relates that David used prophetic vision in choosing the site of the altar. According to one opinion, he saw the Heavenly Altar on which the angel Michael offers sacrifices. According to a second view, he saw the ashes of Isaac.
5.
The commentaries explain that this phrase refers to the Gentiles. Even they recognized the holiness of the Altar's site.
The fact that the Gentiles were aware that the site of the Altar is holy is Halachically relevant. The pagans living in Eretz Yisraelbefore its conquest by the Jewish people were so idolatrous that our Sages declared: "Wherever you see a lofty mountain ...or a leafy tree, know that idols were worshipped there." Since the Temple Mount was also a high mountain, surely it would have been considered an appropriate place for pagan rites.
However, since the holiness of the Altar's site was universally accepted, even the Gentiles did not profane its sanctity with idol worship.
6.
David and Solomon did not build the same Altar. Rather, David chose the site as the future location of the Temple, and constructed an Altar and offered sacrifices. Later, when Solomon built the Temple, he erected a new Altar at the same site.
7.
See Genesis 8:20.
8.
See ibid. 4:3-5.
9.
The Rambam entitled this collection of Halachot, Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, the Laws of God's Chosen House, implying that God did not select Mount Moriah as the Temple site because of its inherent holiness, but because of His own choice and desire. That choice was clearly expressed in the previous Halachah which states: "the place of the Altar is extremely exact... as it is said: 'This is the altar for the burnt offerings of Israel.'
As such, it can be explained that the Rambam does not recount the various historical events mentioned in this Halachah just to bring further proof of the holiness of the Altar's site. That is unnecessary. Rather, he wanted to demonstrate that many righteous men were aware of the uniqueness of the Altar's site through prophetic vision, and for this reason, they made efforts to offer their sacrifices there.
Why does the Rambam relate all these historical events? As he clearly states in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, his goal is not to summarize the Talmud's teachings regarding a particular subject, but to describe how to carry out the various mitzvot. These historical facts do not seem to facilitate his objective.
The need for these additions may be explained by comparison to the Rambam's decisions regarding the right to the monarchy. In that context, the Rambam writes that although God chose David and his descendants as kings and endowed them with the monarchy forever, there was a Halachic legitimacy to the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel (the ten tribes). Since the first king, Jereboam, was appointed by a prophet, his regal power must be recognized. (Hilchot Melachim 1:7,8).
It could be inferred that a similar ruling might apply in regard to the altar: i.e. the Altar on Mount Moriah would remain holy forever, however, another altar of similar status could also be established. In order to eliminate that presumption, the Rambam presents a number of examples, illustrating that throughout the generations, from the time of Adam, the prophets had tried to bring sacrifices on this site alone. These efforts clearly imply that there is not, nor will there be, another place with a similar degree of holiness (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 19, p.140-7).
10.
This statement is somewhat problematic. Though the Rambam's statements have a basis in the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah14:8), according to Sanhedrin 38b, Adam appears to have been created in the Garden of Eden, a considerable distance from this location. Generally, when a conflict arises between sources, the decision is based upon the Babylonian Talmud. Hence, one might ask why the Rambam favored the other sources in this case.
11.
Its dimensions differed from the altar built by King Solomon in the First Temple. As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 4, the fundamental design of the Second Temple resembled that of Solomon's Temple. However, certain aspects were altered to conform with Ezekiel's vision of the Messianic Temple. The dimensions and design of the altar are mentioned in Ezekiel 43:13-17 and were followed by the exiles when they returned to Jerusalem.
12.
As explained in Halachah 17, the Altar is acceptable even if its dimensions are not exact. Nevertheless, as an initial preference, an attempt must be made to conform exactly to the plan mentioned below.
13.
Chaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.
14.
For, as mentioned in Halachah 1, the Altar's site must be precise.
15.
Note the previous halachah.
16.
The Rambam's statements are taken fromZevachim 62a. However, the terminology in that source regarding Malachi's testimony is different. According to the Talmud, the prophet stated that "all the sacrifices may be offered, even though the Temple was not [built];" and the Rambam adds the phrase "on that Altar."
Later commentaries have explained the significance of that addition, based on the following episode. In the Middle Ages, the Sage, Rabbi Chayim (according to other sources, Rabbi Yechiel) of Paris madeAliyah and settled in Jerusalem. He wanted to offer sacrifices on the Temple Mount. In analyzing this account, the Chatam Sofer(Yoreh De'ah, Responsum 336) explained that this must have referred to the Pascal sacrifice, which could be offered in a state of ritual impurity and yet, did not have to be purchased with communal funds.
Among the reasons the commentaries have given why such a sacrifice could not be offered is that we are lacking an Altar with its proper size and dimensions. In contrast, the exiles who returned from Babylon were allowed to offer sacrifices on the altar built according to the prophets' directives.
17.
See Ezekiel 43:13 and commentaries.
18.
See Zevachim 59b, which records a dispute among the Sages concerning the height of Moses' (and hence, all subsequent) Altar(s).
Among the proofs brought for the opinion accepted by the Rambam are the following:
a) an analogy drawn between the sacrificial altar and the incense altar. Just as the latter's height was twice its length, so, too, the height of the sacrificial altar (10 cubits) was twice its length (5 cubits).
b) The height of Moses' Altar had to equal that of the Sanctuary that accompanied the Jews in the desert, which was 10 cubits high.
19.
This measurement refers to the dimensions of the Altar's base and not to its upper surface, as explained in the following Halachah.
20.
Kellim 17:10 relates that a cubit used in building was generally six handbreadths long. In contrast, the cubit used to measure utensils was five handbreadths long. An exception to this principle was made in regard to the Altar.
21.
A handbreadth is the width of the four fingers of the hand when they are closed loosely. There is a debate among the Rabbis regarding the equivalent of this amount in modern measurements. Some authorities consider a handbreadth as 8 centimeters and others, as large as 9.6 centimeters.
22.
Including its horns.
23.
I.e., two cubits were five handbreadths long, while the remaining eight were six handbreadths long, as explained in the following halachot.
24.
The Rambam actually included a diagram in his text of the Mishneh Torah. The accompanying diagram is based on the Rambam's original.
This entire Halachah is based on the Rambam's interpretation of Ezekiel's vision. Rashi interprets that prophecy differently, and many Rabbinic opinions follow his view. See the Kessef Mishneh and other commentaries.
25.
In this instance, five handbreadths were considered as a cubit.
26.
As mentioned above, the Altar was 32 cubits long and 32 cubits wide. Each cubit was six handbreadths long. When the five handbreadths of the base were subtracted from each side, the following equation determines the remaining length and width: 32 cubits minus 10 (i.e., 5 on either side) handbreadths, equals 30 cubits and two handbreadths.
27.
This name was chosen because, in contrast to the base, the ledge surrounded the altar on all four sides (Tifferet Yisrael).
The height of thirty handbreadths is considered as five cubits, for this cubit is measured by six handbreadths.
28.
This figure is reached when 10 handbreadths (5 on either side) are subtracted from 30 cubits and 2 handbreadths.
29.
In this case, the cubits contained six handbreadths. Each of the horns was a cubit long and a cubit wide. The space in between them was left hollow, thus, reducing both the length and the width of the upper surface of the altar by two cubits.
30.
Here too, the cubit had six handbreadths, thus reducing both the length and the width of the upper surface of the altar by two cubits.
31.
I.e., the upper surface of the altar.
32.
The Ra'avad explains that the Altar's horns were slanted inward, thus, consuming an additional four handbreadths of space and reducing the surface to exactly 24 cubits. It must be noted that both Rashi and Tosefot(Sukkah 45a) concur with the Rambam's opinion that the horns stood directly perpendicular to the Altar.
33.
The horns were a cubit high when using the measure of five handbreadths to the cubit.
34.
Zevachim 54b derives this concept as follows: The prophet Zechariah declared: "And they shall be filled like bowls, like the corners of the Altar." Thus, that vision implies that the horns located on the Altar's corners can serve as receptacles.
35.
The height of the altar can be summarized as follows:
a) the base - 1 cubit - 5 handbreadths
b) the surrounding ledge - 5 cubits - 30 handbreadths
c) the Altar's surface - 3 cubits - 18 handbreadths
d) the horns - 1 cubit - 5 handbreadths, a total of 58 handbreadths. Thus half of its height was 29 handbreadths. The surrounding ledge was 30 cubits high and the base, five. Thirty plus five minus six equals 29.
36.
The altar in the Sanctuary in the desert had a copper net screen which served this function. See Exodus 27:4-5 and Zevachim53a.
37.
The blood of a fowl brought as a burnt offering had to be cast on the upper portion of the Altar (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot6:20).
38.
The blood of a bird brought as a sin offering was sprinkled on the lower portion of the Altar (ibid. 7:6). Similarly, the blood of animals brought as burnt, guilt, or peace offerings was sprinkled in the same place (ibid. 5:6).
39.
As mentioned above, the Altar's horns were 1 cubit high. Thus, one cubit may be subtracted from the ten cubit height mentioned previously. Since the Altar's base measured five handbreadths and not six, an additional handbreadth is subtracted, leaving the figure mentioned in this Halachah.
40.
Zevachim 53b explains that although a major portion of the Temple Mount was in Judah's inheritance, the Altar was to be positioned in the tribal inheritance of Benjamin. (Note the Targum on Genesis 49:27.)
A small stretch of land extended out of the inheritance of Judah into that of Benjamin, and occupied a portion of the space that should have been taken by the Altar's base. That space was left empty to insure that the entire structure of the Altar was in the inheritance of Benjamin. Note the commentary to Chapter 7, Halachah 14.
41.
The side to one's right as one faced the Holy of Holies.
42.
The side of the Altar closest to the Temple building.
43.
Thus the Altar's base only extended one cubit on each of its southern and eastern sides.
This interpretation of the Rambam's text is based on the diagrams accompanying his commentary on the Mishnah published by Rav Kapach. Rashi's commentary (Zevachim, ibid. ) expresses the same concept. See the accompanying diagram.
44.
The blood from the sacrifices was either poured on the south or the west side of the Altar, depending on the nature of the offering. These holes were positioned in the southwest corner to facilitate drainage. (See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah,Middot 3:2.)
45.
That name was derived from the wordshotet meaning "flow." The blood from the Altar flowed away through these holes.
46.
And also the wine and water libations (seeHilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:7).
47.
The drainage canal passed through the entire Temple courtyard and was used when the priests wanted to clean the courtyard floor. They would plug the drain, flooding the entire courtyard with water, and then unplug the drain and let the water flow out through the canal.
48.
Because of the large amount of blood that would flow into that river, its water was sold as fertilizer (Commentary of the Rosh toMiddot, ibid.).
49.
The ring facilitated the lifting of the marble block.
50.
Lest the blood coagulate and cause them to become clogged.
51.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 17.
52.
I.e., on one's left when facing the Holy of Holies.
53.
The ramp was not built as a right triangle. Rather, the wall on the right side was slanted slightly, so that the ramp would cover the base and the surrounding ledge, which together protruded two cubits beyond the edge of the Altar itself.
The phrase "its length" does not refer to the length of the ramp's surface, (the hypotenuse of the triangle), but the space it occupied on the ground, as well as the two additional cubits with which it overlapped the base and the surrounding ledge. The actual length of the ramp's surface was slightly longer.
54.
Larger than the hair's breadth mentioned in the following halachah.
55.
The wood piles upon which the Altar's fire were to be kindled were arranged on the south side of the Altar, so that the priests would be able to ascend the ramp and place the sacrificial limbs directly on those pyres. However, the ramp did not reach the edge of the Altar. The priests were thus prevented from placing the limbs directly on the fire and were required to toss them.
Zevachim 62b explains the necessity to toss the limbs, as follows: The Torah draws an analogy between the flesh of an offering and its blood, as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:27): "You shall sacrifice your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood." The blood must be tossed on the Altar, as it is written (Leviticus 1:5): "And they shall toss the blood on the Altar." Hence, the limbs must also reach the pyre in that fashion.
See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:4.
56.
As mentioned in Halachah 7, the cubit measurement for the base had only five handbreadths. Thus, the Altar's - and consequently, the ramp's - height was eight and five-sixths cubits, when calculated in cubits of six handbreadths.
The Rambam's phrasing at the beginning of the Halachah, "[covering] one cubit of the base and one cubit of the surrounding ledge" requires clarification, because the base itself did not run under the ramp. However, the space for it was left vacant.
See the accompanying diagram for a depiction of the concepts mentioned in this Halachah.
57.
This small ramp was placed on the west side of the altar, the side closest to the Temple building. After the blood of the sin offerings were sprinkled as required, the rest of the blood was poured on the west side of the Altar's base. This ramp allowed the priests to reach that position.
58.
The ramp leading to the surrounding ledge was on the east side of the Altar. When the priests circled the Altar to sprinkle the blood of the sin offering on the Altar's horns, they ascended using this ramp.
The above follows the opinion expressed by Rashi (Zevachim, loc. cit.). Some other authorities maintain that both smaller ramps were situated on the west side of the Altar. Though the Rambam does not state his opinion explicitly, from his description of the sacrificial proceedings (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot: 6:20, 7:10), it appears that he accepts the first opinion.
59.
The aperture was placed there because sin-offerings were offered on the southwest corner of the Altar (Rashi, Pesachim 34a).
It appears that this aperture was located on the wall of the ramp, and not on its upper surface (Tifferet Yisrael).
60.
13Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura explains that this word means "hollow place."
The Ra'avad explains that there were two openings: one called the aperture, and the second, the Rivuvah. His opinion is not accepted by most authorities, as explained in the Kessef Mishneh.
61.
Generally, a sin-offering that is disqualified for use must be removed from the Altar and burned immediately. However, if there are no severe factors to invalidate the sacrifice, it would appear disrespectful to dispose of the sacrifice in that manner. Rather, the sacrifice is left overnight - an act which obligates a sacrifice to be removed and burnt - and disposed of the next morning (Rashi, loc. cit..).
A woman who gave birth was obligated to bring a bird as a sin offering. Hence, it was a very common sacrifice. The Rivuvah was constructed to store the birds which had become disqualified. It thus prevented confusion between those birds which were disqualified, and those which were fit to be sacrificed (Tifferet Yisrael).
62.
The communal sacrifices were brought directly from the slaughtering area to the top of the Altar by a number of priests. Thus, there was no need to set aside a place for the limbs to be placed. However, sometimes private sacrifices were offered by only one priest, who could not possibly carry all the limbs at one time. This table was useful on such occasions.
Though generally an effort was made to use precious metals in the Temple, this table was made of marble. The sages feared that a metal table would conduct heat and cause the sacrificial meat to spoil. Marble is better for this purpose, since it is a very poor conductor of heat. See Shekalim 6:4, andTamid 31b.
63.
In the sanctuary of the desert, the Altar was a hollow structure filled with earth (Exodus 27:8, Mechilta). However, such a structure was not acceptable for the Temple.
64.
See Chapter 1, Halachot 14-16.
65.
As mentioned in the following halachah, the Altar must be entirely square, yet we were forbidden to cut or file it to size. Wooden molds were employed in order to create such a shape.
66.
Zevachim 54a describes the Altar's construction in detail: First, a mold 32 cubits by 32 cubits, and one cubit high, was brought to create the base. The mixture of stones, lime, pitch, and molten lead was poured into it. Then, the mold for the second level, the surrounding ledge, was placed down. This mold was 30 cubits by 30 cubits and five cubits high. After the mixture was poured into it, the mold for the Altar's upper surface was brought. That mold, 28 cubits by 28 cubits, was three cubits high. Once it was filled, four molds, each a cubit by a cubit and one cubit high, were placed in each corner for the horns.
The measures mentioned above were all rounded off. As mentioned in Halachot 6-7, additional handbreadths must be added or subtracted for all these measures.
67.
See Halachah 10.
68.
For the horns must be hollow, as mentioned in Halachah 8.
69.
Regarding these four elements, the Torah uses the expression hamizbeiach, the Altar, implying that the Altar can only be called an Altar if it possesses these elements. If even one is lacking, the Altar is incomplete (Rashi,Zevachim, 62a):
In regard to the horns, it is written (Leviticus 4:18): "the horns of the Altar."
In regard to the base, it is written (ibid.:34): "to the base of the Altar."
In regard to the ramp, it is written (ibid. 6:7): "to the face of the Altar." This phrase refers to the ramp, for it faces the Altar and allows access to it.
In regard to the Altar's square shape, it is written (Exodus 27:1): "The Altar shall be square."
70.
See Halachah 3.
71.
See Halachah 5.
72.
In Chapter 1, Halachah, the Rambam writes: "Any stone which is damaged to the extent that a nail will become caught in it [when passing over it], as is the case regarding a slaughtering knife, is disqualified for [use in the] Altar or the ramp, as it is written (Deuteronomy 27:6): 'You shall build the Altar of the Lord with whole stones.'
The Kessef Mishneh explains that since the Torah requires whole stones to be used for the Altar, even the slightest damage renders them unfit for use. In contrast, the Torah does not make such a specification regarding the Altar itself. Hence, as long as the damage is not extensive, the Altar is not disqualified.
73.
Chullin 18a records a debate on this subject, between Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and Rabbi Elazer ben Yaakov. Rabbi Shimon mentions the measure quoted by the Rambam, while Rabbi Elazer maintains that even smaller damage, the size of an olive, can render the Altar unfit for use. Though generally, halachah is usually decided according to Rabbi Elazer's opinion, the Rambam chose that of Rabbi Shimon.
74.
As mentioned above, the Altar is rendered unfit if there is the slightest damage to its stones.
• 3 Chapters: Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 9, Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 10, Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 11 • English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download• Shechitah - Chapter 9
Halacha 1
What is meant by the termpesukah?1 If the skin that covers the marrow2 of the spinal cord is severed, [the animal] is trefe. [This applies] provided the majority of the circumference [of the skin] is severed. If, however, the skin is split lengthwise or perforated, [the animal] is permitted. Similarly, if the backbone was broken, but the spinal cord was not split or the marrow within the cord was crushed and it would wobble, [the animal] is permitted because its skin is still intact.
Halacha 2
If the marrow decomposes and it can be poured like water or like molten wax to the extent that the spinal cord cannot stand when it is lifted up, [the animal] is trefe. If [the reason] it cannot stand is because of its weight, [the animal's] status is doubtful.3
Halacha 3
To where does the spinal cord extend? It begins behind the two glands at the beginning of the neck and extends until the second divider.4 Thus nothing remains after it except the third divider which is close to the beginning of the tail.
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
What is meant by the term keru'ah?7 [This concerns] the flesh which covers the majority of [the animal's] belly. If it is ripped open, the belly will [fall] out. If this flesh is ripped open, [the animal] is trefe. [This applies] even if the tear did not reach the belly itself to the extent that it is seen. Instead, since the majority of the thickness of this flesh was ripped open8 or removed, [the animal] istrefe.
What is the measure of the tear? It must be a handbreadth long. If the animal was small and the majority of the length9 of the flesh covering the belly was torn, it is trefe even though the tear is not a handbreadth long. For the majority [of its length] was torn.
Halacha 6
Halacha 7
When the skin of an animal was removed from it entirely - whether it was torn off by hand or [decomposed due to] sickness - the animal is trefe. This is called geludah. If a [portion of] skin as wide as a sela remained on the entire backbone, one as wide as a sela remained on the navel, and one as wide as a sela remained on the tips of the limbs, [the animal] is permitted.13
Halacha 8
What is meant by the termnefulah?16 When an animal fell from a high place - at least ten handbreadths high17 - and one of its organs was crushed, it istrefe.
To what extent must it be crushed? It must be smashed and become ailing because of the fall to the extent that its form and appearance have been destroyed. Even though [the organ] is not perforated, cracked, or broken, [the animal] is trefe. Similarly, if one struck it with a stone or a staff and crushed one of its organs, it is trefe.18
To which organs are we referring? To those in the body's inner cavity.19
Halacha 9
If an animal walks after falling from a roof, we do not suspect [that it becametrefe].20 If it stood, but did not walk, we harbor such suspicions.21 If it jumped [from the roof] on its own [initiative], we do not harbor suspicions.22 If [a person] left his animal on the roof and found it on the ground, we do not suspect that it fell.23
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
When thieves steal lambs and throw them outside the corral, we do not suspect that their organs were crushed, because they throw them only with the intent that they will not be broken.27 If they returned them and threw them back to the corral because of fear,28 we suspect that they [may have becometrefe].29 If they returned them out of a desire to repent, we do not harbor suspicions about [the lambs], because [the thieves] have the intent of returning them intact and therefore they will be careful when throwing them back.
Halacha 12
When an ox was forced to lie down for slaughter, we do not suspect [that its internal organs were crushed]. [This applies] even if it fell considerably to the extent that it made a great noise30 when it was fell. [The rationale is that] it implants its hoofs into it and strengthens itself until it falls to the ground.31
Halacha 13
If one struck an animal on its head and the blow extended toward its tail or [one hit it] on its tail and the blow extended toward its head - even if one struck it on the entire backbone - we do not suspect [that it became trefe]. If the staff had bulges at different points, we harbor suspicions [concerning the animal].32If the head of the staff reached a portion of the backbone,33 we harbor suspicions. Similarly, we harbor suspicions if he struck the animal across the breadth of the backbone.34
Halacha 14
Halacha 15
Halacha 16
[The following rules apply if] it is knocked against water.40If it swam for its full height upriver, against the current, we do not suspect [that it became trefe].41If, however, it swims downriver, with the current, we harbor suspicions, for perhaps the water is carrying it.42 If it advances toward straw or hay that is floating on the river, it is swimming on its own power and we do not harbor suspicions.
Halacha 17
In all situations where we said: "We do not harbor suspicions," it is permitted to slaughter [the animal] immediately and it is not necessary to check whether an organ was crushed. In all situations where we said: "We harbor suspicions," if one slaughters the animal, one must check its entire internal category from the head to the hind-thigh.43 If any of the factors that render an animal trefe mentioned above were discovered or one of the inner organs was crushed to the extent that its form was destroyed, [the animal] is trefe. Even if one of the organs whose removal does not render the animal trefe,44e.g., the spleen or the kidneys, is crushed, [the animal] is trefe. [There is] an exception, the uterus; if it is crushed, the animal is permitted.
Halacha 18
[The gullet and the windpipe] do not require examination in these situations, for a fall will not crush them.
Halacha 19
Halacha 20
Halacha 21
When the majority of [the windpipe and the gullet were separated50 and] hang loosely, [the animal] is trefe. [This applies] even if [this condition occurs] due to reasons other than a fall.51 Similarly, if they became folded over,52 [the animal is unacceptable,] because they are no longer fit for ritual slaughter.53 If, by contrast, [even though] the majority54 of the throat55 was set loose from the jaw-bone, [the animal] is permitted, for the throat area is not fit for ritual slaughter, as we explained.56
FOOTNOTES
1.
Pesukah is also one of the eight categories of trefot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means "severed."
2.
We are using this term to translate the Hebrew term moach. It is a loose term that means the material inside a bone. Chullin45b states that this marrow is no of significance with regard to the category ofpesukah. Therefore the Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 32:1) rules that if the skin is severed, even if the marrow is entirely intact, the animal is trefe.
3.
And hence, forbidden. This ruling is granted because this question is left unresolved byChullin 45b. The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rashi who explains that this is speaking about a situation where the spine has become thick and heavy, but has not become soft inside. The question is whether this state results from sickness or not.
4.
See the following halachah for a definition of this term.
5.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 32:5) interprets this as meaning the place where the wings are attached to the body. The Rama follows the opinion of Tosafot who state that the term refers to the place where the wings lie on the body, a point somewhat lower on the fowl's back.
6.
For these portions are not fundamental for the body's functioning.
7.
Keru'ah is also one of the eight categories oftrefot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means "ripped apart."
8.
I.e., but some flesh remained. The animal is deemed trefe, because in such a condition, ultimately, the entire flesh will tear open.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that many others authorities interpret Chullin 50b, the Rambam's source, as implying that if the cut extends over the majority of the animal's belly, the animal is trefe. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes the Rashba as explaining that the Rambam does not accept this approach because if so, there would be no difference between the categories of pesukah and keru'ah. The Rashba himself does not require such a distinction and instead, maintains that these categories overlap. In his Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 48:3), he quotes the Rambam's view. The Turei Zahav 48:5 and the Siftei Cohen 48:4 mention the other positions.
9.
The dissenting perspectives also maintain that the same ruling applies with regard to the majority of the breadth of the belly (Siftei Cohen 48:6).
10.
The previous halachah was speaking about a slit where the flesh was not necessarily cut away. This halachah speaks about a situation where a portion of flesh was removed (Kessef Mishneh).
11.
A coin of the Talmudic era with a diameter that is a third of a handbreadth, i.e., 2.6 cm. According to Shiurei Torah.
12.
I.e., a sela is a little more than a third of a handbreadth. Hence the circumference of the cut is a handbreadth.
13.
Chullin 55b mentions a tradition that maintains that if an animal's entire skin is removed except for a portion the size of asela, the animal is acceptable. [For from this portion, the entire skin will be regenerated (Rashi).] The Talmud continues mentioning three views, concerning where the skin must remain. Since the matter remains unresolved and we do not know which of these views should be followed, the Rambam rules that all of the different views must be respected and a portion of skin the size of a sela must remain in each place (Kessef Mishneh).
(Significantly, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Chullin 3:2), the Rambam mentions only the view that requires skin on the backbone and not the other opinions.)
14.
This question is left unresolved by Chullin, loc. cit. Hence there is a doubt concerning the ruling.
15.
Many authorities question the Rambam's ruling. Seemingly, if the question was left unresolved by the Talmud, on what basis does the Rambam permit it?
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro offers two explanations for the Rambam's ruling:
a) As the Rambam states in Chapter 5, Halachah 3, since all the categories of trefotaside from a derusah are not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, we rule leniently concerning doubts.
b) Since the skin was removed from only one of three places mentioned, there is a multiple doubt (sefek s'feikah) involved. Perhaps the place from which the skin was removed was in fact not the vital area (for the halachah could follow one of the other views). Even if it was the vital area, perhaps the fact that the skin on the remainder of the body is intact is enough for the animal to be permitted.
In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 59:1), Rav Yosef Caro quotes the Rambam's ruling. The Siftei Cohen 59:2 mentions the opinions that differ with the Rambam. The Rama adds that if the skin is removed from all three places, the animal is trefe.
16.
Nefulah is also one of the eight categories oftrefot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means "one which fell."
17.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes Chullin 50b which states that this refers to a height of four handbreadths above the ground, for there are six handbreadths from the bottom of an animal's belly until the ground. He also cites this view in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 58:1).
Moreover, in both those sources, Rav Yosef Caro also quotes views that state that this law applies only when the animal fell on its own or knew that it was being pushed by others. If, however, it was pushed suddenly by others, it is considered trefe even if it fell from a lesser height.
18.
In this instance, the distance of ten handbreadths is not significant. Instead, if it was thrown with enough force to cause mortal damage, it can cause the animal to be rendered trefe.
19.
Therefore all of those organs must be inspected (Chullin 51a). The Ra'avad states that every organ that would render the animal trefe if crushed must be inspected.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 58:6) writes that in the present era, we are not knowledgeable with regard to conducting these examinations and an animal that falls should be permitted only if it walks, as stated in the next halachah.
20.
Walking is adequate proof that the animal was not injured by the fall to the extent that it would no longer survive. Since it walks, we assume that it is healthy and do not require an internal examination, as stated in Halachah 17. The Kessef Mishnehemphasizes that this applies only when the animal stood up on its own and then walk. If it was lifted up by others, we harbor suspicions. Similarly, he quotes authorities who maintain that it must walk in an ordinary manner. If it limps as it proceeds, an inspection is required. See Rama (Yoreh De'ah 58:6).
In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 58:5), Rav Yosef Caro quotes the opinion of the Rashba who writes that even if an obvious change was seen in its organs, as long as it was able to stand and walk, we do not suspect that it has become trefe.
21.
And require an inspection.
22.
For we assume that it prepared itself and jumped in a manner that would not cause injury. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah58:11) states that this applies even if the animal is not able to walk afterwards.
23.
We assume that it jumped intentionally, as explained above.
24.
We do not assume that their inner organs were crushed, because this is ordinary behavior.
25.
Chullin 51a states that we harbor suspicions, not because of the butting, but because the animal fell and we fear that it was injured by the fall.
26.
I.e., if we do not know that it fell.
27.
Otherwise, the stolen animal will not be of any benefit to them.
28.
I.e., the fear of being caught.
29.
For the thieves will not show any care for the animal while throwing it back into the corral.
30.
Rashi (Chullin, loc. cit.) interprets this as meaning that the ox bellowed, but this does not appear to be the Rambam's understanding.
31.
I.e., it is aware that they are trying to push it to the ground and it fights against them, thus lessening the impact of its fall. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 58:10) writes that if the ox's feet are tied when it is pushed to the ground, we do suspect that it may have becometrefe. For when its feet are tied, it cannot control its fall.
32.
For the blows dealt by the bulges will be far more severe. Hence the backbone must be inspected to see that it is intact. See Turei Zahav 32:4.
33.
In the previous clauses, the head of the staff did not carry with the brunt of the blow, because the lower portion of the staff struck the animal's body first. Here we are speaking about a situation where the first and primary focus of the blow is delivered to the backbone by the top of the staff. This is a far more dangerous situation.
34.
For the entire blow is focused on one point of the spinal cord.
35.
Or conversely, if a firm article like a stone falls upon it [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 58:2)].
36.
I.e., a mound of loose straw. Straw that has been bundled, by contrast, is considered as a firm article (Chullin 51b).
37.
One of the techniques with which hunters would trap wild fowl would be to set traps for them which would glue their wings to boards or other articles that prevented them from flying.
38.
For by flapping the other wing, it will slow its fall and lessen the impact.
39.
For there is nothing to soften the blow.
40.
It was snared and fell unto a river.
41.
For this exertion indicates that the animal is fundamentally healthy. It is equivalent to - or exceeds - the walking mentioned in Halachah 9.
42.
In a still body of water that has no current, any swimming is a sign of health (see Siftei Cohen 58:10).
43.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 58:3) quotes the Rambam's ruling. As mentioned above, the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 58:6) states that in the present age, we are not knowledgeable with regard to conducting these examinations and an animal is permitted only if it walks after falling or receiving a blow.
44.
The Ra'avad differs and maintains that there is an unresolved doubt with regard to the ruling in this instance. As mentioned, theShulchan Aruch follows the Rambam's position.
The Kessef Mishneh explains the Rambam's ruling as follows: Since Chullin 51a states that if the uterus is crushed, it is not significant, we conclude that the crushing of all other internal organs is significant. Otherwise, it would not be necessary to single out the uterus. Moreover, he explains that crushing an organ can be more painful and more injurious to an animal than removing it.
45.
I.e., if it stands - even if it does not walk - it can be slaughtered immediately and deemed acceptable through an examination, as above.
46.
For sometimes the effects of a fall are not immediately evident. It is possible that an animal would be inspected and no difficulty found, but in truth, the effects of the fall would be enough to kill it. To reduce the possibility of such an occurrence, Chullin51b requires waiting an entire day before slaughtering the animal. See Kessef Mishneh.
47.
See Halachah 17.
48.
Chullin 56a describes such a situation with regard to an animal. The Rambam speaks of a fowl instead, for this is a more commonplace possibility.
49.
Lest its organs have been crushed.
50.
This addition is made on the basis of theKessef Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 33:10).
51.
Nevertheless, the Rambam mentions this condition here in connection with an animal that has fallen, because this is the most frequent situation in which this condition will occur.
52.
They came loose from the place where they are attached within the throat area. See Chapter 3, Halachah 14, and Chapter 8, Halachah 23.
53.
The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam rules that the animal is unacceptable, not because it would die because of this condition, but because it is impossible to slaughter it correctly.
54.
If, however, the entire throat became loose from the jaw, the animal is trefe. For the gullet and the windpipe themselves, however, must remain taut and this is impossible if the entire throat has become loose (Kessef Mishneh).
55.
I.e., the area referred to by the halachic term "the entrance to the gullet."
56.
Chapter 1, Halachah 6.
Shechitah - Chapter 10
Halacha 1
What is meant by the termsheburah?1 That the majority of [an animal's] ribs are broken. An animal has eleven ribs2 on either side of its body. If six were broken on one side and six on the other, or eleven were broken on one side and one on the other, [the animal] is trefe. [This applies] provided it is the half that faces the backbone3 and not the half that faces the chest.
Halacha 2
When six [ribs] were broken on either side, [the animal] is trefe [only] when they are large ribs that have marrow. If not, even though they represent the majority of the animal's ribs and they were broken facing the backbone, [the animal] is permitted.
Similarly, if the majority of the ribs were uprooted, [the animal] is trefe. [Moreover,] if even one rib is uprooted together with half of the vertebra in which it is lodged, it is trefe. Similarly, if even one vertebra was uprooted from the backbone, it is trefe, even if was a vertebra that is below the flanks where there are no ribs.
Halacha 3
[The following rules apply when] the thigh of an animal has slipped from its place and has left its socket. If its sinews, i.e., the peg-like projections from the bones of the socket which extend toward the bone that enters the socket4and holds it have degenerated, [the animal] is trefe.5 If they have not degenerated, it is permitted.6
Halacha 4
Similarly, with regard to a fowl, if its hip is dislocated,7 it is trefe. If its wing is dislocated from its socket, we fear that it perforated the lung.8 Therefore we conduct an examination.9 Afterwards, it may be eaten. When the foreleg of an animal is dislocated from its socket, it is permitted. We do not harbor any suspicions.10
Halacha 5
When a portion of the skull of a domesticated animal or wild beast the size of a sela11 was removed, [the animal] is trefe even though the membrane was not perforated. If a skull was perforated by a number of small holes that [detract from the skull's] substance, they are all added together [to see if their combined size equals] a sela.
Halacha 6
Similarly, if the majority of the height12 and the majority of the circumference of a skull was crushed, [the animal] is trefe, even though its membrane is intact and it is not lacking any substance. If the majority of its height was crushed, but the majority of its circumference was intact or the majority of its circumference was crushed, but the majority of its height was intact, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal] is trefe or not.13 It appears to me that we forbid it.14
Halacha 7
When the bones of the skull of a water fowl, e.g., a goose, is perforated,15 [the fowl] is trefe even though the membrane has not been perforated. [The rationale is that] the membrane is soft.16
[The following procedure should be adhered to when] a weasel struck17 a land fowl on the head or it was struck by a stone or a piece of wood. One places his hand next to the hole and applies pressure or he inserts his hand into the fowl's mouth and applies pressure upward. If [the fowl's] brain emerged from the hole, it can be concluded that the membrane has been perforated and it istrefe. If not, it is permitted.18
Halacha 8
When an animal's blood pressure causes it to choke,19 it was affected by a black gall bladder secretion20 or a white gall bladder secretion,21 it ate a poison which kills animals, or drank fowl water, it is permitted.22 If it ate a poison that could kill a human or it was bitten by a snake or the like, it is permitted with regard to the laws of trefe, but it is forbidden because of the mortal danger [partaking of it could cause].23
Halacha 9
Thus the total number of conditions that cause a domesticated animal or a wild beast to be deemed trefe when singled out are seventy.24 They are: 1) an animal that has been attacked;24
2) the perforation of the entrance to the gullet;25
3) the perforation of the membrane of the brain;26
4) the degeneration of the brain itself;27
5) the perforation of the heart itself to its cavities;28
6) the perforation of the arteries leading from the heart;29
7) the perforation of the gall-bladder;30
8) the perforation of the arteries of the liver;31
9) the perforation of the maw;32
10) the perforation of the stomach;33
11) the perforation of the abdomen;34
12) the perforation of the gut;35
13) the perforation of the digestive organs;36
14) the digestive organs protruded outside the animal's body and became overturned;37
15) the perforation of the thick portion of the spleen;38
16) a lack of a gall-bladder;39
17) being born with two gall-bladders;40
18) a lack of a maw;
19) being born with two maws;
20) a lack of a stomach;
21) being born with two stomachs;
22) a lack of an abdomen
23) being born with abdomens;
24) a lack of a gut;
25) being born with two guts;
26) a lack of one of the digestive organs;
27) being born with an extra digestive organ;
28) the perforation of the lung;41
29) the perforation of the windpipe in a place where it is not fit for ritual slaughter;42
30) the perforation of the bronchioles of the lungs, even if it is covered by another one;43
31) a portion of the lungs has become closed;44
32) the degeneration of one of the bronchioles of the lungs;45
33) the discovery of putrid fluid in the lungs;46
34) the discovery of putrid liquid in the lungs;47
35) the discovery of murky liquid in [the lungs] even if it has not become putrid;48
36)the degeneration of the lung;49
37) a change in the lung's appearance;50
38) the reversal of the gullet's appearance;51
39) a lack of one of the required number of lobes of the lung;52
40) a change in the order of the lobes;53
41) the addition of a lobe on the back [of the lung];54
42) the attachment of one lobe to another out of the ordinary order;55
43) the discovery of a lung without division into lobes:56
44) the lack of a portion of the lung;57
45) a portion of the body of the lung is dried out;58
46) the discovery of the lung in an inflated state;59
47) a lung became shriveled because of fear of humans;60
48) the lack of a hindleg; whether from birth or because it was cut off;61
49) the possession of an extra leg;62
50) the removal of the junction of the sinews;63
51) the removal of the liver;64
52) the removal of the upper jaw-bone;65
53) a kidney that became extremely undersized;66
54) a kidney that has become afflicted;67
55) the discovery of fluid in the kidney;68
56) the discovery of murky liquid in the kidney, even if it is not putrid;69
57) the discovery of putrid liquid in the kidney;70
58) the severance of the spinal cord;71
59) the softening and degeneration of the spinal cord;72
60) the ripping open of the majority of the flesh that covers the belly;73
61) the removal of [an animal's] skin;74
62) the crushing of [an animal's] organs due to a fall;75
63) the slippage of the gullet and windpipe;76
64) the breaking of the majority of [the animal's] ribs;77
65) the uprooting of the majority of the ribs;78
66) the uprooting of one rib together with its vertebra;79
67) the uprooting of one vertebra; 80
68) the slippage of the thigh from its socket;81
69) the lack of a portion of the skull the size of a sela;82
70) the crushing and smashing of the majority of the skull;83
10 These seventy conditions of infirmity which cause a domesticated animal or a wild beast to be forbidden as a trefe were each explained together with all the particular laws. All of the possible parallels that can be found with regard to a fowl in the organs that are common to an animal and a fowl are the same with regard to an animal and a fowl. The only exceptions are the conditions that render an animal trefe in the kidneys, the spleen, and the lobes of the lung. For a fowl does not have a division of lobes like an animal does. If there is such a division, there is no fixed number. The spleen of a fowl is round like a grape and is not the same shape as that of an animal.84 [The conditions of infirmity] concerning the kidneys and the spleen [that render] an animal trefewere not mentioned in order to find parallels with regard to a fowl. Therefore no set measure was given concerning a fowl with regard to a kidney whose size was reduced. Similar concepts apply in other analogous situations.85
Halacha 11
There are two conditions that render a fowl trefe in addition to those that render an animal [trefe] despite the fact that [an animal] also possesses these organs. They are: a) a fowl whose digestive organs have changed color because of [exposure to] fire;86
b) a water fowl whose skull bone has been perforated.87
Halacha 12
One should not add to these conditions that render an animal trefe at all.88 For any condition that occurs with regard to a domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl aside from those listed by the Sages of the early generations and which were agreed upon by the courts of Israel can possibly live. [This applies] even if it is known to us according to medical wisdom that ultimately it will not live.89
Halacha 13
Similarly, with regard to those [conditions] which [our Sages] listed as [causing an animal to be] deemed trefe even though it appears from the medical knowledge we possess that some of them will not kill and it is possible for the animal to live - we follow only what the Torah says,90 as [Deuteronomy 17:11] states: "According to the Torah in which they will instruct you."91
Halacha 14
Whenever a butcher is knowledgeable about these [conditions that cause an animal to be deemed] trefe and he has established a reputation for observance, he may slaughter [animals], inspect them himself, and sell them without any suspicion. [The rationale is the word of] one witness is accepted with regard to the Torah's prohibition whether his testimony will lead to benefit for him or not.
We already explained92 that we do not purchase meat from a butcher who slaughters and inspects [the animal] himself in the Diaspora or [even] in Eretz Yisrael in the present age unless he established a reputation as an expert. If he sold an animal that was trefe, we place him under a ban of ostracism and remove him from his position.93 He cannot reestablish his credibility until he goes to a place where his identity is not recognized and he returns a lost article that is very valuable or [slaughters an animal] for himself and declares it trefe even though it involves a significant loss.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Sheburah is also one of the eight categories of trefot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means "broken."
2.
An animal also has several smaller ribs, but they're being broken does not impair the animal's functioning.
3.
I.e., the portion close to the backbone. If the ribs are broken there, the animal's functioning can be impaired. If they are broken closer to the chest, the impairment will be less severe.
4.
Speaking in analogy, the Rambam refers to this as "the male" bone.
5.
The Ra'avad states that if the thigh is dislocated from its upper socket, the animal is trefe even if the sinews have not degenerated. According to the Ra'avad, the law stated by the Rambam applies when the thigh is dislocated from its lower socket. TheShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 55:2) follows the Rambam's perspective. The Rama mentions that there are opinions that maintain that in the present age, we are not knowledgeable with regard to the determination of whether the sinews have degenerated and we should rule an animaltrefe whenever its thigh has dislocated. He advises following these views whenever there is not a significant loss involved.
6.
Similarly, even if they have degenerated, but the bone has not slipped out of its socket, the animal is permitted. As long as the bone is in its socket, we assume that the sinews will regenerate [Maggid Mishneh; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 55:2)].
7.
And the sinews have degenerated (Kessef Mishneh).
8.
I.e., the dislocation of the wing is not sufficient to render the fowl trefe in its own right. Nevertheless, we fear that perhaps it perforated the lung and hence require an examination.
9.
And inflate the lung [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 53:3)].
10.
For the shoulder socket is substantial and will prevent the arm bone from perforating the lung (Kessef Mishneh). The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 52:1) quotes views that rule that an animal is trefe if its arm is broken close to its body and there are signs of internal bleeding.
11.
As mentioned above, a sela is one third of a handbreadth wide. Thus its diameter is 2.6 cm according to Shiurei Torah and 3.2 cm according to Chazon Ish.
12.
I.e., the majority of the portion of the skull from the eyes up (Rashi, Chullin 52b).
13.
This question is left unresolved by Chullin, loc. cit.
14.
The Kessef Mishneh clarifies why it is necessary for the Rambam to make this statement, seemingly, it is obvious. Whenever there is an unresolved question concerning a Torah prohibition, we rule stringently. He explains that it is possible to interpret the Talmud's question is implying that in one circumstance, when the majority of the skull's height alone is crushed or the majority of its circumference alone is crushed, the animal is kosher, but we are unsure of which one. Therefore the Rambam must clarify that because of the doubt, both situations are forbidden.
15.
Even the smallest perforation can render the fowl trefe (Kessef Mishneh).
16.
If it is not protected by the skull, it will most likely be perforated in the near future (Rashi,Chullin 56a).
17.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that we are speaking about a situation where the weasel bit the fowl on the skull. If it struck it with its paws, the fowl is trefe, because it is aderusah, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 6.
18.
According to the Rambam, both of these procedures are equally effective (Kessef Mishneh). The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 30:2) writes that in the present age, we are not knowledgeable with regard to this process of examination and should rule that a fowl istrefe whenever its skull is perforated.
19.
Our translation is based on Rav Kapach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 3:5).
20.
Here also our translation follows the above source. Rav Kapach draws support for his interpretation from Psalms 74:1.
21.
Which when is not released according to the proper measure causes the animal to become very heavy and to have difficulty moving (ibid.). It must be emphasized that other commentaries offer different interpretations of all three of these conditions.
22.
In this context, the commentaries have citedHilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 4:11: "When an animal is sick because it is weakened and is on the verge of death, it is permitted, because it did not suffer a wound in any one of the limbs and organs that will cause it to die. For the Torah forbade only those situations resembling an animal mortally wounded by a preying wild beast. In that situation, the animal wounded it with a blow that caused it to die."
23.
For the poison or the venom could kill the person who partakes of the animal's meat. See Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat Nefesh12:1. 24. The Kessef Mishneh explains the basis for the Rambam's reckoning: Whenever a condition that causes an animal to be deemed trefe is mentioned explicitly by the Talmud, it is considered as being in a separate category even though it is a derivative of another category. For example, the degeneration of the bronchioles is considered a separate category even though it is a derivative of the category of the perforation of the bronchioles.
24.
See Chapter 5, Halachah 4 ff.
25.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 2.
26.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 3.
27.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 4.
28.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 5.
29.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 4.
30.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 6.
31.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 8.
32.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 10.
33.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 11.
34.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 10.
35.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 10.
36.
See Chapter 6, Halachot 13-14.
37.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 15.
38.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 19.
39.
This - and the instances mentioned in situations 18, 20, 22, 24, and 26 - are derived from the principle stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 20, that whenever the perforation of an organ causes an animal to be deemed trefe, the animal is also deemedtrefe if that organ is lacking.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam's mentions a lack of only those organs that an animal could exist for a brief time without. If, however, it is impossible for an animal to exist at all without these organs, e.g., the brain and the heart, it is improper to call the animal trefe. Instead a more severe term is appropriate.
40.
This - and the instances mentioned in situations 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27 - are derived from the principle stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 20, that whenever an animal to be deemed trefe if organ is lacking, the animal is also deemed trefe if it possesses two of that organ.
41.
See Chapter 7, Halachot 1-2.
42.
This - and the instances mentioned in situations 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27 - are derived from the principle stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 20, that whenever an animal to be deemed trefe if organ is lacking, the animal is also deemed trefe if it possesses two of that organ.
43.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 3.
44.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 6.
45.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 9.
46.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 10.
47.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 9.
48.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 9.
49.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 12.
50.
See Chapter 7, Halachot 15-19.
51.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 21.
52.
See Chapter 8, Halachot 1-2.
53.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 3.
54.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 4.
55.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 5.
56.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 7.
57.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 5.
58.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 5.
59.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 8.
60.
See Chapter 8, Halachot 9-10.
61.
See Chapter 8, Halachot 11-12.
62.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 11.
63.
See Chapter 8, Halachot 13, 15-18.
64.
See Chapter 8, Halachot 21-22.
65.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 23.
66.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 26.
67.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 23.
68.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 23.
69.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 23.
70.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 23.
71.
See Chapter 9, Halachah 1.
72.
See Chapter 9, Halachah 2.
73.
See Chapter 9, Halachot 5-6.
74.
See Chapter 9, Halachah 7.
75.
See Chapter 9, Halachot 8-9.
76.
See Chapter 9, Halachah 21.
77.
Halachah 1 of the present chapter.
78.
Halachah 2 of the present chapter.
79.
Halachah 1 of the present chapter.
80.
Halachah 1 of the present chapter.
81.
Halachah 3 of the present chapter.
82.
Halachah 5 of the present chapter.
83.
Halachah 5 of the present chapter.
84.
Therefore the distinction between its thick and thin end that applies with regard to an animal does not apply with regard to a fowl. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 43:6) rules that a perforation of the spleen does not render a fowl trefe. The Siftei Cohen43:10, however, quotes opinions that rule that a perforation does render it trefe.
85.
I.e., other factors concerning a kidney which render an animal trefe, as mentioned in Chapter 8, Halachah 26. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 44:10) states bluntly: "There are no factors involving the kidneys of a fowl that render it trefe."
86.
See Chapter 7, Halachot 20-21. An animal will not be affected in this way, because his ribs will protect him and the skin of his digestive organs are stronger than that of a fowl. The Ra'avad differs and states that if an animal is subjected to heat and it burns its internal organs to this degree, it will surely die immediately. Therefore, our Sages did not mention it as a trefe. The Kessef Mishneh notes that there are two other conditions that render a fowl trefe. They involve perforations in the stomachs. Since parallel - albeit not identical - conditions apply with regard to an animal, the Rambam does not list them as separate categories.
87.
See Halachah 7 of this chapter. This stringency applies only to a water fowl, because its membrane is very soft.
88.
Chullin 54a makes this statement, implying that in the Talmudic era, these rulings were already established.
89.
Kin'at Eliyahu cites Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 17:24 which states:
Nevertheless, since these concepts can be proven in an unshakable manner, leaving no room for question, the identity of the author, be he a prophet or a gentile, is of no concern. For when the rationale of a matter has been revealed and has proven truth..., we do not rely on [the personal authority of] the individual who made the statement... but on the proofs he presented.
From that perspective, it would appear that the empirical evidence with which science presents us should be followed. Nevertheless, in this source, the Rambam is very adamant in following the Rabbinic perspective. See Chapter 8, Halachah 25, as a clear example.
90.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 57:18) states that even if the animal survives for over a year, it is still deemed trefe and it is forbidden to partake of it.
91.
Kin'at Eliyahu cites Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 17:24 which states:
Nevertheless, since these concepts can be proven in an unshakable manner, leaving no room for question, the identity of the author, be he a prophet or a gentile, is of no concern. For when the rationale of a matter has been revealed and has proven truth..., we do not rely on [the personal authority of] the individual who made the statement... but on the proofs he presented.
From that perspective, it would appear that the empirical evidence with which science presents us should be followed. Nevertheless, in this source, the Rambam is very adamant in following the Rabbinic perspective. See Chapter 8, Halachah 25, as a clear example.
92.
Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 8:7-9.
93.
The Maggid Mishneh writes that although he is not permitted to sell meat on his own, he is permitted to sell under the supervision of a trustworthy expert.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 2:2) rules leniently concerning this manner and allows such a person to continue slaughtering in certain situations. The Siftei Cohen 2:11 questions this leniency.
Shechitah - Chapter 11
Halacha 1
[The following principles apply] whenever a situation arises that creates a doubt that an animal or fowl should be deemed trefe because of one of the above conditions - e.g., an animal that fell and did not walk, it was attacked by a wild beast and we do not know whether the flesh near the intestines turned red or not, its skull was crushed and we do not know if the majority of the skull was crushed or not, or other similar circumstances: If the animal was male and it remained alive for twelve months, we operate on the assumption that it is intact like all other animals. If it was female, [we wait] until it gives birth.1
With regard to a fowl: If it is male, [we wait] twelve months. If it is female, [we wait] until it lays all the eggs that it is carrying, spawns a new load, and lays them.
Halacha 2
During this course of time, it is forbidden to sell an animal concerning which doubt has arisen whether it is a trefe to a gentile lest he sell it to a Jew.2
Halacha 3
We operate under the presumption that all domesticated animals, wild beasts, or fowl are healthy3 and we do not suspect that they possess conditions that would render them trefe. Therefore when they are slaughtered in the proper manner, they do not require an examination to see whether they possess a condition that would render them trefe. Instead, we operate under the presumption that they are permitted unless a situation arises that arouses suspicion.4 Afterwards, we inspect it with regard to that condition alone.
Halacha 4
What is implied? For example if the wing of a fowl is displaced, we check the lung to see if it was perforated.5 If an animal fell, we check it to see if its organs were crushed.6 If the skull was crushed, we check the membrane of the brain to see if it was perforated.7 If it was struck by a thorn or shot by an arrow, a javelin, or the like and it entered its inner cavity, our suspicions are aroused and we require an inspection of the entire inner cavity lest it have perforated one of the organs whose perforation renders an animal trefe. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 5
Therefore when there are growths on a lung or sirchos upon it - i.e., strands or adhesions - hanging from it to the ribcage, the heart, or the diaphragm, we suspect that it was perforated and require an inspection.8 Similarly, if a swelling was found that contained fluid, we fear that a bronchiole below it was perforated and [the lung] must be inspected.9
Halacha 6
[Following the logic] of this law, [the following rules] would apply if it was discovered that sirchos like strands were hanging from the lung, whether they extended from the body of the lung to the ribcage or to the heart or to the diaphragm. We cut the sirchah, take out the lung, and [place it] in lukewarm water, and blow it up.10 If it is discovered to be perforated,11 [the animal] istrefe. If the water does not bubble, it is intact, without any perforations, and [the animal] is permitted. For [the sirchah] was not at the place of a perforation12 or perhaps only the outer membrane [of the lung] was perforated. Nevertheless, I never saw anyone who ruled in this manner, nor did I hear of a place that follows such practice.13
Halacha 7
Even though this is what appears [to be the ruling] from the words of the Sages of the Gemara, the widespread custom among the Jewish people is as follows: When a domesticated animal or a wild beast is slaughtered, we tear open the diaphragm and check the lung in its place.14 If a sirchah is not discovered hanging between the one of the lobes and the flesh where it lies, whether on the flesh that is between the ribs or the flesh on the breastbone,15or a sirchah was found, extending from one lobe to the other in order,16 or from the body of the lung to the lobe which is next to it,17 we permit [the animal].18
Halacha 8
If a strand is discovered leading from the lung to any place which it is extended, even if it is thin as a hair, we forbid [the animal].19
Halacha 9
Similarly, if there was a strand extending from the lung to the heart, the diaphragm, the protective covering of the heart, or the rose,20 we forbid [the animal]. [This applies] whether the strand came from the body of the lung or whether it came from a lobe and [applies regardless of its size], even if it was a hairsbreadth.21
Similarly, when the rose is attached to its pocket or a strand extends from it to its pocket, we forbid it. And when a strand extends from lobe to lobe in improper order, we forbid [the animal].22
Halacha 10
There are places where the custom is that if a sirchah is from the lobe to the flesh and the bones of the ribs and the sirchah is attached to both of them, they forbid it.23 My father and teacher is from those who forbid it. I, by contrast, am one of those who permit it.24 In a small number of places, they permit it even when it is attached to the bone alone, and I forbid it.25
Halacha 11
There are places where a lung is [always] blown up to see whether or not it is perforated. In most places, however, it is not blown up, because there is no factor that raised a suspicion [concerning it]. In Spain and in the West, we never blew up a lung unless there was a factor that caused suspicion.26
Halacha 12
Halacha 13
If, [after] a person slaughtered an animal and cut open its belly, a dog or a gentile came, took the lung, and departed before [the slaughterer] checked the lung, [the animal] is permitted. We do not say that perhaps it was perforated or perhaps it was attached [to the bone], for we do not presume that [an animal] was forbidden.30 Instead, we operate under the presumption that the animal is kosher unless we know what factor caused it to become trefe. Just like we do not suspect that the membrane of the brain was perforated, the backbone [was severed], or the like, we do not raise suspicions over a lung that has been lost. There are no customs regarding such a situation, because customs are not instituted with regard to factors that are not commonplace.
Halacha 14
If a gentile or a Jew comes and takes out a lung before the lung was inspected, but the lung [still] exists, we blow it up.31 [This applies] even if we do not know whether there were growths or not, because of the widespread custom.
15 There are places who rule that we forbid [an animal] if there are sirchothanging from the lung, even if they are not attached to the chest or to another place. This practice causes great loss and the forfeit of Jewish money. This was never the custom in France or in Spain and it was never heard in the West. It is not proper to follow this custom. Instead, all that is necessary is to blow up [the lung]. If it is discovered to be intact without a perforation, [the animal] is permitted.32
FOOTNOTES
1.
I.e., if it gives birth successfully, that is a sign that it is intact. There is no need for an inspection or waiting twelve months. Even the Rama who maintains that in the present age, we are not knowledgeable with regard to inspections will consider an animal acceptable if it lives this amount of time (Yoreh De'ah 57:18).
2.
Without informing him of the doubt involved.
The Rama quotes the Sha'arei Dura who writes that if a condition that renders an animal trefe is obvious, we permit its sale to a gentile. For a Jew who seeks to purchase it will immediately become aware of the difficulty.
The Rama also mentions the ruling of theTerumat HaDeshen that if there is merely a question of whether an animal is trefe, it may be sold to a gentile. The Siftei Cohen 57:51 accepts this leniency only with regard to an animal regarding which there is a question whether or not it was attacked, but not with regard to other conditions.
3.
Chullin 11b explains that this is based on the principle that we follow the majority. Since most animals are healthy we assume that this is an animal's condition unless there is reason to suspect otherwise. Note, however, Halachah 7.
4.
Based on Chullin 51a, the Kessef Mishnehgoes further and states that even if the animal possesses a condition that is somewhat problematic, if we can find a commonplace explanation for it that will not render an animal trefe and the factor that will render it trefe is uncommon, we do not require an examination.
5.
See Chapter 10, Halachah 4.
6.
See Chapter 9, Halachah 17.
7.
See Chapter 10, Halachah 7.
8.
I.e., the strands and similarly, the other conditions the Rambam proceeds to mention, are abnormal factors that lead us to the supposition that there was a perforation in the lung. See Chapter 7, Halachot 5-11 that mention several situations of this nature.
9.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that even if the swelling is an indication that the bronchiole has been perforated, that does not disqualify the animal, for it is possible that it is sealed by flesh. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam would also accept that ruling and one of the points that one must inspect is whether there is flesh under the swelling or not.
10.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 8. As mentioned in the notes to that halachah, there is a difference of opinion among the Rishonimconcerning this issue.
The Ra'avad also mentions that the Rambam's ruling here appears to contradict his ruling in Chapter 7, Halachah 5. For there, the Rambam differentiates between whether or not there is a bruise on the chest, and there he does not speak of inspecting the lung in warm water. In a lengthy discussion in his gloss to Chapter 7, the Kessef Mishneh explains that there is no contradiction between the two rulings.
11.
I.e., if the water bubbles.
12.
There is a difference of opinion among the halachic authorities if this situation is possible or not.
13.
I.e., as the Rambam proceeds to explain in the following halachah, the common custom is more stringent.
14.
See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:1) which states that we must check the lungs for sirchot and concludes: "Whoever breaks ranks and eats without checking [the lung] should be bitten by a snake."
15.
For as stated in Chapter 7, Halachot 3-4, even a perforation found in this place does not render the animal trefe.
16.
For as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 5, an adhesion of such a type does not render the animal trefe.
17.
See the notes to Halachah 9. Depending on the version of that text, the Rambam's ruling concerning this matter may be questioned.
18.
The Rama 39:18 writes that it is common custom in the Ashkenazic community to rule that all sirchot in the lung cause an animal to be deemed forbidden except those extending from a lobe to the lobe next to it or those from the body of the lung to the lobe next to it. He does, however, permit leniency if it is possible to rub out the sirchah and then examine it to see that there is no perforation.
19.
I.e., except to the lobe that is near it (Radbaz).
20.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 1, which explains that this is a tiny lobe found on the right side of the lung.
21.
For we fear that it will cause a perforation in the lung. See the gloss of the Radbaz to Halachah 6.
22.
The text of the Mishneh Torah which the Ra'avad had seemed to apply that even a strand extending from the body of the lung to the lobe is unacceptable. The Ra'avad therefore protests and maintains it is acceptable. The Migdal Oz states that he also saw texts of the Mishneh Torah with this version, but that the authoritative manuscripts do not follow that reading. This is also the position of the Kessef Mishneh.
23.
If the sirchah is attached to the flesh alone, it does not cause an animal to be consideredtrefe (see Chapter 7, Halachah 4). Here, however, it is attached to both the flesh and the bone and that creates the problem.
24.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:18) cites the Rambam's position.
Parenthetically, the commentaries have questioned the Rambam's statements here from the standpoint of kibud av, "honoring one's father." Seemingly, after mentioning his father, he should have stated - as he himself rules in Hilchot Mamrim 6:5 - "May he be remembered for the life of the world to come." Also, that same source (Halachah 3) forbids "offering an opinion that outweighs [that of his father]."
25.
The Ra'avad follows the more lenient view. Here also the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) cites the Rambam's position.
26.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 39:1) mentions both the custom of blowing up the lung in all cases and the Rambam's position that it is not necessary to blow up all lungs. He concludes that the Rambam's position should be given primacy.
27.
I.e., the stringencies forbidding an animal because of certain sirchot and requiring the lungs to be blown up.
28.
Halachot 6 and 7.
29.
At present, there are certain Rabbinic authorities who require that the lungs of a chicken be inspected, because in the present age, since chickens are raised in a manner very different from their natural circumstances, it is common for there to be difficulties with regard to their lungs.
30.
If there is no evidence that a factor existed that caused the animal to become trefe, we do not assume that one existed. Even according to the custom that requires an animal to be checked, we are assuming only the possibility that it might have a disqualifying factor. If there is no way to check it, we assume that the animal is kosher.
The Ra'avad differs and maintains that since disqualifying factors involving the lung are common, if a lung was not inspected, we cannot consider the animal as kosher. TheShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:2) quotes the Rambam's view. The Rama mentions the position of the Ra'avad and states that the Rambam's position may be followed only when there is a possibility of severe financial loss.
31.
Normally, we would not blow up a lung unless there was a factor that aroused suspicion. Nevertheless, in this instance, since we did not see it in its natural situation - and the possibility exists that there were such factors there - we require an examination. The Turei Zahav 39:2 states that, according to our custom [see Rama (Yoreh De'ah 39:4)] that we do not rely on an examination in a situation where there is a clearly problematic situation, we do not rely on an examination in this instance as well.
32.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:8) rules that such an animal is permitted without the lung being inspected. The Turei Zahav 39:12 states that an examination must be conducted to see whether the lung is perforated or not.
This represents the difference between glattmeat and meat that is not glatt. Glatt means "smooth," i.e., i.e., there are no sirchot, adhesions, or growths, extending from the animal's lungs. Thus there is no need to inspect it. When meat is not glatt, there weresirchot and/or the like extending from the lungs. They were inspected and no perforation was discovered. Hence, the meat is kosher. Nevertheless, there are many who follow the stringency of not partaking of it.
(It must be emphasized that, at present, glattis sometimes used as a general term to connote a higher level of punctilious observance of the details of kashrus in general without specifically referring to questions concerning the lungs.)
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class
• "Today's Day"
Monday, Adar I 20, 5776 · 29 February 2016
Thursday 20 Adar I 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Ki Tissa, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 97-103.
Tanya: Even in the (p. 137)...transgression, and so on. (p. 137).
Avoda (translated as "service" and "striving") is not the striving that avoda (service) itself be true;1 rather, truth itself is anavoda, that the "fingernails" be true.2 Why does that surprise you? "He saw the attribute of Truth," the Talmud declares,3 "and he prostrated himself."
FOOTNOTES
1. Not deceptive or illusory, that it be penetrating rather than superficial, enduring rather than transitory.
2. The "fingernails" are part of man but virtually lifeless. Truth is necessary not only in the "vital" elements of man, his thoughts, emotions, relations with others, etc. but even in the all-but-redundant, the furthest extremities.
3. Sanhedrin 111a. When G-d showed Moshe his Thirteen Attributes of Mercy - Sh'mot 34:6 - Moshe fell on his face, as told in verse 8. The Talmud asks which of the Attributes impressed Moshe so, and answers, the Attribute of Truth. See Supplementary Footnotes in the printed version, p. 125.
---------------------• Daily Thought:
The Human Untied
No one can predict the tomorrow of a human being.
We move from abject poverty to opulent wealth on a spin of the heels, from apathy to spiritual heights through a sudden flash of inspiration.
We are creatures who know no bounds, with limitless power to be whatever we want.
We get stuck—but not from a shortage of power. We are tied down only by our delusions of who we are.
---------------------
CHABAD - TODAY IN JUDAISM: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 - Today is: Wednesday, Adar I 1, 5776 · February 10, 2016 - Rosh Chodesh Adar I - Torah Reading
Rosh Chodesh: Numbers 28:1 (v) Adonai said to Moshe, 2 “Give an order to the people of Isra’el. Tell them, ‘You are to take care to offer me at the proper time the food presented to me as offerings made by fire, providing a fragrant aroma for me.’ 3 Tell them, ‘This is the offering made by fire that you are to bring to Adonai: male lambs in their first year and without defect, two daily as a regular burnt offering.
28:3:1 Tell them, ‘This is the offering made by fire that you are to bring to Adonai: male lambs in their first year and without defect, two daily as a regular burnt offering. 4 Offer the one lamb in the morning and the other lamb at dusk, 5 along with two quarts of fine flour as a grain offering, mixed with one quart of oil from pressed olives. 6 It is the regular burnt offering, the same as was offered on Mount Sinai to give a fragrant aroma, an offering made by fire for Adonai. 7 Its drink offering is to be one-quarter hin for one lamb; in the Holy Place you are to pour out a drink offering of intoxicating liquor to Adonai. 8 The other lamb you are to present at dusk; present it with the same kind of grain offering and drink offering as in the morning; it is an offering made by fire, with a fragrant aroma for Adonai.
9 “‘On Shabbat offer two male lambs in their first year and without defect, with one gallon of fine flour as a grain offering, mixed with olive oil, and its drink offering. 10 This is the burnt offering for every Shabbat, in addition to the regular burnt offering and its drink offering.
11 “‘At each Rosh-Hodesh of yours, you are to present a burnt offering to Adonai consisting of two young bulls, one ram and seven male lambs in their first year and without defect; 12 with six quarts of fine flour mixed with olive oil as a grain offering for the one ram; 13 and two quarts of fine flour mixed with olive oil as a grain offering for each lamb. This will be the burnt offering giving a fragrant aroma, an offering made by fire for Adonai. 14 Their drink offerings will be two quarts of wine for a bull, one-and-one-third quarts for the ram, and one quart for each lamb. This is the burnt offering for every Rosh-Hodesh throughout the months of the year. 15 Also a male goat is to be offered as a sin offering to Adonai, in addition to the regular burnt offering and its drink offering.
Today's Laws & Customs:
• Rosh Chodesh Observances
Today is the second of the two Rosh Chodesh ("Head of the Month") days for the month of Adar I (this year being a leap year there are two months called "Adar" -- Adar I and Adar II).
Special portions are added to the daily prayers: Hallel (Psalms 113-118) is recited -- in its "partial" form -- following the Shacharit morning prayer, and the Yaaleh V'yavo prayer is added to the Amidah and to Grace After Meals; the additional Musaf prayer is said (when Rosh Chodesh is Shabbat, special additions are made to the Shabbat Musaf). Tachnun (confession of sins) and similar prayers are omitted.
Many have the custom to mark Rosh Chodesh with a festive meal and reduced work activity. The latter custom is prevalent amongst women, who have a special affinity with Rosh Chodesh -- the month being the feminine aspect of the Jewish Calendar.
Links: The 29th Day; The Lunar Files
• Leap Year
This year is a shanah meuberet (lit., "a pregnant year") or a leap year on the Jewish calendar. The Jewish leap year, which occurs 7 times in a 19-year cycle, has 13 months instead of the regular year's 12. This is so that the lunar-based Jewish year should remain aligned with the solar seasons (12 lunar months make up a total of 354 days -- slightly more than 11 days short of the 365.25 day solar cycle). The added month is called "Adar I" and is inserted before the month of Adar (termed "Adar II" in leap years).
The festival of Purim celebrated on Adar 14, is in Adar II on leap years, while the 14th of the Adar I is marked only as "Purim Minor." Similarly, birthdays and most other anniversaries are marked on the 2nd Adar.
Links The 19-Year Marriage
Daily Quote:
And Jacob worked seven years for Rachel; and they seemed to him but a few days, for the love he had to her.[Genesis 29:20]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Terumah, 4th Portion Exodus 26:15-26:30 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Exodus Chapter 26
15"And you shall make the planks for the Mishkan of acacia wood, upright. טווְעָשִׂ֥יתָ אֶת־הַקְּרָשִׁ֖ים לַמִּשְׁכָּ֑ן עֲצֵ֥י שִׁטִּ֖ים עֹֽמְדִֽים:
And you shall make the planks: It should have said, “And you shall make planks” [without the definite article], as it is said concerning each thing [i.e., each part of the Mishkan]. What is the meaning of "the planks"? Of those [particular planks] that were standing [ready] and designated for this [purpose]. Our patriarch, Jacob, planted cedars in Egypt, and when he was dying, he commanded his sons to bring them up with them when they left Egypt. He told them that the Holy One, blessed is He, was destined to command them to make a Mishkan of acacia wood in the desert. "See that they should be ready in your hands." This is what the liturgical poet composed in his liturgical poem [the beginning of the Yotzer for the first day of Passover]: “It [God’s voice] flew to the planting of the quickened ones, the cedar beams of our houses,” for they hurried to have them [the cedars] ready in their hands prior to this moment, [i.e., prior to the command to build the Mishkan]. — [from Mid. Tanchuma 9] ועשית את הקרשים: היה לו לומר ועשית קרשים, כמה שנאמר בכל דבר ודבר, ומהו הקרשים, מאותן העומדין ומיוחדין לכך. יעקב אבינו צפה ברוח הקדש ונטע ארזים במצרים, וכשמת צוה לבניו להעלותם עמהם כשיצאו ממצרים, אמר להם, שעתיד הקב"ה לצוות אתכם לעשות משכן במדבר מעצי שטים, ראו שיהיו מזומנים בידכם. הוא שיסד הבבלי בפיוט שלו טם מטע מזורזים קורות בתינו ארזים, שנזדרזו להיות מוכנים בידם מקודם לכן:
acacia wood, upright: Heb. עֹמְדִים, estantivs in Old French, upright, perpendicular. The length of the planks shall be perpendicular [to each other] in the walls of the Mishkan. You shall not make the walls of horizontal planks, so that the width of the planks will be along the height of the walls, one plank [lying] upon [another] plank. — [from Jonathan, Yoma 72a] עצי שטים עומדים: אישטנטיבי"ש בלעז [עומדות] שיהא אורך הקרשים זקוף למעלה בקירות המשכן, ולא תעשה הכתלים בקרשים שוכבים להיות רוחב הקרשים לגובה הכתלים קרש על קרש:
16"Ten cubits [shall be] the length of each plank, and a cubit and a half [shall be] the width of each plank. טזעֶ֥שֶׂר אַמּ֖וֹת אֹ֣רֶךְ הַקָּ֑רֶשׁ וְאַמָּה֙ וַֽחֲצִ֣י הָֽאַמָּ֔ה רֹ֖חַב הַקֶּ֥רֶשׁ הָֽאֶחָֽד:
Ten cubits [shall be] the length of each plank: [From here] we learn [that] the height of the Mishkan was ten cubits. — [from Shab. 92a] עשר אמות ארך הקרש: למדנו שגבהו של משכן עשר אמות:
and a cubit and a half [shall be] the width: [From here] we learn [that] the length of the Mishkan, [which corresponds to the] twenty planks that were on the north[ern] and the south[ern sides] from east to west, was thirty cubits. ואמה וחצי האמה רחב: למדנו ארכו של משכן לעשרים קרשים, שהיו בצפון ובדרום מן המזרח למערב, שלשים אמה:
17"Each plank shall have two square pegs, rung like, one even with the other; so shall you make all the planks of the Mishkan. יזשְׁתֵּ֣י יָד֗וֹת לַקֶּ֨רֶשׁ֙ הָאֶחָ֔ד מְשֻׁ֨לָּבֹ֔ת אִשָּׁ֖ה אֶל־אֲחֹתָ֑הּ כֵּ֣ן תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֔ה לְכֹ֖ל קַרְשֵׁ֥י הַמִּשְׁכָּֽן:
Each plank shall have two square pegs: He [Bezalel] would cut one cubit high into the plank from the bottom in its center, and leave one-fourth of its width on one side and one-fourth of its width on the other side, and these [resulting projections] are [called] the square pegs. Half the width of the plank was cut out in its center, (I.e., the plank, הַקֶּרֶשׁ, refers to what remained after he cut out from both sides; then the width of a cubit remained. The result is that half of the width of the plank in the middle is a half cubit. This is what Rashi explained explicitly on Shab. 98-[i.e.,] that in the center, the width of one-half cubit was cut out, and he [also] cut out a quarter of a cubit on each side. Every square peg was a quarter of a cubit wide, and the edge of each socket was a quarter of a cubit wide. Study this thoroughly. Then [you will see] that Ramban’s complaint against Rashi will disappear, and his astonishment will no longer be valid.) and he would insert these square pegs into the sockets, which were hollow. And the sockets were one cubit high, and forty of them were placed consecutively-one next to the other-and the square pegs of the planks that were inserted into the hollow of the sockets were cut out on three of their sides. The width of the cut [was] as thick as the edge of the socket, so that the plank covered the entire top of the socket. Otherwise, there would be a space between one plank and the next plank equal to the thickness of the edge of the two sockets, which would then separate them. This is the meaning of what is said: “And they shall be matched evenly from below” (verse 24); i.e., he [Bezalel] shall cut out the sides of the square pegs so that the boards shall join, one [plank exactly] next to the other. — [from Baraitha Melecheth HaMishkan] שתי ידות לקרש האחד: היה חורץ את הקרש מלמטה, באמצעו בגובה אמה, מניח רביע רחבו מכאן ורביע רחבו מכאן, והן הן הידות, והחריץ חצי רוחב הקרש באמצע, ואותן הידות מכניס בא-דנים שהיו חלולים, והא-דנים גבהן אמה ויושבים רצופים ארבעים זה אצל זה, וידות הקרש, הנכנסים בחלל הא-דנים, חרוצות משלשת צדיהן, רוחב החריץ כעובי שפת האדן, שיכסה הקרש את כל ראש האדן, שאם לא כן נמצא ריוח בין קרש לקרש כעובי שפת שני הא-דנים שיפסיקו ביניהם, וזהו שנאמר (לקמן כד) ויהיו תאמים מלמטה, שיחרוץ את צדי הידות, כדי שיתחברו הקרשים זה אצל זה:
rung-like: Heb. מְשׁוּלָּבֹת, [which means] made like the rungs of a ladder, [i.e.,] separated from one another with their ends planed off to be inserted into the openings of the sockets, like a rung that is inserted into the hole of the upright [beams] of a ladder. — [from Baraitha Melecheth HaMishkan] משולבות: עשויות כמין שליבות סולם, מובדלות זו מזו ומשופין ראשיהם לכנס בתוך חלל האדן כשליבה, הנכנסת בנקב עמודי הסולם:
one even with the other: One [square peg was] aligned opposite the other so that their cut-away parts would be even, one with the measurement of the other, so that of the two square pegs, one shall not be pulled [more] toward the inside and one pulled [more] toward the outside of the thickness of the plank, which was a cubit. The Aramaic translation of יָדוֹת is צִירִין, hinges, because they resemble the hinges of a door, which are inserted into the holes of the threshold. אשה אל אחתה: מכוונות זו כנגד זו, שיהיו חריציהם שוים, זו כמדת זו, כדי שלא יהיו שתי ידות זו משוכה לצד פנים וזו משוכה לצד חוץ בעובי הקרש שהוא אמה. ותרגום של ידות צירין, לפי שדומות לצירי הדלת הנכנסים בחורי המפתן:
18"And you shall make the planks for the Mishkan, twenty planks for the southern side. יחוְעָשִׂ֥יתָ אֶת־הַקְּרָשִׁ֖ים לַמִּשְׁכָּ֑ן עֶשְׂרִ֣ים קֶ֔רֶשׁ לִפְאַ֖ת נֶ֥גְבָּה תֵימָֽנָה:
for the southern side: Heb. לִפְאַתנֶגְבָּה ךְתֵּימָנָה. [The word לִפְאַת is derived from פֵּאָה, which usually means “corner.”] This [use of the word] פֵּאָה is not an expression meaning “corner,” rather the whole side is referred to as פֵּאָה, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders: לְרוּחַ עֵיבַר דָרוֹמָא, to the side toward the south. לפאת נגבה תימנה: אין פאה זו לשון מקצוע, אלא כל הרוח קרויה פאה, כתרגומו לרוח עיבר דרומא:
19"And you shall make forty silver sockets under the twenty planks; two sockets under one plank for its two square pegs, and two sockets under one plank for its two square pegs. יטוְאַרְבָּעִים֙ אַדְנֵי־כֶ֔סֶף תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֕ה תַּ֖חַת עֶשְׂרִ֣ים הַקָּ֑רֶשׁ שְׁנֵ֨י אֲדָנִ֜ים תַּֽחַת־הַקֶּ֤רֶשׁ הָֽאֶחָד֙ לִשְׁתֵּ֣י יְדֹתָ֔יו וּשְׁנֵ֧י אֲדָנִ֛ים תַּֽחַת־הַקֶּ֥רֶשׁ הָֽאֶחָ֖ד לִשְׁתֵּ֥י יְדֹתָֽיו:
20"And for the second side of the Mishkan on the northern side twenty planks. כוּלְצֶ֧לַע הַמִּשְׁכָּ֛ן הַשֵּׁנִ֖ית לִפְאַ֣ת צָפ֑וֹן עֶשְׂרִ֖ים קָֽרֶשׁ:
21"And their forty silver sockets: two sockets under one plank and two sockets under one plank. כאוְאַרְבָּעִ֥ים אַדְנֵיהֶ֖ם כָּ֑סֶף שְׁנֵ֣י אֲדָנִ֗ים תַּ֚חַת הַקֶּ֣רֶשׁ הָֽאֶחָ֔ד וּשְׁנֵ֣י אֲדָנִ֔ים תַּ֖חַת הַקֶּ֥רֶשׁ הָֽאֶחָֽד:
22"And for the western end of the Mishkan you shall make six planks. כבוּלְיַרְכְּתֵ֥י הַמִּשְׁכָּ֖ן יָ֑מָּה תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֖ה שִׁשָּׁ֥ה קְרָשִֽׁים:
And for the…end of: Heb. וּלְיַרְכְּתֵי, a word meaning “end” [in Hebrew, סוֹף], as the Targum [Onkelos] renders: וְלִסְיָפֵי. Since the entrance [of the Mishkan] is in the east, [thus] the east[ern side] is called the front and the west[ern side] the back. This is the reason it is [referred to as] the end, because the front is the beginning. ולירכתי: לשון סוף, כתרגומו ולסייפי, ולפי שהפתח במזרח, קרוי המזרח פנים, והמערב אחורים, וזהו סוף, שהפנים הוא הראש:
you shall make six planks: Hence, nine cubits are the width [of the Mishkan, since each plank is one and one-half cubits wide]. תעשה ששה קרשים: הרי תשע אמות רוחב:
23"And you shall make two planks at the corners of the Mishkan at the end. כגוּשְׁנֵ֤י קְרָשִׁים֙ תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֔ה לִמְקֻצְעֹ֖ת הַמִּשְׁכָּ֑ן בַּיַּרְכָתָֽיִם:
And you shall make two planks at the corners: One at the northwestern corner and one at the southwestern corner. All eight planks were in one row, but these two [in the corners] were not in the [interior] space of the Mishkan. Only a half cubit from here [from one plank] and a half cubit from there [from another plank] appear in the [interior] space, to complete its width to [the total of] ten [cubits]. The [extra] cubit from here and the cubit from there [i.e., of each corner plank] coincide with the cubits of the thickness of the planks of the Mishkan on the north[ern] and the south[ern sides], so that the corner would be even on the outside. ושני קרשים תעשה למקצעת: אחד למקצוע צפונית מערבית ואחד למערבית דרומית, כל שמונה קרשים בסדר אחד הן, אלא שאלו השנים אינן בחלל המשכן, אלא חצי אמה מזו וחצי אמה מזו נראות בחלל להשלים רחבו לעשר, והאמה מזה והאמה מזה באות כנגד אמת עובי קרשי המשכן, הצפון והדרום, כדי שיהא המקצוע מבחוץ שוה:
24"And they shall be matched evenly from below, and together they shall match at its top, [to be put] into the one ring; so shall it be for both of them; they shall be for the two corners. כדוְיִֽהְי֣וּ תֹֽאֲמִם֘ מִלְּמַ֒טָּה֒ וְיַחְדָּ֗ו יִֽהְי֤וּ תַמִּים֙ עַל־רֹאשׁ֔וֹ אֶל־הַטַּבַּ֖עַת הָֽאֶחָ֑ת כֵּ֚ן יִֽהְיֶ֣ה לִשְׁנֵיהֶ֔ם לִשְׁנֵ֥י הַמִּקְצֹעֹ֖ת יִֽהְיֽוּ:
And they shall be matched evenly from below: All the planks must be flush at the bottom, so that the thickness of the edges of the two sockets should not form a gap to distance them [the planks] from one another. This is what I [meant when I] explained that the hinges of the square pegs [according to Yosef Hallel: the sides of the square pegs] should be cut out around their sides, so that the width of the plank should protrude on its sides away from the square pegs of the plank, [in order] to cover the edge of the socket, and so [with] the plank next to it [as well]. Thus, the planks are found to be flush with each other. [Each] corner plank in the western row was cut away in the width, in [the part of] its thickness [aligned] opposite the cut-away portion of the northern plank’s side, in order that the sockets should not separate them. ויהיו: כל הקרשים תואמים זה לזה מלמטה שלא יפסיק עובי שפת שני הא-דנים ביניהם להרחיקם זו מזו. זהו שפרשתי (לעיל יז) שיהיו צירי הידות חרוצים מצדיהן, שיהא רוחב הקרש בולט לצדיו חוץ ליד הקרש לכסות את שפת האדן, וכן הקרש שאצלו, ונמצאו תואמים זה לזה. וקרש המקצוע שבסדר המערב חרוץ לרחבו בעביו כנגד חריץ של צד קרש הצפוני והדרומי, כדי שלא יפרידו הא-דנים ביניהם:
and together they shall match: Heb. תַמִּים, like תְאוּמִים, twins. ויחדו יהיו תמים: כמו תואמים:
at its top: [The top] of the plank. על ראשו: של קרש:
into the one ring: Every plank was cut away [a little] at the top along its width. [There were] two cuts on its two sides [to contain] the thickness of a ring. He [Moses] would insert them [the two planks] into one ring, thus it [the plank] would match the plank next to it. As for these rings, however, I do not know whether they were permanent or removable. On the corner plank, the ring was in the thickness of the southern and northern planks, (It appears that the words “the northern and the southern” belong further down, and Rashi means to say that the northern and the southern [planks] and the top of the corner plank in the western row were inserted into it [the ring]. What Rashi writes that the ring was in the thickness of the plank means in the thickness of the western plank. Give this some thought.) and the top of the [other] corner plank of the western row was inserted into it [this ring], resulting in the joining of the two walls. אל הטבעת האחת: כל קרש וקרש היה חרוץ למעלה ברחבו שני חריצין בשני צדיו כדי עובי טבעת, ומכניסו בטבעת אחת, נמצא מתאים לקרש שאצלו. אבל אותן טבעות לא ידעתי אם קבועות הן אם מטולטלות. ובקרש שבמקצוע היה טבעת בעובי הקרש הדרומי והצפוני, וראש קרש המקצוע שבסדר מערב נכנס לתוכו, נמצאו שני הכתלים מחוברים:
so shall it be for both of them: For the two planks at the corners, for the plank at the [western] end of the north[ern side] and for the [adjacent] western plank; so too for the two corners. כן יהיה לשניהם: לשני הקרשים שבמקצוע, לקרש שבסוף צפון ולקרש המערבי וכן לשני המקצועות:
25"And there shall be eight planks and their silver sockets, sixteen sockets two sockets under one plank and two sockets under one plank. כהוְהָיוּ֙ שְׁמֹנָ֣ה קְרָשִׁ֔ים וְאַדְנֵיהֶ֣ם כֶּ֔סֶף שִׁשָּׁ֥ה עָשָׂ֖ר אֲדָנִ֑ים שְׁנֵ֣י אֲדָנִ֗ים תַּ֚חַת הַקֶּ֣רֶשׁ הָֽאֶחָ֔ד וּשְׁנֵ֣י אֲדָנִ֔ים תַּ֖חַת הַקֶּ֥רֶשׁ הָֽאֶחָֽד:
And there shall be eight planks: Those are the [same] ones mentioned above: “you shall make six planks. And you shall make two planks at the corners of the Mishkan at the end” (verses 22, 23) [thereby there were eight planks on the western wall]. The following is the Mishnah concerning the making of the order of the planks in the [Baraitha] Melecheth HaMishkan (ch. 1): He made the sockets hollow and he cut out the plank from below, one-fourth from here and one-fourth from there, and the cut-away [area] was one half in the middle. He made for it [the plank] two square pegs like sort of two legs (חֲמוּקִים). I believe that the reading is: like sort of two חַוָּקִין, [which means] like sort of two rungs of a ladder which are separated from one another, and planed [in order] to be inserted into the hollow of the socket, like the rung, which is inserted into the hole of the side of the ladder. This is the word מְשׁוּלָּבֹת, [i.e.,] made like a sort of rung. He would insert them [the square pegs] into the two sockets, as it is said: “two sockets…two sockets…” (verse 25), and he would cut away the plank on top, [the width of] a finger from one side and [the width of] a finger from the other side, and he would insert [the edges of the two planks] into one golden ring so that they would not separate from one another, as it is said: “And they shall be matched evenly from below, etc.” (verse 24). This is [the wording of] the Mishnah [in Baraitha Melecheth HaMishkan], and I presented its explanation above in the sequence of the verses. והיו שמנה קרשים: הם האמורים למעלה (פסוקים כב - כג) תעשה ששה קרשים ושני קרשים תעשה למקצעות, נמצאו שמנה קרשים בסדר מערבי. כך שנויה במשנת מעשה סדר הקרשים במלאכת המשכן (פרק א) היה עושה את הא-דנים חלולים, וחורץ את הקרש מלמטה רביע מכאן ורביע מכאן, והחריץ חציו באמצע, ועשה לו שתי ידות כמין שני חמוקין ולי נראה שהגרסא כמין שני חווקין, כמין שתי שליבות סולם המובדלות זו מזו ומשופות להכנס בחלל האדן כשליבה, הנכנסת בנקב עמוד הסולם, והוא לשון משולבות, עשויות כמין שליבה, ומכניסן לתוך שני א-דנים, שנאמר (פסוק יט) שני א-דנים ושני א-דנים, וחורץ את הקרש מלמעלה אצבע מכאן ואצבע מכאן ונותן לתוך טבעת אחת של זהב כדי שלא יהיו נפרדים זה מזה, שנאמר (פסוק כד) ויהיו תואמים מלמטה וגו'. כך היא המשנה, והפרוש שלה הצעתי למעלה בסדר המקראות:
26"And you shall make bars of acacia wood, five for the planks of one side of the Mishkan, כווְעָשִׂ֥יתָ בְרִיחִ֖ם עֲצֵ֣י שִׁטִּ֑ים חֲמִשָּׁ֕ה לְקַרְשֵׁ֥י צֶֽלַע־הַמִּשְׁכָּ֖ן הָֽאֶחָֽד:
bars: Heb. בְרִיחִם, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders: עַבְּרִין, and in Old French espar(re)s, cross-bars. בריחם: כתרגומו עברין ובלעז אישבר"ש [מוטות]:
five for the planks of one side of the Mishkan: These five [bars] were actually three, but the top and the bottom bars were made of two segments-one [part] would penetrate until half of the wall, and the other one would penetrate until half of the wall[’s length]. One [part of the bar] was inserted into a ring from this [one] side, and this [other] one was inserted into a ring on the other side until one [part of the bar] reached the other. Thus, the top one [bar] and the bottom one [bar] were two, but actually they were four. But the length of the middle one [bar] ran along the entire wall, and penetrated from one end of the wall to its other end, as it is said: “And the middle bar…shall [extend and] penetrate from one end to the other end” (verse 28). The top and bottom ones [bars] had rings on the planks in which they were to be inserted, two rings for every plank, attached in three places within the ten cubits of the height of the plank-one part from the highest ring to the top and one part from the lowest [ring] to the bottom. Each part was one-fourth of the length of the plank, and [there] were two parts between one ring and the other ring, so that all the rings would be aligned with the other. The middle bar, however, had no rings, but the planks were pierced through their thickness and it [the middle bar] was inserted into them by way of the holes, which were aligned one opposite the other. This is [the meaning of] what is said: “in the midst of the planks” (verse 28). The highest and lowest bars on the north[ern] and the south[ern sides] were each fifteen cubits long, and the middle one was thirty cubits long. This is [the meaning of] “from one end to the other end” (verse 28), from east to west. [Regarding] the five bars on the west: the top and bottom ones were six cubits long, and the middle one was twelve [cubits] long, corresponding to the width of the eight planks. It is explained this way in [the Baraitha] Melecheth HaMishkan (ch. 1). חמשה לקרשי צלע המשכן: אלו חמשה שלשה הן, אלא שהבריח העליון והתחתון עשוי משתי חתיכות, זה מבריח עד חצי הכותל וזה מבריח עד חצי הכותל, זה נכנס בטבעת מצד זה וזה נכנס בטבעת מצד זה, עד שמגיעין זה לזה, נמצאו שעליון ותחתון שנים שהן ארבע, אבל האמצעי ארכו כנגד כל הכותל ומבריח מקצה הכותל ועד קצהו, שנאמר (פסוק כח) והבריח התיכון וגו' מבריח מן הקצה אל הקצה, שהעליונים והתחתונים היו להן טבעות בקרשים להכנס לתוכן שתי טבעות לכל קרש, משולשים בתוך עשר אמות של גובה הקרש, חלק אחד מן הטבעת העליונה ולמעלה וחלק אחד מן התחתונה ולמטה, וכל חלק הוא רביע אורך הקרש, ושני חלקים בין טבעת לטבעת, כדי שיהיו כל הטבעות מכוונות זו כנגד זו. אבל לבריח התיכון אין טבעות, אלא הקרשים נקובין בעוביין והוא נכנס בהם דרך הנקבים שהם מכוונין זה מול זה, וזהו שנאמר בתוך הקרשים. הבריחים העליונים והתחתונים שבצפון ושבדרום אורך כל אחת חמישה עשר אמה, ובתיכון ארכו שלשים אמה, וזהו מן הקצה אל הקצה, מן המזרח ועד המערב, וחמשה בריחים שבמערב אורך העליונים והתחתונים שש אמות והתיכון ארכו שתים עשרה כנגד רוחב שמונה קרשים, כך היא מפורשת במלאכת המשכן (פרק א):
27"and five bars for the planks of the second side of the Mishkan, and five bars for the planks of the [rear] side of the Mishkan, on the westward end. כזוַֽחֲמִשָּׁ֣ה בְרִיחִ֔ם לְקַרְשֵׁ֥י צֶֽלַע־הַמִּשְׁכָּ֖ן הַשֵּׁנִ֑ית וַֽחֲמִשָּׁ֣ה בְרִיחִ֗ם לְקַרְשֵׁי֙ צֶ֣לַע הַמִּשְׁכָּ֔ן לַיַּרְכָתַ֖יִם יָֽמָּה:
28"And the middle bar in the midst of the planks shall [extend and] penetrate from one end to the other end. כחוְהַבְּרִ֥יחַ הַתִּיכֹ֖ן בְּת֣וֹךְ הַקְּרָשִׁ֑ים מַבְרִ֕חַ מִן־הַקָּצֶ֖ה אֶל־הַקָּצֶֽה:
29"And you shall overlay the planks with gold, and their rings you shall make of gold as holders for the bars, and you shall overlay the bars with gold. כטוְאֶת־הַקְּרָשִׁ֞ים תְּצַפֶּ֣ה זָהָ֗ב וְאֶת־טַבְּעֹֽתֵיהֶם֙ תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֣ה זָהָ֔ב בָּתִּ֖ים לַבְּרִיחִ֑ם וְצִפִּיתָ֥ אֶת־הַבְּרִיחִ֖ם זָהָֽב:
as holders for the bars: The rings that you shall make for them shall be holders for the bars to enter [them]. בתים לבריחם: הטבעות, שתעשה בהן, יהיו בתים להכניס בהן הבריחים:
and you shall overlay the bars with gold: [This does] not [mean] that the gold was attached onto the bars, for they [the bars] had no covering. But he [Bezalel] attached something onto the plank akin to two tubes of gold, something like two halves of a hollow reed, and he attached them to the rings on both sides, their length filling the [entire] width of the plank from the ring to one side and from it to the other side. The bar was inserted into it [the tube], and from it into the ring, and from the ring into the second tubes. Thus, the bars were found to be overlaid with gold when they were inserted into the planks. These bars protruded to the outside [of the Mishkan]. [Thus] the rings and the tubes were not visible within the Mishkan, but from the inside the entire wall was unadorned. — [from Baraitha Melecheth HaMishkan with Rashi’s interpretation] וצפית את הבריחם זהב: לא שהיה הזהב מדובק על הבריחים, שאין עליהם שום צפוי, אלא בקרש היה קובע כמין שני פיפיות של זהב כמין שני סדקי קנה חלול, וקובען אצל הטבעות לכאן ולכאן ארכן ממלא את רוחב הקרש מן הטבעת לכאן וממנה לכאן והבריח נכנס לתוכו וממנו לטבעת ומן הטבעת לפה השני, נמצאו הבריחים מצופין זהב, כשהן תחובין בקרשים, והבריחים הללו מבחוץ היו בולטות והטבעות והפיפיות לא היו נראות בתוך המשכן אלא כל הכותל חלק מבפנים:
30"And you shall erect the Mishkan according to its proper manner, as you will have been shown on the mountain. לוַֽהֲקֵֽמֹתָ֖ אֶת־הַמִּשְׁכָּ֑ן כְּמִ֨שְׁפָּט֔וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר הָרְאֵ֖יתָ בָּהָֽר:
And you shall erect the Mishkan: After it is completed, erect it. והקמת את המשכן: לאחר שיגמר הקימהו:
you will have been shown on the mountain: prior to this, for I am destined to teach you and show you the order of its erection. הראית בהר: קודם לכן, שאני עתיד ללמדך ולהראותך סדר הקמתו:
----------------------------
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 1 - 9
• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 1
This psalm inspires man to study Torah and avoid sin. One who follows this path is assured of success in all his deeds, whereas the plight of the wicked is the reverse.
1. Fortunate is the man that has not walked in the counsel of the wicked, nor stood in the path of sinners, nor sat in the company of scoffers.
2. Rather, his desire is in the Torah of the Lord, and in His Torah he meditates day and night.
3. He shall be like a tree planted by streams of water, that yields its fruit in its season, and whose leaf does not wither; and all that he does shall prosper.
4. Not so the wicked; rather, they are like the chaff that the wind drives away.
5. Therefore the wicked will not endure in judgement, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
6. For the Lord minds the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.
Chapter 2
This psalm warns against trying to outwit the ways of God. It also instructs one who has reason to rejoice, to tremble—lest his sins cause his joy to be overturned.
1. Why do nations gather, and peoples speak futility?
2. The kings of the earth rise up, and rulers conspire together, against the Lord and against His anointed:
3. “Let us sever their cords, and cast their ropes from upon us!”
4. He Who sits in heaven laughs, my Master mocks them.
5. Then He speaks to them in His anger, and terrifies them in His wrath:
6. “It is I Who have anointed My king, upon Zion, My holy mountain.”
7. I am obliged to declare: The Lord said to me, “You are my son, I have this day begotten you.
8. Ask of Me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, and the ends of the earth your possession.
9. Smash them with a rod of iron, shatter them like a potter’s vessel.”
10. Now be wise, you kings; be disciplined, you rulers of the earth.
11. Serve the Lord with awe, and rejoice with trembling.
12. Yearn for purity—lest He become angry and your path be doomed, if his anger flares for even a moment. Fortunate are all who put their trust in Him
FOOTNOTES
1.The day David was crowned. (Rashi)
Chapter 3
When punishment befalls man, let him not be upset by his chastisement, for perhaps--considering his sins—he is deserving of worse, and God is in fact dealing kindly with him.
1. A psalm by David, when he fled from Absalom his son.
2. Lord, how numerous are my oppressors; many rise up against me!
3. Many say of my soul, “There is no salvation for him from God—ever!”
4. But You, Lord, are a shield for me, my glory, the One Who raises my head.
5. With my voice I call to the Lord, and He answers me from His holy mountain, Selah.
6. I lie down and sleep; I awake, for the Lord sustains me.
7. I do not fear the myriads of people that have aligned themselves all around me.
8. Arise, O Lord, deliver me, my God. For You struck all my enemies on the cheek, You smashed the teeth of the wicked.
9. Deliverance is the Lord’s; may Your blessing be upon Your people forever
Chapter 4
This psalm exhorts man not to shame his fellow, and to neither speak nor listen to gossip and slander. Envy not the prosperity of the wicked in this world, rather rejoice and say: “If it is so for those who anger Him . . . [how much better it will be for those who serve Him!”]
1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music, a psalm by David.
2. Answer me when I call, O God [Who knows] my righteousness. You have relieved me in my distress; be gracious to me and hear my prayer.
3. Sons of men, how long will you turn my honor to shame, will you love vanity, and endlessly seek falsehood?
4. Know that the Lord has set apart His devout one; the Lord will hear when I call to Him.
5. Tremble and do not sin; reflect in your hearts upon your beds, and be silent forever.
6. Offer sacrifices in righteousness, and trust in the Lord.
7. Many say: “Who will show us good?” Raise the light of Your countenance upon us, O Lord.
8. You put joy in my heart, greater than [their joy] when their grain and wine abound.
9. In peace and harmony I will lie down and sleep, for You, Lord, will make me dwell alone, in security.
Chapter 5
A prayer for every individual, requesting that the wicked perish for their deeds, and the righteous rejoice for their good deeds.
1. For the Conductor, on the nechilot,1 a psalm by David.
2. Give ear to my words, O Lord, consider my thoughts.
3. Listen to the voice of my cry, my King and my God, for to You I pray.
4. Lord, hear my voice in the morning; in the morning I set [my prayers] before you and hope.
5. For You are not a God Who desires wickedness; evil does not abide with You.
6. The boastful cannot stand before Your eyes; You hate all evildoers.
7. You destroy the speakers of falsehood; the Lord despises the man of blood and deceit.
8. And I, through Your abundant kindness, come into Your house; I bow toward Your holy Sanctuary, in awe of You.
9. Lead me, O Lord, in Your righteousness, because of my watchful enemies; straighten Your path before me.
10. For there is no sincerity in their mouths, their heart is treacherous; their throat is an open grave, [though] their tongue flatters.
11. Find them guilty, O God, let them fall by their schemes; banish them for their many sins, for they have rebelled against You.
12. But all who trust in You will rejoice, they will sing joyously forever; You will shelter them, and those who love Your Name will exult in You.
13. For You, Lord, will bless the righteous one; You will envelop him with favor as with a shield.
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument that sounded like the buzzing of bees (Metzudot).
Chapter 6
This is an awe-inspiring prayer for one who is ill, to pray that God heal him, body and soul. An ailing person who offers this prayer devoutly and with a broken heart is assured that God will accept his prayer.
1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music for the eight-stringed harp, a psalm by David.
2. Lord, do not punish me in Your anger, nor chastise me in Your wrath.
3. Be gracious to me, O Lord, for I languish away; heal me, O Lord, for my bones tremble in fear.
4. My soul is panic-stricken; and You, O Lord, how long [before You help]?
5. Relent, O Lord, deliver my soul; save me for the sake of Your kindness.
6. For there is no remembrance of You in death; who will praise You in the grave?
7. I am weary from sighing; each night I drench my bed, I melt my couch with my tears.
8. My eye has grown dim from vexation, worn out by all my oppressors.
9. Depart from me, all you evildoers, for the Lord has heard the sound of my weeping.
10. The Lord has heard my supplication; the Lord accepts my prayer.
11. All my enemies will be shamed and utterly terrified; they will then repent and be shamed for a moment.
FOOTNOTES
1.Only for a moment will they be shamed, because I will forgive them and never again mention their deeds (Metzudot).
Chapter 7
Do not rejoice if God causes your enemy to suffer—just as the suffering of the righteous is not pleasant. David, therefore, defends himself intensely before God, maintaining that he did not actively harm Saul. In fact, Saul precipitated his own harm, while David’s intentions were only for the good.
1. A shigayon 1 by David, which he sang to the Lord concerning Kush the Benjaminite.
2. I put my trust in You, Lord, my God; deliver me from all my pursuers and save me.
3. Lest he tear my soul like a lion, crushing me with none to rescue.
4. Lord, my God, if I have done this, if there is wrongdoing in my hands;
5. if I have rewarded my friends with evil or oppressed those who hate me without reason—
6. then let the enemy pursue and overtake my soul, let him trample my life to the ground, and lay my glory in the dust forever.
7. Arise, O Lord, in Your anger, lift Yourself up in fury against my foes. Stir me [to mete out] the retribution which You commanded.
8. When the assembly of nations surrounds You, remove Yourself from it and return to the heavens.
9. The Lord will mete out retribution upon the nations; judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness and my integrity.
10. Let the evil of the wicked come to an end, but establish the righteous—O righteous God, Searcher of hearts and minds.
11. [I rely] on God to be my shield, He Who saves the upright of heart.
12. God is the righteous judge, and the Almighty is angered every day.
13. Because he does not repent, He sharpens His sword, bends His bow and makes it ready.
14. He has prepared instruments of death for him; His arrows will be used on the pursuers.
15. Indeed, he conceives iniquity, is pregnant with evil schemes, and gives birth to falsehood.
16. He digs a pit, digs it deep, only to fall into the trap he laid.
17. His mischief will return upon his own head, his violence will come down upon his own skull.
18. I will praise the Lord according to His righteousness, and sing to the Name of the Lord Most High
FOOTNOTES
1.This refers either to a musical instrument, or to a mistake committed by David, in recognition of which this psalm was written (Rashi).
Chapter 8
This psalm is a glorious praise to God for His kindness to the lowly and mortal human in giving the Torah to the inhabitants of the lower worlds, arousing the envy of the celestial angels. This idea is expressed in the Yom Kippur prayer, “Though Your mighty strength is in the angels above, You desire praise from those formed of lowly matter.”
1. For the Conductor, on the gittit,1 a psalm by David.
2. Lord, our Master, how mighty is Your Name throughout the earth, You Who has set Your majesty upon the heavens!
3. Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings You have established might, to counter Your enemies, to silence foe and avenger.2
4. When I behold Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars which You have set in place—
5. what is man that You should remember him, son of man that You should be mindful of him?
6. Yet, You have made him but a little less than the angels, and crowned him with honor and glory.
7. You made him ruler over Your handiwork, You placed everything under his feet.
8. Sheep and cattle—all of them, also the beasts of the field;
9. the birds of the sky and the fish of the sea; all that traverses the paths of the seas.
10. Lord, our Master, how mighty is Your Name throughout the earth.
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument crafted in Gath (Metzudot).
2.The wonders of childbirth and nursing demonstrate God’s existence to non-believers (Metzudot).
Chapter 9
One should praise God for saving him from the hand of the enemy who stands over and agonizes him, and for His judging each person according to his deeds: the righteous according to their righteousness, and the wicked according to their wickedness.
1. For the Conductor, upon the death of Labben, a psalm by David.
2. I will thank the Lord with all my heart; I will recount all Your wonders.
3. I will rejoice and exult in You; I will sing to Your Name, O Most High.
4. When my enemies retreat, they will stumble and perish from before You.
5. You have rendered my judgement and [defended] my cause; You sat on the throne, O righteous Judge.
6. You destroyed nations, doomed the wicked, erased their name for all eternity.
7. O enemy, your ruins are gone forever, and the cities you have uprooted—their very remembrance is lost.
8. But the Lord is enthroned forever, He established His throne for judgement.
9. And He will judge the world with justice, He will render judgement to the nations with righteousness.
10. The Lord will be a stronghold for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble.
11. Those who know Your Name put their trust in You, for You, Lord, have not abandoned those who seek You.
12. Sing to the Lord Who dwells in Zion, recount His deeds among the nations.
13. For the Avenger of bloodshed is mindful of them; He does not forget the cry of the downtrodden.
14. Be gracious to me, O Lord; behold my affliction at the hands of my enemies, You Who raises me from the gates of death,
15. so that I may relate all Your praises in the gates of the daughter of Zion, that I may exult in Your deliverance.
16. The nations sank into the pit that they made; in the net they concealed their foot was caught.
17. The Lord became known through the judgement He executed; the wicked one is snared in the work of his own hands; reflect on this always.
18. The wicked will return to the grave, all the nations that forget God.
19. For not for eternity will the needy be forgotten, nor will the hope of the poor perish forever.
20. Arise, O Lord, let not man prevail; let the nations be judged in Your presence.
21. Set Your mastery over them, O Lord; let the nations know that they are but frail men, Selah.
---------------------
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, Chapter 26
• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Wednesday, Adar I 1, 5776 · February 10, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, Chapter 26
In the previous chapters, the Alter Rebbe explained how it is “very near to you,” i.e., how it is very easy and accessible to every Jew to serve G‑d with love and awe. He stated that this can be accomplished either by creating a love and fear of G‑d through meditation on G‑d’s greatness, or by arousing the “hidden love” (which also comprises a fear of G‑d) inherent in every Jew.
In the coming chapters, the Alter Rebbe will discuss means of overcoming possible obstacles in the path of one’s service to G‑d. In the first instance, he shows how one may overcome the sadness, and dullness of heart, whereby the heart becomes insensitive to feelings of love and fear of G‑d.
ברם כגון דא צריך לאודועי כלל גדול
But this must be made known as a cardinal principle:
כי כמו שנצחון לנצח דבר גשמי, כגון שני אנשים המתאבקים זה עם זה להפיל זה את זה
It is with the service of G‑d just as it is with a victory over a physical opponent; for instance, two people who wrestle with each other, each striving to fell the other.
הנה אם האחד הוא בעצלות וכבדות ינוצח בקל ויפול, גם אם הוא גבור יותר מחבירו
If one of them is lazy and sluggish he will easily be defeated and will fall, even if he be stronger than the other, since his laziness and sluggishness prevent him from revealing his strength.
ככה ממש בנצחון היצר
Similarly with the conquest of one’s evil nature.
Despite the fact that the good nature is stronger than the evil, for as explained in previous chapters, “Even a little of the light of holiness dispels much darkness of the kelipah,” yet here too the previous rule applies; and thus:
אי אפשר לנצלו בעצלות וכבדות, הנמשכות מעצבות וטמטום הלב כאבן
It is impossible to conquer the evil nature with laziness and sluggishness, which stem from sadness and a stone-like dullness of the heart,
כי אם בזריזות, הנמשכת משמחה ופתיחת הלב, וטהרתו מכל נדנוד דאגה ועצב בעולם
but rather with alacrity, which derives from joy and an open i.e., responsive heart that is unblemished by any trace of worry and sadness in the world.
ומה שכתוב: בכל עצב יהיה מותר, פירושו: שיהיה איזה יתרון ומעלה מזה
As for the verse,1 “In every sadness there will be profit,” which means that some profit and advantage would be derived from it,
הנה אדרבה, מלשון זה משמע שהעצב מצד עצמו אין בו מעלה, רק שיגיע ויבא ממנו איזה יתרון
the wording (“there will be profit”) implies that, on the contrary, the sadness itself has no virtue, except that some profit will ultimately be derived from it.
והיינו השמחה האמיתית בה‘ אלקיו הבאה אחר העצב האמיתי, לעתים מזומנים, על עונותיו במר נפשו ולב נשבר
This profit is the true joy in G‑d which follows the true i.e., justified sadness over one’s sins, with bitterness of soul and a broken heart, which must come at specific, suitable times.
Hence the “profit” of sadness is the joy that follows it.
שעל ידי זה נשברה רוח הטומאה וסטרא אחרא ומחיצה של ברזל המפסקת בינו לאביו שבשמים
Why should this sadness lead the worshiper to joy? For thereby (through one’s sadness) the spirit of impurity and of the sitra achra is broken, and so too the “iron wall” that separates him from his Father in heaven,
כמו שכתוב בזהר על פסוק: רוח נשברה לב נשבר וגו’
The Zohar interprets the verse as follows: “A broken spirit of the sitra achra is accomplished by means of a broken heart” Since sadness over one’s sins causes the sitra achra to be broken, and the “iron wall” to vanish, it leads one to rejoice — as the Alter Rebbe now goes on to say:
ואזי יקוים בו רישיה דקרא: תשמיעיני ששון ושמחה וגו‘, השיבה לי ששון ישעך ורוח נדיבה וגו’
Then the preceding verses will be fulfilled for him: 4 “Make me hear joy and gladness”;… 5 “Restore to me the joy of Your salvation, and support me with Your generous spirit.”
This joy is the “profit” of sadness, whereas sadness itself is neither “profitable” nor advantageous.
וזהו טעם הפשוט לתיקון האר״י ז״ל לומר מזמור זה אחר תיקון חצות קודם הלימוד
This is the simple reason i.e., apart from the deeper, mystical ones for the practice instituted by the AriZal (Rabbi Isaac Luria) of reciting this Psalm containing the verses quoted above after Tikkun Chatzot (the midnight prayer) before resuming one’s Torah study —
כדי ללמוד בשמחה אמיתית בה‘ הבאה אחר העצב
in order that one should study with the true joy in G‑d, that succeeds the remorse of Tikkun Chatzot.
שיש לשמחה זו יתרון כיתרון האור הבא מן החשך דוקא
Such joy is of a greater quality than joy which is not preceded by sadness, similar to the distinctive quality of light which follows darkness.
כמו שכתוב בזהר על פסוק: ראיתי שיש יתרון לחכמה מן הסכלות כיתרון האור כו’, עיין שם, ודי למבין
As the Zohar6 comments on the verse, 7 “And I (King Solomon) saw that wisdom surpasses foolishness as light surpasses darkness.” Note there, and this will suffice for him who understands.
The Zohar asks: Does it take a Solomon to see this? And it answers that the intention of the verse is that just as darkness contributes to light, for we cannot truly appreciate light unless we have experienced darkness, so too does foolishness contribute to the appreciation of wisdom. Similarly in our case, one’s earlier sadness adds strength to the joy which follows it, and this is the “profit” of sadness. Sadness itself, however, is a hindrance in one’s service of G‑d.
ומקרא מלא דבר הכתוב: תחת אשר לא עבדת את ה‘ אלקיך בשמחה וגו’, ונודע לכל פירוש האר״י ז״ל על פסוק זה
Furthermore, the verse states explicitly: 8 “Because you did not serve G‑d your L-rd with joy...[therefore you will serve your enemies]” — and everyone is familiar with the explanation of the AriZal on this verse.9
The verse reads: “Because you did not serve G‑d your L-rd with joy and gladness of heart, from an abundance of everything [good]” The simple meaning is: “When you had an abundance of everything you did not serve G‑d with joy” (This meaning is borne out by the context of the following verse: “You will serve your enemies in hunger, thirst, and nakedness, and in want of everything.”) But the AriZal interprets it thus: “You did not serve G‑d with a joy greater than that caused by an abundance of everything.”
We see from all the above the importance of serving G‑d joyfully. Yet, many things in one’s life, both physical and spiritual, may cause him sadness. The Alter Rebbe now goes on to propose means of combating this sadness, so that one may always be joyful.
והנה עצה היעוצה לטהר לבו מכל עצב ונדנוד דאגה ממילי דעלמא, ואפילו בני חיי ומזוני
Sound advice has been offered by our Sages on cleansing one’s heart of all sadness and any trace of worry about mundane matters, even a sadness or worry caused by the lack of such essentials as children, health, or livelihood.
מודעת זאת לכל מאמר רז״ל: כשם שמברך על הטובה כו‘
The advice is contained in the well-known saying of our Sages: 10 “Just as one recites a blessing for his good fortune (’Blessed are You, G‑d,Who is good and does good‘), so must he also recite a blessing for misfortune.”
ופירשו בגמרא: לקבולי בשמחה כמו שמחת הטובה הנגלית והנראית
The Gemara explains11 that this does not mean that he recite the same blessing (for the blessing in a case of misfortune, G‑d forbid, is “Blessed are You, G‑d, the true Judge”); rather, the implication is that one should accept misfortune with joy, like the joy in a visible and obvious good.
כי גם זו לטובה, רק שאינה נגלית ונראית לעיני בשר, כי הוא מעלמא דאתכסיא, שלמעלה מעלמא דאתגליא
For it, too, is for the good, except that it is not apparent and visible to mortal eyes, for it stems from the “hidden (spiritual) world,” which is higher than the “revealed (spiritual) world,” whence derives an apparent and revealed good.
שהוא ו״ה משם הוי״ה ברוך הוא, ועלמא דאתכסיא הוא י״ה
The latter emanates from the letters vav and hei of the Tetragrammaton (the Four-Letter Divine Name, composed of the letters yud hei vav hei), while the former derives from the letters yud hei.12
וזה שכתוב: אשרי הגבר אשר תיסרנו י״ה וגו’
This is also the meaning of the verse, 13 “Happy is the man whom You, G‑d (spelled yud hei), chasten.”Since the verse speaks of man’s suffering, only the letters yud and hei are mentioned.
Man sees misfortune only because he cannot perceive that which derives from a higher, hidden level of G‑dliness. In truth, however, the “misfortunes” are actually blessings in disguise. On the contrary, they represent an even higher level of good than the revealed good, since they originate in a higher world.
ולכן אמרו רז״ל כי השמחים ביסורים, עליהם הכתוב אומר: ואוהביו כצאת השמש בגבורתו
For this reason, our Sages of blessed memory stated14 that the verse, 15 “Those who love Him shall be as the sun when it comes out it its might,” refers to the reward of those who rejoice in their afflictions.
G‑d always rewards man “measure for measure.” What is the connection, then, between rejoicing in affliction and “the sun”? Also, why are those who rejoice in affliction described as “those who love G‑d”? The Alter Rebbe now explains that since misfortune is really nothing but a disguise for the higher form of good that derives from the “hidden world,” the option as to whether it will bring man either joy or misery depends on his priorities. If he deems his physical life all-important, he will indeed be miserable, while if nearness to G‑d is his primary concern he will rejoice, since nearness to G‑d is found in greater measure in the “hidden world,” whence derives the good that is hidden in misfortune.
Those who rejoice in suffering are therefore called “lovers of G‑d,” and are rewarded by being granted the vision of “the sun emerging in its might.” Since in this world they disregarded externals and ignored the veil of misfortune hiding the good within, choosing instead to concern themselves with the deeper aspect of good and G‑dliness lying behind the veil, G‑d rewards them in the World to Come “measure for measure,” by casting off the veils that surround Him, and revealing Himself in His full glory to those who love Him.
For the Four-Letter Divine Name, signifying G‑d in His Essence, is compared to a sun, and the Name Elokim, signifying G‑d as He is clothed and concealed in the created universe, is compared to a veil shielding the created beings from the intensity of its rays; as it is written, 16 “A sun and a shield (respectively) are Hashem (i.e., the Four-Letter Name) Elokim.” In the World to Come, the “sun” will emerge from its “shield”, i.e., the Four-Letter Name will no longer be veiled by Elokim, and it will shine forth “in its might” as a reward for those who love Him.
This, in summary, is the explanation contained in the following paragraphs.
כי השמחה היא מאהבתו קרבת ה‘ יותר מכל חיי העולם הזה
For one’s joy in affliction stems from the fact that being near to G‑d is dearer to him than anything of the life of this world,
כדכתיב: כי טוב חסדך מחיים וגו’
as it is written: 17 “For Your lovingkindness is better than life”
וקרבת ה‘ היא ביתר שאת ומעלה לאין ק’ בעלמא דאתכסיא, כי שם חביון עוזו, ויושב בסתר עליון
Now, the nearness to G‑d is infinitely greater and more sublime in the “hidden world,” for18 “there the concealment of His power is lodged”; and it is also written, 19 “The Most High abides in secrecy.”
Both these verses indicate that the “hidden world” contains a higher aspect of G‑dliness than the “revealed world.” Since the “hidden world” is the source of seeming affliction, he who loves G‑d rejoices in it, for it represents a greater nearness to G‑d than revealed good, which derives from the “revealed world.”
ועל כן זוכה לצאת השמש בגבורתו לעתיד לבא, שהיא יציאת חמה מנרתקה שהיא מכוסה בו בעולם הזה, ולעתיד תתגלה מכסויה
Therefore he is found worthy of seeing “the sun emerging in its might” in the World to Come, when the “sun” will emerge from the “sheath” in which it is hidden in this world, and will then be revealed.
דהיינו שאז יתגלה עלמא דאתכסיא, ויזרח ויאיר בגילוי רב ועצום לכל החוסים בו בעולם הזה, ומסתופפים בצלו, צל החכמה, שהוא בחינת צל ולא אורה וטובה נראית, ודי למבין
This means that what is presently the “hidden world” will then be revealed, and it will shine forth and glow in a great and intense revelation upon all who seek refuge in Him in This World, taking shelter in his “shadow”, the “shadow of wisdom,” which is presently in a state of “shade” as opposed to revealed light and goodnes. I.e., they find shelter and refuge even in that which presents an external appearance of “shade” and darkness, whereas the light and goodness contained in it is concealed. This is sufficient explanation for the understanding.
To return to our original point: When one considers that whatever appears as suffering is actually a higher form of good, he will no longer be saddened or worried by it.
* * *
The Alter Rebbe now goes on to discuss a different type of sadness, that caused by one’s failings in matters of the spirit.
אך העצבות ממילי דשמיא, צריך לשית עצות בנפשו ליפטר ממנה
As for sadness connected with heavenly matters, one must seek ways and means of freeing oneself from it.
אין צריך לומר בשעת עבודה, שצריך לעבוד ה‘ בשמחה ובטוב לבב
That this applies to the time of one’s divine service, is self-evident, for one must serve G‑d with joy and gladness of heart.
אלא אפילו מי שהוא בעל עסקים ודרך אר’, אם נופל לו עצב ודאגה ממילי דשמיא בשעת עסקיו
But even one who is occupied in business and worldly affairs, should there descend upon him any sadness or anxiety about heavenly matters during his business affairs,
בידוע שהוא תחבולת היצר, כדי להפילו אחר כך בתאוות, חס ושלום, כנודע
it is certainly a trick of the Evil Inclination which saddens him, ostensibly for spiritual reasons, in order to lure him afterwards into lusts, G‑d forbid, as is well known.
It is man’s nature to seek pleasure and not to remain depressed. If his feeling of spiritual failure distresses him, he will seek his pleasure in physical gratification. The Evil Inclination therefore wishes that one be depressed, be it even over spiritual matters, so that he will later succumb to temptation.
שאם לא כן, מאין באה לו עצבות אמיתית, מחמת אהבת ה‘ או יראתו, באמצע עסקיו
For if it were not so, that this depression is the doing of the Yetzer Hara, whence would a genuine sadness, one that is derived from love or fear of G‑d, come to him in the midst of his business affairs?
Since a genuine sadness is an expression of love or fear of G‑d, it should express itself at a time when these emotions are active — during prayer, Torah study and the like, but not during one’s business. Clearly, then, the sadness is artificial, created by the Yetzer Hara for its own purposes, and one must therefore rid himself of it. The next paragraph provides the means:
והנה, בין שנפלה לו העצבות בשעת עבודה בתלמוד תורה או בתפלה, ובין שנפלה לו שלא בשעת עבודה, זאת ישים אל לבו
Whether the depression settles upon him during his service of G‑d in Torah study or prayer, or when he is not engaged thus, but with his material affairs, this is what he should consider:
כי אין הזמן גרמא כעת לעצבות אמיתית, אפילו לדאגת עונות חמורים, חס ושלום
“Now is not the proper time for genuine sadness, nor even for worry over grave sins, G‑d forbid.
רק לזאת צריך קביעות עתים ושעת הכושר בישוב הדעת, להתבונן בגדולת ה’ אשר חטא לו
For this one must set aside opportune times, when the mind is calm, to reflect on the greatness of G‑d against Whom he has sinned,
כדי שעל ידי זה יהיה לבו נשבר באמת במרירות אמיתית, וכמבואר עת זו במקום אחר
so that thereby his heart will truly be rent with genuine bitterness i.e., bitterness — remorse — as opposed to depression; the former is alive and active, while the latter is resigned and ”dead“. It is explained elsewhere when this time should be.20
ושם נתבאר גם כן כי מיד אחר שנשבר לבו בעתים קבועים ההם, אז יסיר העצב מלבו לגמרי
There it is also explained that immediately after his heart has been broken during those appointed times, he should completely remove the sorrow from his heart,
ויאמין אמונה שלימה כי ה‘ העביר חטאתו, ורב לסלוח
and he should believe with perfect faith that G‑d has erased his sin, and that ”He pardons abundantly.“
Thus, even if one has sinned repeatedly against Him, G‑d will readily forgive him as though he had sinned for the first time; unlike man, who easily forgives a first offense but finds it difficult to do so when the offense is oft repeated.
וזו היא השמחה האמיתית בה’ הבאה אחר העצב, כנ״ל
This knowledge that G‑d has surely cleansed him of his sins is the true joy in G‑d which follows the sadness, as explained above —that the advantage of sadness lies in the joy to which it gives rise.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Mishlei 14:23. |
| 2. | See ch. 17. |
| 3. | Tehillim 51:19. |
| 4. | Ibid. 51:10. |
| 5. | Ibid. 51:14. |
| 6. | III, 47b. |
| 7. | Kohelet 2:13. |
| 8. | Devarim 28:47. |
| 9. | Quoted in Shelah, Asarah Maamarot, Maamar 3:4. |
| 10. | Berachot 9:5. |
| 11. | Berachot 60a. |
| 12. | See Iggeret HaTeshuvah, ch. 4, where the relation of the various Worlds to the letters of the Tetragrammaton is discussed at length. |
| 13. | Tehillim 94:12. |
| 14. | Yoma 23a. |
| 15. | Shoftim 5:31. |
| 16. | Tehillim 84:12; cf. Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, ch. 4. |
| 17. | Tehillim 63:4. |
| 18. | Chavakuk 3:4. |
| 19. | Tehillim 91:1. |
| 20. | See Iggeret HaTeshuvah, chs. 7, 11. |
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Today's MitzvahWednesday, Adar I 1, 5776 · February 10, 2016
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 357
Relations with a Widow who has not Performed Chalitzah
"The wife of the dead man shall not be to an outsider"—Deuteronomy 25:5.
It is forbidden for anyone – besides the deceased's brother – to engage in sexual relations with the widow of a childless man, unless she has performed chalitzah.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Relations with a Widow who has not Performed Chalitzah
Negative Commandment 357
Translated by Berel Bell
The 357th prohibition is that other1 men are prohibited from having relations with a yevamah2 while she is still waiting for the yavam.3
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,4 "The wife of the deceased is not allowed to marry an outsider."
Both the woman and the man are punished by lashes for transgressing this prohibition.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Yevamos.
FOOTNOTES
1.Other than the yavam, who is commanded to marry her.
2.See note above (P217).
3.I.e. she is still in an intermediate status: they have not become man and wife through yibum, and they have not broken the relationship through chalitzah.
Although the brother-in-law has not given any indication that he wishes to marry her, the brother's death nevertheless creates an automatic connection between them similar to marriage. Therefore, she is not free to remarry until this relationship is broken.
4.Deut. 25:5.
----------------------------------------------------------
• 1 Chapter: Bikkurim Bikkurim - Chapter 8 • English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Bikkurim - Chapter 8
Halacha 1
When a person separates challah from flour, it is not challah.1 [The flour given] the priest is like stolen property in his possession2 and there is an obligation [to separate] challah from a dough [made from] the remainder [of the flour].3 If the flour set aside [mistakenly] as challah is an omer in measure4 and a dough was made from it, one must separate challah from it as [is necessary with regard to doughs made] from any ordinary flour.
Halacha 2
When should challah be set aside? When one adds water and mixes the flour with the water, he should set aside [a portion as] challah from the first portion that is kneaded, as [indicated by Numbers 15:20:] "From the first of your dough."5
[The above applies] provided a measure of flour equal to an omer6 that has not become mixed with water does not remain in the kneading trough.7 If he stipulates: "This is challah for the dough, for the yeast, and for the flour that remains. When it all becomes one dough, the portion set aside will become sanctified as challah," it is permitted.8
Halacha 3
If the person left the dough [intact] until it was all kneaded and mixed together and separated [the challah] afterwards, [the delay] is of no consequence. If he does not separate challah while the mixture is a dough, but bakes the entire dough, he should separate [challah] from the loaf, as we explained.9
Halacha 4
When does the obligation [to separate] challah from dough take effect? When the wheat [flour] was rolled into a ball and [all of] the flour becomes mixed with it or when the barley [flour] was made into a single mass and formed one block. One may snack from the dough until the wheat [flour] was rolled into a ball or the barley [flour] was made into a single mass.10 The laws pertaining to wheat [flour] pertain to spelt [flour] and those pertaining to barley [flour] pertain to oat and rye [flour].11
Halacha 5
Once the wheat [flour] was rolled into a ball or the barley [flour] was made into a single mass, one who partakes of it before challah was separated, he is liable for death [at the hand of heaven], because it is tevel.12 Therefore, if there is a Scriptural obligation [to separate] challah from the dough, a person who partakes of it is liable for lashes, as is anyone who partakes of tevel.13 If the obligation is Rabbinic in origin, [a person who partakes of the dough] is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 6
When a dough from ordinary flour becomes mixed with flour that is terumah14before [all the flour] was rolled into a ball, it is exempt [from the obligation ofchallah].15 When it becomes mixed with it after it was rolled into a ball, there is an obligation [to separate challah].16
Similarly, if a person consecrates a dough or declares it ownerless17 before it was rolled into a ball and then redeemed it or took possession of it and rolled it into a ball - alternatively, he consecrated it or declared it ownerless after it was rolled into a ball18 - there is an obligation [to separate] challah.
Halacha 7
If he consecrated it before he rolled it and it was rolled in the possession of the Temple treasury and afterwards, he redeemed it, it is exempt. For at the time the obligation would have taken effect, [the dough] was exempt.19
Halacha 9
[The following laws apply when] a convert joins the Jewish faith. If he had a dough that was rolled into a ball before he converted, it is exempt.22 If it was rolled afterwards, there is an obligation [to separate challah]. If there is a doubt [concerning the matter], there is an obligation, [because eating bread from which challah was not separated] is a transgression punishable by death [at the hand of heaven].23 If a non-priest [unknowingly] partook of this challah that was separated due to such a doubt or the like, he is not liable to add a fifth [when making restitution].24
Halacha 10
When a question arises concerning the ritual purity of a dough before it was rolled together as a ball,25 he should prepare [the dough] in a state of ritual impurity.26 For it is permitted to make ordinary produce impure in Eretz Yisrael. The challah should then be burnt.27
If, after a dough was rolled into a ball, a doubtful situation arose concerning its ritual purity which, were it to be ascertained that it was definitely impure, would convey ritual impurity of Scriptural origin, its [preparation] should be completed in a state of ritual purity. [The rationale is that with regard to] any circumstance where impurity would be imparted to ordinary produce were one certain that it transpired, our Sages decreed that if there is a doubt that it transpired, a dough upon which the obligation to separate challah already fell should not intentionally be made impure, for that obligation has already taken effect.28Instead, the challah [separated] is a tentative state; it is not eaten,29 nor is it burnt.30
Halacha 11
As an initial preference, a person should not prepare his dough in a state of ritual impurity.31 Instead, he should be careful and endeavor to purify himself and his utensils so that he can separate challah in a state of ritual purity. If he is more than four mil32 from water [fit for an immersion],33 he should prepare [the dough] in a state of ritual impurity and separate impure challah.
Halacha 12
A loaf to serve as challah34 should not be prepared in a state of ritual purity for a common person.35 A loaf of ordinary produce may, however, be made in ritual purity [for him].36
What is implied? A chaver37 may mix the dough and separate an appropriate measure of challah from it. He then places [the challah] in a utensil made from dung, stone, or clay, which do not contract ritual impurity.38 When the common person comes, he should take both of them, the dough and thechallah. We tell him: "Be careful not to touch the challah, lest it become tevelagain."39 Why is this allowed?40 So that the person making the dough could earn his livelihood.
Halacha 13
The wife of a chaver may sift and strain [flour] together with the wife of a common person.41 Once water has been mixed with the dough, however, she should not help her, because [the wife of the common person] makes her dough while ritually impure.42 Similarly, one should not kneaded or array dough with a baker who bakes his dough in a state of ritual impurity. [The rationale is that] one should not reinforce the hands of transgressors.43 One may, however, transport bread with him to a bakery.44
Halacha 14
When a person purchases bread from a baker who is a common person in Syria45 and [the baker] tells him: "I separated challah," [the purchaser] does not need to separate challah because of the doubt.46 Just as the entire Jewish people47 in Eretz Yisrael were not suspect [to ignore the separation of] the great terumah, so too, in Syria, they were not suspect [to ignore the separation of] challah.
FOOTNOTES
1.
It is permitted to be eaten by a non-priest. Rashi (Kiddushin 46b) explains that the rationale for this law is that the prooftext requiring the separation of challah mentions "your doughs," i.e., the obligation is incurred only when dough is made.
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 327:1) clarify that this law applies when the person desires that the flour be considered as challah while it is still flour. If, however, he stipulates: "May it be considered challah when a dough is made from it," when it is made into a dough, his statement takes effect.
2.
The priest is obligated to return it to the person who gave it to him. This applies even if the one who gave it is a Torah scholar who knows that flour cannot be separated aschallah. Although one could assume that he was giving the flour to the priest as a gift, it must be returned lest the priest think that it was challah and not separate challah from the dough he makes from it (Kiddushin 46b;Turei Zahav 327:1).
3.
Since the first separation is of no consequence.
4.
I.e., it was of the measure from which we are required to separate challah.
5.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, stating that it is undesirable to separate challah in this manner, for as indicated by Halachah 4, the obligation to separate challah has not taken effect yet. Based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Pesachim3:3), the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishnehexplain that the statements in this halachah are a safeguard against the dough becoming ritually impure. From the time the water is mixed with the flour, it is permitted to separated the challah and one may do so if he is worried that the dough will become ritually impure. It is, however, preferable to wait until the dough is thoroughly mixed as stated in Halachah 4. Certainly, this applies in the present era when there is no need to take safeguards against ritual impurity [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 327:3)]
6.
I.e., it was of the measure from which we are required to separate challah.
7.
For then the dough made from that flour would have a separate obligation. When, by contrast, there is less than that measure, it is considered as ancillary to the initial dough.
8.
This applies even if an omer of flour remains. Since he can easily mix the dough, he can make a stipulation that will take effect when he actually mixes it together. TheShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 327:2) states that it is desirable to teach women who separate challah to make this stipulation.
9.
Chapter 6, Halachah 16.
10.
After the obligation to separate challah takes effect, however, it is forbidden to snack from the dough. It is considered as tevel and one is liable as stated in the following halachah.
11.
For spelt flour has characteristics similar to wheat flour, and rye and oats to barley.
12.
See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 10:19;Hilchot Ma'aser 1:5; 9:2.
13.
Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:1. This applies when he is given a warning before transgressing.
14.
And thus challah need not be separated from it.
15.
As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 4. This applies only in the present era when the obligation to separate challah is Rabbinic in origin (Radbaz).
16.
Because the obligation to separate challahfrom the dough had already taken effect.
17.
There is no obligation to separate challahfrom dough that is consecrated. Once, however, the consecrated dough is redeemed, challah must be separated. When a person makes dough from flour that was ownerless which he acquired, he must separate challah from it. See Chapter 6, Halachot 3 and 5.
18.
In which instance, the obligation to separatechallah had already taken effect before it was consecrated or declared ownerless.
19.
Because it was consecrated.
20.
Because the obligation to separate challahtook effect when the dough belonged to the Jew.
21.
For at the time the obligation to separatechallah was to take effect, the dough belonged to the gentile and was exempt.
22.
Because at the time the obligation to separate challah was to take effect, the convert had not converted and was not obligated to separate challah.
23.
The Rambam adds this explanation (based on Chullin 134a), because generally, we would follow the principle: "When one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him" (see Chapter 9, Halachah 13). Nevertheless, in this instance, because of the severity of the transgression, challahshould be separated. The Turei Zahav 330:3 and the Siftei Cohen 330:8 note that in the present age, when there is a question whether of not challah has been separated, one is exempt, for at present the observance of the mitzvah of challah is Rabbinic in origin. On this basis, the Sifei Cohen questions why this law is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 330:5),
24.
Since there is a doubt concerning the matter, the person must make restitution for the challah, because whenever there is a question with regard to Scriptural Law, we rule stringency and require him to make restitution sp that he can gain atonement. There is, however, no such obligation with regard to the additional fifth, because it was never definitely established that he was liable.
25.
And thus, the obligation to separate challahhas not been established. Hence, the principle that we are allowed to cause ordinary produce to become impure is applied.
26.
For in this way, he will have defined the ritual state of the challah.
27.
As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 4.
28.
We are forbidden to cause challah mandated by Scriptural Law to contract ritual impurity (Hilchot Terumah 12:1). In this instance, since the challah has not been separated, that prohibition would not be violated. Nevertheless, since the obligation to separate challah has been established, it is preferable to be stringent.
29.
Lest it be impure. Thus a priest who partakes of it would be transgressing, as stated in Hilchot Terumah 7:3.
30.
Lest it be pure. In which case, it would be forbidden to destroy it unnecessarily. SeeHilchot Terumah 12:3.
31.
This refers to dough prepared in Eretz Yisrael when the obligation to separatechallah was of Scriptural origin. See Hilchot Terumah 12:1. See also Radbaz.
32.
A Talmudic measure roughly equivalent to a kilometer.
33.
I.e., a mikveh or stream in which he can purge himself from impurity. Compare toHilchot Tefilah 4:2-3 which makes a distinction whether the water is before him or behind him. See Kessef Mishneh.
34.
I.e., a loaf to be set aside and used aschallah for loaves to be baked in the future.
35.
Lest over time he cause it to become impure. The person making the loaf is thus enabling the common person to transgress the prohibition against making challahimpure.
36.
By making the dough pure, the doughmaker is required to separate challah in a state of ritual impurity. That is problematic, because the common person may cause it to become ritually impure. Nevertheless, as will be explained, certain provisions are enacted to allow such a dough to be made.
37.
A person who is careful in his observance of the laws of ritual impurity.
38.
See Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 6:2, Hilchot Keilim1:6, et al. Thus even if the common person would touch the utensil, it would not become impure.
39.
This warning is not true, for once challah is separated, a dough never becomes tevelagain. Nevertheless, we assume that the common person will not know the law and will be careful not to touch the dough, because of this warning. We are not concerned about the dough itself, because one is permitted to cause ordinary produce to contract ritual impurity, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 12.
40.
I.e., it is not desirable, because ultimately, there is the possibility that the challah will become impure.
41.
Although the common person's wife is presumed to be ritually impure, nevertheless, since the flour is dry, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Hence even if she would touch it, it would not present a difficulty [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 5:9)]. This leniency is allowed only as an expression of "the ways of piece" (Sh'vi'it, loc. cit.).
42.
I.e., needless to say, the wife of the chavershould not let the wife of the common person help her, for her dough would become ritually impure. She should not even help the wife of the common person for the reason stated by the Rambam.
43.
And preparing dough in a state of ritual impurity was considered a transgression in the Talmudic era when the laws of ritual impurity were observed.
44.
For then the baking process has already been completed.
45.
Which is considered an intermediate level between Eretz Yisrael and the Diaspora with regard to many of the agricultural laws. With regard to its status for challah, see Chapter 5, Halachah 8.
Certainly, this law applies in Eretz Yisraelwhere eating bread from which challah was not separated is punishable by death at the hand of heaven. We do not suspect a baker of being willing to cause a fellow Jew to violate such a transgression. Nevertheless, the above applies only when the baker says that he has separated the challah. If he does not make such a statement and he is a common person, even in Eretz Yisrael, the purchaser must separate challah as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 1 (Radbaz).
46.
I.e., he can rely on the baker.
47.
Even the common people.
48.
We are speaking about a baker who is a common person. Even if he says that he separated challah, his word is not accepted (Radbaz).
49.
Even if he is a common person.
50.
We assume that a common person is careful about what he eats himself - and what he serves from his kitchen. It is only when selling retail that his integrity is suspect.
• 3 Chapters: Yibbum vChalitzah Yibbum vChalitzah - Chapter Six, Yibbum vChalitzah Yibbum vChalitzah - Chapter Seven, Yibbum vChalitzah Yibbum vChalitzah - Chapter Eight • English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download• Yibbum vChalitzah - Chapter Six
Halacha 1
There are brothers who are fit to perform either the rite of yibbum or the rite ofchalitzah. There are brothers who are not fit to perform either the rite ofyibbum or the rite of chalitzah. [The deceased's wives] are under no obligation to them at all; they may marry another man. There are brothers who are fit to perform the rite of chalitzah but not the rite of yibbum, and there are brothers who are fit to perform the rite of yibbum but not the rite of chalitzah.1
Halacha 2
Halacha 3
These are [the brothers] who are fit to perform the rite of yibbum,5 but not the rite of chalitzah: a deaf-mute, a mentally incompetent man and a minor. [The rationale is that] they lack the mental competence to perform chalitzah.
When a deaf-mute performs yibbum, he may never divorce [his yevamah]. For by entering into relations with her, he establishes a marriage bond that is completely binding, and he is incapable of divorcing a woman in a completely effective manner.6
[When a yavam who is below the age of majority but more than] nine years and one day old performs yibbum, [he acquires his yevamah as a wife]. He may not, however, divorce [her] until he attains majority, as we have explained.7
Halacha 4
These are [the brothers] who are fit to perform the rite of chalitzah, but not the rite of yibbum: those whose status is in doubt - e.g., there is a doubt whether ayevamah is forbidden to [the deceased's] brother,8 a man with crushed testicles, or a crushed member, or who has been castrated in any other way,9and an elderly man whose virility has been weakened and he is incapable.
If [a yavam] who has been castrated enters into relations [with his yevamah], he acquires [her as a wife], for there was a time when he was sexually potent. He must, however, divorce her with a get, because he is forbidden to marry [a native-born Jewess].
A tumtum10 should perform chalitzah, but not yibbum, because his status is one of doubt. If an operation is performed, and it is revealed that he is a male, he may perform either chalitzah or yibbum, as he desires.11
Brothers [of the deceased who are not in any of the categories listed above] may perform either chalitzah or yibbum.
Halacha 5
There are yevamot who are fit to perform either the rite of chalitzah or the rite of yibbum. There are yevamot who are not fit to perform either the rite ofyibbum or the rite of chalitzah. They are under no obligation to [the deceased's brothers] at all, and they may marry another man. There are yevamot who are fit to perform the rite of chalitzah, but not the rite of yibbum, and there areyevamot who are fit to perform the rite of yibbum but not the rite of chalitzah.12
Halacha 6
These are [the yevamot] who may perform the rite of yibbum, but not the rite of chalitzah: a deaf-mute, a mentally incompetent woman and a minor.13
[The rationale why they cannot perform chalitzah is that] they lack the mental competence to read and to understand. If the yavam desires to divorce the deaf-mute with a get after he engages in relations with her, he may.14
Halacha 7
These are [the yevamot] who may perform the rite of chalitzah, but not the rite of yibbum: [Women who are] forbidden [to the yavam] because of a negative commandment, [because of a Rabbinic ordinance - i.e.,] sh'niyot, or because of a positive commandment, as will be explained.15
Whenever there is a doubt whether or not a woman was divorced [by the deceased], she should perform chalitzah and not yibbum, lest the yavamviolate a prohibition. For a brother's wife who was divorced is forbidden as anervah.16 If, however, there was a doubt regarding whether a woman was consecrated to one's [deceased] brother, her status is like that of anotheryevamah, and she may perform either chalitzah or yibbum. For there is no possibility of [a prohibition being involved].17
Similarly, the wife of a deaf-mute,18 an elderly woman or a woman who has become barren are like other yevamot. The yavam may perform eitherchalitzah or yibbum, as he desires. [The rationale is that] the elderly woman and the woman who has become barren were once fit [to bear children].
Halacha 8
The following are not obligated to perform either chalitzah or yibbum: the wife of a saris chamah or the wife of an androgynous, the wife of a mentally incompetent person or the wife of a minor, an aylonit, or a woman forbidden [to her yavam] as one of the arayot.
[The rationale for these laws is as follows. Deuteronomy 25:6 states thatyibbum was instituted:] "So that the name of [the deceased] not be obliterated within Israel."19 This excludes the wife of a saris chamah or the wife of anandrogynous, for their names are "obliterated" by nature. Since they are inherently unfit to father children, they are considered to be a separate category.
[The verse continues:] "And the firstborn that she bears." This excludes anaylonit, who is, by nature, incapable of bearing a child.
It is written [ibid:5]: "The wife of the deceased...." This excludes the wife of a mentally incompetent person or the wife of a minor - for with regard to them, there is no concept of marriage at all.
[The verse continues:] "And he will take her as a wife." This excludes a woman forbidden [to her yavam] as one of the arayot, for she cannot be taken as a wife.20
Halacha 9
How is it possible for a woman to be forbidden [to her yavam] as one of thearayot?21 For example, [the yevamah] was the sister, the mother, or the daughter of [the yavam's] wife. Such a woman is not obligated to perform either chalitzah or yibbum at all and is under no obligation to [the yavam], as implied by the verse: "And he shall take her as a wife, thus performingyibbum." Only a woman who is fit to be married, and whose consecration [by the yavam] is binding is obligated to perform yibbum.
Halacha 10
If the yevamah was forbidden to her yavam because of a negative commandment or a positive commandment, or she was one of the sh'niyot, she should perform chalitzah, but not yibbum.
Why is she obligated to perform chalitzah? Because she is fit to be married, and her consecration [by the yavam] would be binding.22 Therefore, she is under obligation to the yavam. And according to law, she should performyibbum, for yibbum is a positive commandment, and whenever the observance of a positive commandment conflicts with the observance of a negative commandment, the positive commandment takes precedence.23Nevertheless, our Sages decreed that neither woman with whom relations are prohibited by a negative commandment, nor sh'niyot24 should perform yibbum, lest [the yavam] engage in relations with her a second time. [At that time,] relations with her are forbidden, and there is no mitzvah, for the positive commandment [of yibbum] applies only with regard to the first time [the couple] engage in relations.
Therefore, if [the yavam] transgresses and engages in relations with ayevamah who is forbidden to him because of a negative commandment or because of a positive commandment, he acquires her [as his wife] in definitive manner and must divorce her with a get. Needless to say, [this ruling applies] with regard to a sh'niyah.25 [After the divorce, the yevamah] and all the other wives [of the deceased] are permitted to marry other men, for they have been released of their obligation.
Halacha 11
When a yevamah has been widowed after her marriage [to the deceased] had been consummated, and a High Priest performs yibbum with her, the other wives [of the deceased] are not released from their obligation. [The rationale is that a positive commandment does not supersede a negative commandment and a positive commandment.26 [Therefore,] he does not acquire [theyevamah as a wife] in a definitive manner, and as such, another wife [of the deceased]27 is not permitted to marry another man until she performschalitzah [herself].
Halacha 12
[The following principle applies when] a yevamah was forbidden to her [deceased] husband as one of the arayot - e.g., he transgressed or he erred and married his paternal sister, and she is now under obligation to his brother.28 She is not considered to be [the deceased's] wife, for his consecration of her is not binding. [As such,] she is neither obligated to perform yibbum nor chalitzah.
If [the deceased] had another wife, the other wife must perform eitherchalitzah or yibbum. If the woman who was forbidden to her [deceased] husband as one of the arayot is permitted to the yavam,29 and the yavamdesires to marry her and also to perform yibbum with another wife [of the deceased], he has that option.30
Halacha 13
When a yevamah is forbidden to her husband because of a negative commandment or a positive commandment,31 or she is a sh'niyah with regard to him,32 but is not forbidden to the yavam for these reasons, she is permitted to perform yibbum. There is one exception - when the deceased remarried his divorcee after she had married another man. She should perform chalitzahand not yibbum.
Similarly, when there is a doubt whether a yevamah was forbidden to her [deceased] husband as one of the arayot, or33 there is a doubt whether she is forbidden to her yavam for that reason, she should perform chalitzah and notyibbum.
On this basis, [the following rules apply when] a man [attempted to] consecrate a woman, but there was a doubt regarding the status of thekiddushin, and afterwards, his brother, who had been married to the sister [of the woman he intended to consecrate], died. He should perform chalitzah and not yibbum with the wife [of the deceased].34 And because of the doubt, he must divorce his wife with a get.
Both women are forbidden to him: his yevamah because there is a doubt whether she is an ervah, and the woman he consecrated because there is a doubt whether her status is that of one related to a woman with whom he performed chalitzah, who is forbidden as a sh'niyah is, as explained above.35
Halacha 14
[The following principle applies when a man's] brother dies [childless] leaving two wives: one forbidden to [the yavam] as an ervah,36 and one who is not forbidden in this manner. Just as the woman who is forbidden is not under the obligation to perform chalitzah or yibbum, so too, [the deceased's] other wives are not obligated.
This household is not under any obligation [to the yavam], as our Sages derived from [Deuteronomy 25:9]: "...Who did not build his brother's house": [Women from] a household from which he can take [any wife] he desires is under obligation [to the yavam]. But if he cannot "build" a portion of the household - i.e., he is forbidden to marry the woman - he should not "build" even the portion that is permitted to him.
Thus, [when one of the wives of the deceased] is forbidden to [the yavam] as an ervah, the other wife also remains forbidden to him as an ervah. [She is still forbidden as] his brother's wife, for she is not under any obligation at all to him.
Halacha 15
Accordingly, [the following rules apply when] Reuven dies [childless], leaving two wives, one of whom is forbidden as an ervah to [his brother] Shimon, and both are fit to marry [his brother] Levi.37 [The wives of] this household are under no obligation at all to Shimon, and both are under obligation to Levi.
[The following rule applies if] Levi performed yibbum with the woman who was married [to Reuven] but who was not an ervah to Shimon, [Levi] had another wife, and then he died [childless], and both women fell before to Shimon. They are both free of the obligation to perform either chalitzah or yibbum with Shimon.38 [Levi's yevamah] is forbidden because she was married to the same man as was a woman forbidden [to Shimon] as an ervah, and the other wife is forbidden because she was married to the same man [as theyevamah].
This principle applies whenever a woman is married to the same man as a woman who was the other wife [of a woman forbidden to the yavam] and to any further extension of this principle.39 As long as a woman is under no obligation [to her yavam], she remains forbidden to him as his brother's wife.
Halacha 16
Similarly, the wife of a brother who died before [his younger brother was born is forbidden to him]. She is under no obligation to him, as implied by [Deuteronomy 25:5]: "When brothers dwell together," interpreted to mean: when they live at the same time. She remains forbidden to him forever, and she frees all of her husband's other wives from an obligation to him.
Halacha 17
What is implied? Reuven died [childless], leaving a wife who fell before Shimon [his brother]. After Reuven died, whether before Shimon performedyibbum with Reuven's wife or afterwards, Levi [another brother] was born.
Reuven's wife remains forbidden to Levi as an ervah forever. Therefore, if Shimon dies [childless], and this woman and another woman [who was married to Shimon] fall before Levi, neither are obligated to perform chalitzahor yibbum.
Halacha 18
[Moreover,] if Shimon [merely] gave a ma'amar to his yevamah, Reuven's wife, and died before he consummated his relationship with her, Levi should perform chalitzah with [Shimon's] other wife, but not yibbum. [The rationale is] that a ma'amar does not establish a completely binding relationship with ayevamah, as we have explained.40
Halacha 19
When a woman willingly commits adultery while married to her husband, and [her act is observed by] witnesses [he is required to divorce her].41 If he died [childless] before he divorced her, and she fell before a yavam, she is not obligated to perform chalitzah or yibbum. Moreover, [her deceased husband's] other wives are also [not obligated to perform chalitzah or yibbum], as if she were forbidden to the yavam as an ervah. For just as impurity is mentioned with regard to the arayot,42 so too, that term is mentioned with regard to such a woman, as [Numbers 5:13] states: "And she became impure."43
When, however, the husband of a sotah dies [childless] before he has caused her to her drink the bitter waters,44 or if the woman must be divorced instead of drinking the bitter waters,45 she should perform chalitzah, but not yibbum.46Similarly, if [her deceased husband] had another wife, that woman is permitted [to the yavam] and may perform chalitzah or yibbum.
Halacha 20
Similar rules [apply] if two yevamot come from one household and one of them was a sh'niyah to the yavam, [forbidden to him because of] a negative commandment or a positive commandment, or an aylonit - another wife of [her deceased husband] is permitted [to the yavam] and may perform chalitzah oryibbum.
[Different rules apply, however, when a yavam] performed chalitzah with hisyevamah, and then the sister, the mother, or another [close relative] of the woman with whom he performed chalitzah married another one of his brothers, that brother has another wife, and [the brother] dies [childless].47Just as the close relative of the woman with whom he performed chalitzah is forbidden to him, so too, is the other wife forbidden to him. Their status is likesh'niyot, and they should perform chalitzah, but not yibbum.
Why did the Sages forbid [marriage] to a close relative of a woman with whom one performed chalitzah? Because it is difficult to distinguish her from a woman married to the same man as a woman with whom one performedchalitzah.48
Halacha 21
When two yevamot come from one household and one of them was forbidden to the yavam as an ervah, but she was also an aylonit, the other wife of [the deceased husband] is permitted [to the yavam] and may perform chalitzah oryibbum. [The rationale is that] since the laws of yibbum and chalitzah do not apply with regard to an aylonit, it is as if she did not exist, and the obligation [ofyibbum] falls on the other wife alone.
Similarly, if [the deceased] brother divorced the woman forbidden as an ervahor she dissolved their marriage through] mi'un before he died, or she died during the lifetime of the deceased brother, and then he died, his other wife is permitted and should perform either chalitzah or yibbum. We do not say that since she was married to the same man as an ervah once, she remains forbidden forever. For a woman married to the same man as an ervah does not become forbidden [to the yavam] unless they were [both married to the same man at the time of his death, when] the obligation of yibbum takes effect.
Halacha 22
[In the situation mentioned in Halachah 14,] if there was a doubt regarding the status of the kiddushin of [the woman] who was forbidden to the yavam as anervah or there was a doubt that she was divorced, the other wife [of the deceased brother] should perform chalitzah, but not yibbum.49
[The same ruling applies if the woman who was forbidden] was a minor who is fit to absolve her marriage through mi'un, if she did not dissolve her marriage [to the deceased] brother during his lifetime, even though she did dissolve her obligation to] the yavam through mi'un,50 another woman married to her husband must perform chalitzah; she may not perform yibbum.
Halacha 23
[In the situation mentioned in Halachah 14,] if the other woman [married to the deceased brother] married another man, and then it was discovered that [the woman forbidden to the yavam as] an ervah was an aylonit,51 the woman who married must be released by both her [second] husband and her yavam. Her [second] husband must divorce her with a get, while her yavam must performchalitzah with her. [In this way,] she is permitted to marry another man.
Halacha 24
[In the above situation], if the yavam performed yibbum with the other wife of the deceased, because he thought that the woman forbidden to him as anervah was an aylonit, and it was discovered that she was not an aylonit, theyavam must divorce [the woman with whom he performed yibbum] with aget.52 Any child [she bears him] is illegitimate.53
Halacha 25
[In the following situation, chalitzah and not yibbum is required.] There were three brothers. Two were married to two sisters, and one was married to a woman who did not share a family connection. If the brother married to the woman who was not related died [childless], and then one of the brothers married to one of the sisters died [childless], [the remaining brother] should perform chalitzah but not yibbum, with the woman who did not share a family connection54. [The rationale is that] she was obligated to the second brother, and his other wife was the sister [of the surviving yavam's] wife.55
Moreover, even if one of the brothers who married one of the sisters divorced his wife after the brother married to the woman who was not related died [childless], and then he himself dies [childless], [the remaining brother] should perform chalitzah, but not yibbum, with the woman who did not share a family connection. Since there was even one moment when this woman was obligated to the second brother while his other wife was the sister [of the surviving yavam's] wife [this prohibition was enforced].56 For if [he] were [allowed to] perform yibbum with her, it is possible that [in such a situation, a brother] might perform yibbum with such a woman even when the second brother who died did not divorce his wife.
Halacha 26
Why was this decree not applied when a marriage was involved? For example, if [a brother is married to two women,] one of them is forbidden [to his brother] as an ervah and one is not. If he divorces the wife who is forbidden and then dies childless, [the surviving brother] may perform yibbumwith the wife [of the deceased brother], as we have explained.57
[The distinction is that] the prohibition against [performing yibbum] with a wife [of one's deceased brother] when one of his wives is forbidden [to the yavam] as ervah is known by all.58 Thus, if [the deceased brother] did not divorce the woman forbidden [to the yavam], no one would allow him [to perform yibbumwith his brother's] other wife. The prohibition against [performing yibbum with] a woman who was obligated to [a man whose] other wife is forbidden [to theyavam] is not known to all, and it is possible that [in such a situation, a brother] might be allowed to [perform yibbum with] such a woman even when [the second brother who died] did not divorce the forbidden woman.
Halacha 27
[In the following situation, chalitzah and not yibbum is required.] There were three brothers, all married to women who did not share any family connection. One of the brothers died [childless]. Another gave his yevamah a ma'amar, but died [childless] before he consummated his marriage to her. Thus, this woman and the wife of the second brother fell before the third brother.
These women should perform chalitzah, but not yibbum, because the woman who was given the ma'amar has two obligations for yibbum incumbent on her.59 As such, it is as if she had been married to two men. Our Sages interpreted the phrase [Deuteronomy 25:5] "the wife of the deceased," as a restriction. [One may perform yibbum with the wife of one deceased man,] but not [the wife of] two deceased men.60
Therefore, whenever a woman has two obligations for yibbum incumbent on her, she should perform chalitzah, but not yibbum. The same applies to the woman married to [the second brother who died]. The prohibition [against performing yibbum with these women] is Rabbinic in origin.61
Halacha 28
Why does [the yavam] not merely perform chalitzah with the woman who was given the ma'amar and is thus obligated to perform yibbum because of two men, and then perform yibbum with the [first] wife of [the deceased brother]? This is a decree instituted so that people will not say that when there are twoyevamot coming from one household, one should perform chalitzah and the other yibbum.62 For this reason, [the Sages] forbade [performing yibbum with the deceased's first] wife.
Halacha 29
[In the above instance, if the second brother] gave his yevamah a ma'amarand then gave her a get [to nullify] the ma'amar, [different rules apply] if he dies. [The woman] becomes permitted [to the third brother], for the ma'amarthat caused her to be forbidden was nullified. He may perform either chalitzahor yibbum with her.63
Halacha 30
[In the following situation, chalitzah and not yibbum is required. A yavam] who is below the age of majority, [but more than] nine years and one day old, enters into relations with his yevamah and dies before he attains majority. She then becomes obligated for yibbum to the minor's older brother for a second time. She should perform chalitzah, but not yibbum. As we have explained,64relations in which a minor engages are considered equivalent to a ma'amargiven by [a brother] past majority. Hence, the woman has two obligations foryibbum incumbent on her.
Halacha 31
[The following rule applies when] a woman who was half [a Canaanite] maid-servant and half a freed woman65 was consecrated by Reuven. She was then given her freedom and was consecrated by [Reuven's brother,] Shimon. Afterwards, both [brothers] died. Levi, [a third brother, may] perform yibbumwith [this woman]; she is not considered to be "the wife of two deceased men." For if her consecration by Reuven is effective, her consecration by Shimon is of no consequence.66 And if her consecration by Shimon is effective, her consecration by Reuven is of no consequence.
FOOTNOTES
1.
These categories are all defined in the following three halachot.
2.
A man who never displayed any male physical characteristics and who is sexually impotent. The Aruch interprets the term as meaning "one who became impotent as a result of fever." Yevamot 80a interprets it as meaning "one who never saw the light of the sun while potent."
3.
A person with both male and female sexual organs.
4.
Since the entire purpose of yibbum is to perpetuate the deceased brother's name (Deuteronomy 25:7), when this is not possible there is no obligation for this rite.
The Tur (Even HaEzer 172) quotes opinions that maintain that an androgynous is considered a normal male and may perform either yibbum or chalitzah, as he desires. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer172:8) also mentions this view, the Rambam's opinion appears to be favored.
5.
The intent is not that they should be encouraged to perform yibbum, but that if they perform yibbum, they acquire theyevamah as a wife. The rationale is that the act of yibbum does not require intent, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 3.
6.
In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo emphasizes that this ruling applies only when the yevamah's deceased husband was mentally competent. If the deceased also was a deaf-mute, the deaf-mute yavammay divorce her by signaling with hand motions. Rav Yosef Karo reiterates this decision in the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 172:12).
7.
See Chapter 5, Halachah 18. Note Chapter 5, Halachah 21, which states that if he did not enter into relations with his yevamahafter he attained majority, he must also perform the rite of chalitzah.
8.
A person consecrated one of two sisters, and it is not known which one he consecrated. He is not allowed to marry, because he does not know which of the women is his wife and which is forbidden to him. If he dies, his brother may not performyibbum, because the same doubt applies with regard to him. (See Chapter 8, Halachah 1.)
9.
See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, Chapter 16, for a detailed treatment of this subject.
10.
A person whose genital area is covered by flesh and determination of his sex is not possible , as stated in Hilchot Ishut 2:25.
The Tur (Even HaEzer 172) quotes opinions that maintain that there is doubt whether atumtum may perform yibbum. Therefore, he must perform chalitzah. Although theShulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 172:9) also mentions this view, the Rambam's opinion appears to be favored.
11.
Once the operation is performed and it is determined that he is a male, there is no difference between him and other males.
12.
These categories are all defined in the following three halachot.
13.
With regard to a minor, see Chapter 4, Halachah 16.
14.
For according to Scriptural and Talmudic law, neither a woman's understanding nor her consent is necessary for a divorce to be effective.
15.
See Halachah 10. (See also a delineation of the women included in these three categories in Hilchot Ishut 1:6-8.)
16.
A severe prohibition punishable by karet. See Hilchot Ishut 1:5; Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah2:1.
17.
I.e., if the brother's consecration was effective, then the yavam is performing a mitzvah, and if it was not effective, he has no ties to the woman at all, and he may consecrate her as he consecrates any other woman (Yevamot 41b).
18.
Although the marriage of a deaf-mute is not binding according to Scriptural law, his brother may still perform yibbum.
19.
Note the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Yevamot 2:3), where he cites a different proof-text for this concept, one that is not mentioned in other Rabbinic sources.
20.
For a positive commandment does not supersede the observance of a negative commandment punishable by karet. Although it is not necessary to mention a proof-text for this concept, the Rambam does so, because it represents the simple meaning of the passage from the Torah (Maggid Mishneh; Kin'at Eliyahu).
21.
And yet to be permitted to her deceased husband, so that her original marriage was binding (in contrast to the instances mentioned in Halachah 12).
22.
Nevertheless, after engaging in relations once to fulfill the mitzvah of yibbum, theyavam would be obligated to divorce theyevamah, as evident from Hilchot Ishut 4:14.
23.
Note the statements of the Beit Shmuel174:3, who connects this concept with the difference of opinion between the Sephardic and Ashkenazic authorities with regard to which takes precedence: yibbum orchalitzah. (See the notes on Chapter 1, Halachah 2.)
24.
The commentaries raise the question of why, in this clause, the Rambam omits the mention of women with whom relations are forbidden by virtue of a positive commandment. They explain that his omission holds the key to the comprehension of a more general question.
Although the observance of a positive commandment supersedes the observance of a negative commandment, the observance of one positive commandment does not supersede the observance of another positive commandment. And therefore, the question arises: Why doesyibbum establish a binding marriage bond when the transgression of a positive commandment is involved? Such a transgression is not mandated by law.
The commentaries explain that indeed theyavam should not - even according to Scriptural law - perform yibbum in such a situation, and therefore the Rambam omits mention of those forbidden by a positive commandment in this clause. If, however, the yavam does violate the positive commandment, the marriage bond created is binding. For just as the positive commandment of yibbum is not greater than the positive commandment involving the prohibition, the positive commandment involving the prohibition is not greater than the positive commandment of yibbum. See the conclusion of the Responsa of the Noda Biy'hudah on Choshen Mishpat and the commentary of the Or Sameach on this halachah.
25.
In which instance the prohibition against further relations is merely Rabbinic in origin.
26.
I.e., the positive commandment of yibbumdoes not supersede both the prohibition against a High Priest's marrying a widow, and the positive commandment that he must marry a virgin. For this reason, this halachah mentions an instance when the woman's marriage was consummated. If she became a widow when she had merely been consecrated, only a negative commandment is involved, and the laws mentioned in the previous halachah apply.
27.
The commentaries infer that the Rambam's wording implies that if the High Priest divorces the woman, she herself may marry others; she does not require chalitzah. See the conclusion of the gloss of the Beit Shmuel 174:3.
28.
Who is also her brother.
29.
E.g., the deceased brother married his maternal sister. She has no family connection whatsoever to the surviving brother, and he is permitted to marry her.
30.
It is not as if he married two yevamot from the same household, because the woman who was forbidden to the deceased is not considered part of his household.
31.
An example of a negative commandment incumbent on the deceased, but not on theyavam, would be a High Priest who married a widow. His brother, an ordinary priest, is not bound by that prohibition. An example of a positive commandment incumbent on the deceased, but not on the yavam, would be a High Priest who married a woman who had engaged in relations previously. His brother, an ordinary priest, is not bound by that prohibition.
32.
For example, the deceased married his maternal grandmother, who is forbidden to him as a sh'niyah. If the deceased has a paternal brother who had a different mother, that brother is a yavam and there is no prohibition against his marrying his brother's grandmother.
33.
Note the Kessef Mishneh, which suggests altering the text of the Mishneh Torah and substituting the word "and" for "or." For, as it explains, if the yevamah is not forbidden to the yavam, the fact that she was forbidden - or that there was a doubt whether she was forbidden - to her deceased husband does not prevent the yavam from marrying her, as stated in the previous halachah.
34.
For it is possible that his original kiddushinwere binding, and by marrying the yevamahhe will be transgressing the prohibition against marrying two sisters.
35.
Chapter 1, Halachah 13. (See also Chapter 7, Halachah 8.)
If the kiddushin the yavam gave were definitely binding, the chalitzah would be of no consequence, because the yevamahwould not be obligated to him at all. Nevertheless, since that has not been established definitively, the chalitzah is necessary, and as a consequence, theyavam must divorce the woman whom he originally desired to marry.
36.
But not to the deceased - e.g., the yavam'sdaughter.
37.
E.g., Reuven married Shimon's daughter. She is thus forbidden to Shimon and permitted to Levi.
38.
If Levi had another brother, they would, however, be under obligation to him.
39.
I.e., if Reuven, Shimon, and Levi had another brother and he performed yibbumwith the woman who was not previously married to Reuven, that brother had another wife, and then he died without children - his wives are also under no obligation to Shimon. Since one of the wives was once freed from an obligation to him, even if she remarries she can never be obligated to him. Moreover, she frees all the other wives of her second husband from an obligation to him.
40.
Chapter 5, Halachot 2-3.
Through the ma'amar, Shimon established a connection with his yevamah. Therefore, our Sages ordained that Levi should not performyibbum with Shimon's wife. Nevertheless, since Shimon did not establish a marriage that was binding according to Scriptural law with his yevamah, Levi is required to perform chalitzah with Shimon's wife.
The Kessef Mishneh (in its gloss on Halachah 10), notes that - as reflected in Halachah 25 - even if Shimon did not give ama'amar to Reuven's wife, the very fact that she is under obligation to him is sufficient cause for Levi to be prohibited from performing yibbum with her. The Rambam did not mention this concept in this halachah, because: a) he was quoting the Mishnah (Yevamot, Chapter 1), and b) he wanted to emphasize that even if Shimon gave Reuven's wife a ma'amar, Levi is still obligated to perform chalitzah with Shimon's wife. The ma'amar does not free her of obligation entirely.
41.
See Hilchot Ishut 24:18.
42.
As Leviticus 18:24 states: "Do not become impure through any of these [forbidden relationships]."
43.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam regarding this matter and maintains that just as the woman's husband would have to give her a get to terminate their relationship, so too, her yavam must perform chalitzah with her. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer173:11) follows the Rambam's ruling, while the Ramah mentions that of the Ra'avad.
44.
A sotah is not given the bitter waters to drink after her husband's death, as stated inHilchot Sotah 2:7.
45.
As explained in Hilchot Sotah 2:2, there are some women whose fidelity should be tested by the bitter waters. Nevertheless, because of certain incidental factors, she is not given these waters to drink and instead must be divorced by her husband.
46.
According to the Rambam, the difference between these two instances is that the infidelity of the sotah has not been proven, while in the former case, the woman's infidelity is an established fact.
47.
Although Rashi offers a different interpretation for this concept, the halachic authorities follow the Rambam's view.
48.
If the relatives of a woman who performedchalitzah were permitted, one might think that another woman who was married to the deceased husband of the woman who performed chalitzah would also be permitted.
49.
Since it is possible that the ervah was never married to the deceased, or that her marriage was already terminated, the yavammust perform chalitzah to enable the other wife to remarry. He may not, however, perform yibbum, for it is possible that the marriage of the ervah was effected by the kiddushin or not terminated by the divorce, in which instance, the yavam would be forbidden to have relations with the other wife of his deceased brother, as stated in Halachah 15.
50.
The minor nullifies her marriage retroactively through mi'un, and it is as if she had never been married at all. As such, the obligation ofyibbum falls on the other wife. Nevertheless, since this halachic concept might not be known to all, our Sages forbade the other wife of the deceased from performingyibbum, lest the impression be created that a woman married to the same man as anervah is also permitted (Yevamot 13a, 107b).
51.
The other wife of the deceased was under the impression that she did not requirechalitzah to be released, as stated in Halachah 15. Afterwards, it was discovered that the woman forbidden to the yavam as an ervah was an aylonit, in which instance the obligation of yibbum falls solely on the other wife, as stated in Halachah 21. Thus, her second marriage involves a transgression and must be terminated. (See Chapter 2, Halachah 18.) Nevertheless, a child fathered by her second husband is not considered illegitimate, because the negative commandment violated is not punishable bykaret.
52.
The Or Sameach explains that ordinarily, when a woman is prohibited as an ervah, aget is not necessary. Nevertheless, an exception is made in this instance, lest people think that the deceased divorced his other wife before his death, and the act ofyibbum was binding.
The Tur (Even HaEzer 173) maintains that aget is not required, and indeed suggests that this is also the Rambam's intent, but the text of the Mishneh Torah was flawed by a printer's error. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 173:9) does not require a get.
53.
As stated in Halachah 14, the prohibition against relations with a brother's wife applies in such an instance. This prohibition is punishable by karet. Hence, any child born to this couple - whether before or after he discovers that the ervah was an aylonit - is illegitimate.
54.
His wife's sister, by contrast, need not perform yibbum or chalitzah. She is free to marry any man.
55.
With regard to yibbum, the obligation to perform yibbum is powerful enough to have the woman considered the wife of a man whose other wife is an ervah to the yavam. Nevertheless, this comparison is not complete. For since the deceased brother never actually married her, she is obligated to perform chalitzah.
56.
The Ra'avad and others differ with the Rambam regarding this issue, maintaining that the prohibition is not applied when the second brother divorces his first wife.
57.
See Halachah 21.
58.
And, as reflected in Halachah 14, it is of Scriptural origin.
59.
I.e., since she did not perform yibbum with the brother who gave her the ma'amar, she is still obligated to perform yibbum because of her first husband, and since a ma'amar is considered equivalent to consecration, she is also obligated to perform yibbum because of the second brother who died.
60.
If, however, the second brother performedyibbum before dying, this restriction does not apply.
61.
It was stated above that the prohibition against marrying a woman who is obligated to perform yibbum because of two men is derived from a verse. Nevertheless, as reflected by the fact that chalitzah is required (Yevamot 31b), that verse is only an asmachta, a support. The source of the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin. (NoteTosafot, who differ and maintain that the prohibition is of Scriptural origin.)
62.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 12, which states that once a yavam has foregone the privilege of yibbum by performing chalitzah, neither he nor his brothers may performyibbum with any of the wives of that brother.
63.
For the only obligation incumbent on her is due to the brother who died first. The third brother must also perform either yibbum orchalitzah with the wife of the second brother.
64.
Chapter 5, Halachah 18.
65.
E.g., a Canaanite maid-servant who was owned by two partners, and one partner set her free, but the other did not.
66.
The consecration of such a woman is discussed in Hilchot Ishut 4:16.
Yibbum vChalitzah - Chapter Seven
Halacha 1
When two brothers were married to two sisters, [the brothers] both died, and it is impossible to know who died first,1 [a third brother who remains alive] may not perform yibbum with both of them.2 Since they are both obligated to him, they both must perform chalitzah and not yibbum.
[The above ruling applies even] when one [of the yevamot] was forbidden to the yavam as a sh'niyah, or because of a positive commandment or a negative commandment.3 If, however, one [of the yevamot] was forbidden to the yavam as an ervah - e.g., she was his wife's mother or daughter - the sister is permitted [to the yavam]; he may perform either yibbum or chalitzah, as he desires. For both of the sisters were not obligated to him, since anervah is not bound by this obligation.
Halacha 2
When in the above situation there were four brothers,] and one [of theyevamot] was forbidden to one of the yevamim as an ervah, and the otheryevamah was forbidden to the other yavam as an ervah, [the yevamah] who is forbidden to one [yavam] is permitted to his brother, and [the yevamah] who is forbidden to the other [yavam] is permitted to his brother. For [in both instances] only [the yevamah] who is permitted to him is obligated [to each brother]. [Each one] may perform either yibbum or chalitzah with [theyevamah] permitted to him, as he desires.
Halacha 3
[In the above situation,] if one of the brothers died [and his identity was known], and his wife became obligated to perform yibbum, and then the other brother died, his wife - the sister of the first wife - became obligated to performyibbum; [as long as] both remain alive, they both must perform chalitzah and not yibbum, as we have explained.4
Halacha 4
If [the wife of] the second [brother] dies, the [wife of the] first becomes permitted again. She may perform either chalitzah or yibbum.
If [the wife of] the first [brother] dies, the [wife of the] second remains forbidden. She must perform chalitzah and may not perform yibbum. [The rationale is that she was not fit to perform yibbum at the time she came before [her yavam].
Similarly, if one of the brothers performed chalitzah with the [wife of the] second [brother] first,5 the [wife of the] first becomes permitted to the other brothers. For the obligation that caused her to become forbidden was removed by his brother by performing chalitzah.
Halacha 5
Similarly, if [the wife of] the first [brother] was forbidden to one of the brothers as an ervah, and he performed yibbum with [the wife of] the second [brother] who was permitted to him,6 the [wife of the] first becomes permitted to the other brothers. For the woman who caused her to be forbidden to them performed yibbum with a brother to whom she was permitted.
If, however, [the wife of] the second [brother] was forbidden to one of the brothers as an ervah, he should perform yibbum with [the wife of] the first [brother],7 but the other brothers are forbidden to perform yibbum with both of them.8They must perform chalitzah instead, as we have explained.9
If [in the situation mentioned in the final clause of Halachah 3] each one of the brothers marries one of the sisters [without asking Rabbinical guidance first], they must be forced to separate.10
Halacha 6
[Our Sages delivered these rulings in the following situation:] There were three brothers. Two were married to two sisters. One of the brothers married to the sisters died [childless]. The third [brother] gave a ma'amar to his yevamah, and then the husband of the second sister died, and the second sister also became obligated to the third brother. The third brother should divorce with aget [the sister] to whom he gave a ma'amar, and perform chalitzah with her.11And he should perform chalitzah with the other sister, to enable her to marry another man.
Halacha 7
[In the above situation,] if the brother who gave the ma'amar [to the first brother's wife] died [childless], and he had another wife, both she and [the wife of the first brother] fall before [the brother] married to the sister of [the wife of the first brother]. The woman who was given the ma'amar is free from the obligations of chalitzah and yibbum, for she is the sister of [her yavam's] wife. The other woman should perform chalitzah and not yibbum, because thema'amar does not fully acquire a woman [as a wife]12 to the extent that another wife would be freed of the obligations [of yibbum].13
Halacha 8
When a brother consecrates the sister of his yevamah,14 we tell him: "Wait; do not divorce her and do not marry her15 until your brother performs yibbumor chalitzah with the woman who is under obligation."
If his brother performs yibbum or chalitzah with the yevamah, or if she dies, the brother may marry the woman he has consecrated. If all his brothers die,16 he must divorce with a get the woman he has consecrated, and performchalitzah with his yevamah.
If the woman he has consecrated died, regardless of whether she died before the brothers died or after the brothers died, the yevamah becomes permitted. He may perform either yibbum or chalitzah.17
Halacha 9
[The above laws become even more complicated if the brothers have more than one wife. For example,] there were three brothers. Two were married to two sisters, and each also had another wife. [The brothers] married to the sisters died [childless], and the sisters and the other wives fell before theyavam.
If he performs chalitzah with the other wives, the sisters are also freed of their obligation. If, however, he performs chalitzah with the sisters, the other wives are not freed of their obligations until they themselves perform chalitzah. [The rationale is that] the chalitzah performed by the sisters is not "superior,"18 and, as we have explained,19 a chalitzah that is not "superior" does not free another wife [of the deceased] from her obligation.
Halacha 10
It appears to me20 that this law also applies with regard to two yevamotcoming from one household, when one is forbidden to her yavam as ash'niyah, or because of a positive or negative prohibition. If the yavamperforms chalitzah with the woman who is prohibited, [the deceased's] other wife is not freed of her obligation. If he performs chalitzah with the other wife, the woman who is prohibited is freed of her obligation.
Halacha 11
[There is no need for yibbum or chalitzah in the following situation:] There were three brothers. Two were married to two sisters, and the third was married to a woman who did not share a family connection with them. One of the brothers married to the sisters died [childless] and the brother married to the other woman performed yibbum with [the brother's] wife. Afterwards, the wife of the second brother, [i.e., the sister of the yevamah] died, and then the third brother [the one who performed yibbum, died childless]. Thus, his two wives fall before the second brother, who is [now] unmarried.
These women are free of the obligation to perform either chalitzah or yibbum. One, the sister of [the yavam's deceased] wife [is forbidden], because she was the sister of his wife at the time his brother died. [At that time,] she became forbidden to him forever, as the wife of a brother who was not alive at the time of his [older] brother's [death]. The other woman [is forbidden], because she is the other wife [of her deceased husband].21
Halacha 12
Similarly, when two brothers are married to two sisters and one of [the brothers] dies [childless], and then the wife of the sister dies, [the wife of the first brother] remains forbidden [to the second brother] forever, since she was forbidden to him at the time [the obligation of yibbum first takes effect].
When, however, a man divorces his wife, remarries her and then dies [childless], she is permitted to the yavam. Although she was forbidden to him during his brother's lifetime at the time he divorced her, she became permitted [when he remarried her]. And at the time his brother died, she was permitted.
Halacha 13
[The following rules apply when] a girl below the age of majority was given in marriage by her father, and her husband divorced her, remarried her and then died [childless] while she was still below the age of majority.
Halacha 14
The same law applies when a man divorces a woman who is mentally competent, she becomes a deaf-mute, he remarries her and dies [childless] while she is a deaf-mute. She is forbidden to the yavam and should not perform either chalitzah or yibbum.25
Another woman married [to the deceased husband of] the minor or the deaf-mute may perform chalitzah, or yibbum.26
If [the deceased] remarried her while she was a minor or a deaf-mute, but she attained majority or regained her control of her faculties while married to him, and then he died [childless], she is permitted to her yavam.27
Halacha 15
When two brothers were married to two sisters, who were both below the age of majority and fit to dissolve their marriages through mi'un, or they were deaf-mutes, and one [of the brothers] dies [childless], his wife is not obligated to perform either chalitzah or yibbum, because she is the sister [of the yavam's] wife.28
If one [of the sisters] was above the age of majority and one was below, and the husband of the younger one died [childless], his wife is not obligated to perform either chalitzah or yibbum, because she is the sister [of the yavam's] wife.29 If the husband of the older [sister] died [childless], we instruct the younger one to absolve [her marriage to] her husband through mi'un, allowing the older [sister] to perform yibbum.30
Halacha 16
[The following law applies when two brothers who are both deaf-mutes are married to two sisters, and one [of the brothers] dies [childless]. His wife is not obligated to perform either chalitzah or yibbum, because she is the sister [of the yavam's] wife. [This law applies] regardless of whether both of the sisters were deaf-mutes, both were mentally competent, or one was a deaf-mute and one was mentally competent.
Similarly, [the same law applies when] two sisters are both deaf-mutes and are married to two brothers, regardless of whether both of the brothers were deaf-mutes, both were mentally competent, or one was a deaf-mute and one was mentally competent.
[These rulings were given] because none of the marriages is fully binding.31
Halacha 17
[The following law applies when two brothers - one mentally competent and one a deaf-mute - are married to two sisters, either both mentally competent or one mentally competent and one a deaf-mute, and the mentally competent [sister] is married to the mentally competent [brother]. If the deaf-mute [brother] dies [childless], his wife is not obligated to perform either chalitzah oryibbum, because she is the sister [of the yavam's] wife.32
If the mentally competent [brother] dies [childless], the deaf-mute should divorce his wife with a get, because her sister is obligated to him.33 [The rationale for this ruling is] that the marriage of the deceased mentally competent brother was fully binding, [and thus] the obligation to the deaf-mute is also fully binding. [In contrast,] the marriage of the deaf-mute is not fully binding.
Halacha 18
Why did our Sages decree that a deaf-mute man must divorce his deaf-mute wife [in the above situation]? They are not obligated to observe the mitzvot; their situation resembles that of a child who eats non-kosher meat - in which instance, the court is not obligated to prevent them.36
Our Sages said: If the [deaf-mute's] wife will remain married to him, her sister will marry another man, [and this will be excused, for people] will say: "She was freed [from the obligations of yibbum and chalitzah] because she was the sister of [the yavam's] wife." [To prevent this impression from arising,] the deaf-mute must divorce his wife with a get, and her sister will be forbidden [to him] forever.
Halacha 19
Similarly, when two brothers who are mentally competent are married to two sisters, one mentally competent and one a deaf-mute, and the husband of the deaf-mute dies, [his wife] is free [of the obligation of yibbum], because she is the sister of [the yavam's] wife.37
Halacha 20
[Neither yibbum nor chalitzah is required in the following situation.] There were two brothers, one mentally competent and one a deaf-mute. The deaf-mute was married to two mentally competent women, one of whom was forbidden to the mentally competent brother as an ervah.
If the deaf-mute brother dies [childless], both his wives are free from the obligations [of yibbum and chalitzah, based on the following rationale].40 If the marriage of the woman forbidden [to the yavam] as an ervah is considered a marriage, the second woman is considered to be the other wife [of her husband] and is also freed of obligation. If the marriage of the woman forbidden [to the yavam] as an ervah is not considered a marriage, the marriage of the other woman is also not considered a marriage.
Halacha 21
If a man's daughter or the like41 was a deaf-mute, and she was married to his brother who was mentally competent [and the mentally competent brother dies childless], his other wife must perform chalitzah, but not yibbum. [The rationale is that] the marriage of the deaf-mute is not a fully binding marriage.42
Halacha 22
Whenever we have mentioned "two sisters" in these laws, the intent is also a woman and her daughter, or her granddaughter and the like; i.e., two woman [for whom marriage to one causes] the other to be considered an ervah.
Similarly, whenever we have mentioned "the sister of [the yavam's] wife" or "the sister of his yevamah," the intent is also her mother or her daughter - i.e., any close relative who becomes forbidden [to the yavam] because of her [marriage].
FOOTNOTES
1.
The laws that apply when we do know which brother died first are stated in Halachot 3 and 4.
2.
According to Scriptural law, it is forbidden to marry two sisters. As an extension of this prohibition, when one is obligated to performyibbum with two sisters according to Rabbinic law, one is not allowed to marry either of them and must perform chalitzahwith both.
3.
For according to Scriptural law, the obligation of yibbum applies in all these instances, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 10.
4.
In Halachah 1.
5.
The Kessef Mishneh (and the Beit Shmuel175:2) explain that this ruling applies only after the fact - i.e., he performed chalitzahwith the second yevamah without asking Rabbinical guidance. Had he in fact asked the Rabbis, they would have prohibited it, lest he err and perform chalitzah with the other sister. Once, however, the chalitzah is performed, we do not fear that a mistake will be made by others on a subsequent occasion.
6.
Since he was never permitted to marry the wife of the first brother who died, the wife of the second never became forbidden to him.
7.
Since he is not permitted to marry the wife of the second brother, the wife of the first never became forbidden to him. Hence, he should perform yibbum.
8.
The Rambam mentions both yevamot to teach that even if the brother who marries the first yevamah dies, she remains forbidden to his brothers.
9.
See the previous halachah.
10.
This applies to both couples. The firstyavam who marries a yevamah is forced to separate because he has transgressed a Rabbinic prohibition. Even though he did not transgress in marrying his yevamah, the second yavam is forced to separate from her, because his marriage to her was made possible by a forbidden act, the first yavam'smarriage.
Significantly, this represents a reversal of the Rambam's opinion from his rulings in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Yevamot 3:1;Eduyot 5:5), where he rules that the couples may remain married. The Tur (Even HaEzer175) subscribes to that view. Although theShulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 175:3) also mentions it, it appears that the Rambam's ruling in the Mishneh Torah is favored.
11.
This law is fundamentally the same as Halachah 3. The yavam is forbidden to perform yibbum with either of the sisters. There is one added element: the fact that ama'amar was given.
As explained in Chapter 5, Halachot 2-3, ama'amar does not establish a complete marriage bond. If it established such a bond, the third brother would not be required to divorce his yevamah (and he would not be required to perform chalitzah with her sister). But since it does not, he cannot consummate his relationship with hisyevamah. He must, however, divorce her, because of the connection established by the ma'amar.
12.
As reflected in Chapter 6, Halachah 25, even if the yavam who died had not given ama'amar to the other yevamah, this woman would not have been able to performyibbum. The new dimension contributed by this halachah is that the ma'amar does not free her from the obligation of chalitzah.
13.
I.e., had the ma'amar established a full marriage bond, she would not have been obligated at all. Since it does not, she must perform chalitzah.
14.
This law applies if he consecrates her after his brother has died, and the obligation ofyibbum is already incumbent upon him. If he consecrated her before his brother dies, and then he dies, he may marry her (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 159:6).
15.
At present, the woman he consecrates is forbidden to him, because he is obligated to perform yibbum with her sister. Nevertheless, he is not required to divorce her, because it is possible that the prohibition will be lifted.
16.
Or he has no other brothers.
17.
The fact that he was forbidden to marry her while her sister was alive does not prevent him from marrying her after her sister's death (Beit Shmuel 159:13).
18.
From Yevamot 41a, it appears that whenever a yavam cannot perform yibbumwith his yevamah, the chalitzah he performs with her is deemed "inferior."
19.
Chapter 5, Halachah 12.
20.
This expression is employed by the Rambam in reference to a law that has no direct source in the Rabbinic works of the previous generations. The Rambam's rationale is that just as the Rabbinic prohibition against performing yibbum with the sister of a woman to whom one is obligated is sufficient to cause a chalitzah to be considered "inferior," so too, the prohibitions mentioned in this halachah should have a similar effect.
There are several early halachic authorities who rule differently from the Rambam on this issue. The Rambam's decision is, however, accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 174:1).
21.
This represents a reversal of the Rambam's opinion in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Yevamot 3:7), where he states that the deceased's other wife should performchalitzah, because there is a doubt whether or not an obligation falls upon her.
22.
For the prohibition forbidding a woman divorced by her husband to her yavam is of Scriptural origin, while her remarriage is binding according to Rabbinic law alone.
The Ra'avad and Rabbenu Asher rule that the minor must perform chalitzah when she attains majority. The Ma'aseh Rokeachstates this might also be the Rambam's intent (as reflected by the fact that he states that "she is forbidden to her yavam," and in the next halachah he adds that she "should not perform either chalitzah or yibbum"). Most commentaries do not, however, accept this interpretation.
23.
The Rambam's wording is somewhat imprecise. The kiddushin the husband gives the father are binding according to Scriptural law, because the Torah granted him the right to consecrate her, as stated in Hilchot Ishut3:11. If the girl is able to distinguish between a get and another object, she can be divorced according to Scriptural law, as stated in Hilchot Gerushin 2:19.
24.
Until she reaches the age of twelve and manifests signs of physical maturity, she is not able to effect kiddushin that are binding according to Scriptural law. (Moreover, the girl's father also does not have the potential to consecrate her again according to Scriptural law once she has been divorced, as stated in Hilchot Ishut 3:12.)
25.
In this instance as well, the divorce is binding according to Scriptural law, while the remarriage is merely a Rabbinic institution.
26.
Since the remarriage of the minor or the deaf-mute is only a Rabbinic institution, while the marriage of the deceased's other wife is based on Scriptural law, the remarriage of the minor or the deaf-mute has no effect on the other wife's obligation to her yavam. SeeShulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 173:23).
27.
If her husband engaged in marital relations with her after she attained majority or regained control of her faculties, he acquires her as a wife according to Scriptural law. (See Hilchot Gerushin 11:6.) Therefore, there is no difference between her and another woman who was married, divorced and remarried.
28.
Since both sisters share the same status, we allow the marriage of the sister whose husband is alive to continue. There is no mandate for him to perform yibbum, for the marriage to his yevamah would still be Rabbinical in origin.
29.
Since the marriage of the older sister is binding according to Scriptural law, the younger sister has no obligation to theyavam.
30.
The yibbum of the older sister is given priority over the marriage of the younger sister, because the older sister's first marriage is binding according to Scriptural law, and the obligation of yibbum is mandated by that authority. The marriage of the younger sister, by contrast, is binding only according to Rabbinic law.
Therefore, the younger sister is advised to perform mi'un, thus dissolving her marriage as if it had never existed. At this point, there is nothing preventing her husband from marrying her sister, his yavam. (See Chapter 4, Halachah 30.)
31.
As long as one of the parties involved is a deaf-mute, a marriage is binding only according to Rabbinic law. For this reason, there is no advantage for the yibbum of the deceased's wife over the existing marriage.
32.
Since both the husband and wife are mentally competent, their marriage is binding according to Scriptural law. The deceased's wife is, therefore, freed of all obligations.
33.
And it is forbidden to marry the sister of a woman with whom one is obligated to perform yibbum.
34.
For it is forbidden to marry the sister of one's divorcee.
35.
See Chapter 4, Halachah 13.
36.
I.e., the court, the agent of the Jewish people as a whole, does not have the responsibility to admonish a child who violates the Torah's laws. The child's parents, by contrast, do and must train him in the observance of the Torah's ways. SeeHilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 17:27-28.
37.
Since both partners are mentally competent, their marriage is binding according to Scriptural law.
38.
Since his marriage to the deaf-mute is only a Rabbinic institution, his obligation to the wife of his deceased brother, a requirement of Scriptural law, takes priority. Nevertheless, since he must divorce his deaf-mute wife with a get, he may not perform yibbum, for the yevamah is the sister of his divorcee.
39.
In contrast to the deaf-mute yavammentioned in Halachah 18.
40.
I.e., one might think that although the mitzvot of yibbum and chalitzah do not apply with regard to the woman forbidden as an ervah, they do apply with regard to her deceased husband's other wife.
Generally, when a woman is forbidden as anervah, her husband's other wives are not obligated, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 14. Nevertheless, since the deaf-mute's marriage is only a Rabbinic institution, one might think that the marriage to the woman forbidden as an ervah is not powerful enough to negate the obligation of yibbum. The Rambam's explanations that follow above are intended to counter this supposition.
41.
I.e., any other woman permitted to his brother, but forbidden to him as an ervah. This includes the brother's mother-in-law and his daughter-in-law, after they were widowed or divorced from their first husbands.
42.
If it were a fully binding marriage, the deceased's other wife would be freed of the obligation of chalitzah as well, as mentioned in note 40. Nevertheless, because the marriage is effective according to Rabbinic law, yibbum is not permitted.
Yibbum vChalitzah - Chapter Eight
Halacha 1
[The following rules apply when a man] consecrates one of two sisters, but does not know which one he has consecrated1 and then dies [childless]. If he has one brother, [the brother] should perform chalitzah with both of them to enable them to marry other men.
If he has two brothers, one of them should first perform chalitzah with one of [the sisters], and the other should perform yibbum with the other one2[because of the following rationale]: If this was the woman consecrated by his brother, he performed yibbum with her. If she is not his brother's wife, he has married a woman [permitted to him] like any other woman, and chalitzah has already been performed for her sister, his brother's wife.
One should not perform yibbum with one of the women first, for perhaps the other was in fact his brother's wife, and he will have married a relative of the woman who is obligated [to perform yibbum with] him.3 If, without asking Rabbinic advice,4 each of the brothers married one of the sisters, they are not forced to dissolve the marriage.5
Halacha 2
[The following rule applies when] two [men who are not related,] each having one brother, consecrate two sisters, neither of the men knows which [sister] he consecrated, and they both die [childless]. Each [brother] should performchalitzah with each of the sisters.6
[In the above situation, if] one of the deceased has one brother, and the other has two brothers, the one brother should perform chalitzah with both women first, and then one of the two brothers should perform chalitzah [with one woman] first, and the second one [should perform yibbum with the other].7 If, [without asking Rabbinic advice, each of the brothers] married [one of the sisters], they are not forced to dissolve the marriage.
[The above applies] even if the brothers were priests. [Although] there is a Rabbinic prohibition against a priest marrying a woman who performedchalitzah, the chalitzah performed by this woman was performed because of doubt, and [our Sages] did not enforce a decree with regard to a chalitzahperformed because of doubt.8
Halacha 3
In the above instance,] if both of the deceased had two brothers, one of one pair of brothers should perform chalitzah with one of the sisters, and one of the other pair of brothers should perform chalitzah with the other sister. Afterwards, the other brother from the first pair should perform yibbum with the sister with whom the brother from the other pair performed chalitzah, and the other brother from the second pair should perform yibbum with the sister with whom the brother from the first pair performed chalitzah.9
If both [brothers from one pair each] performed chalitzah with [one of the sisters] first, the brothers from the other pair should not both performyibbum.10 Instead, one should perform chalitzah [with one of the sisters] first, and then his brother should perform yibbum with the other. If, without asking Rabbinic advice, each of the brothers married one of the sisters, they are not forced to dissolve the marriage.
Halacha 4
[The following situation gives rise to several halachic questions:] A woman had sons, and one of her daughters-in-law also had sons. Both the woman and her daughter-in-law became pregnant and they gave birth in the same hiding place. [There was a disturbance] and the identity of the two children became confused [and it was not known who was the son of the mother, and who, the son of the daughter-in-law].
The two sons grew up and married and then died [childless]. How are their wives freed to marry others?11
First, [one of] the sons of the daughter-in-law should perform chalitzah with [both women]; he should not perform yibbum. [The rationale is that] there is a doubt regarding the identity of each of the women. It is possible that she is the wife of his brother and thus permitted to him, but it is also possible that she is the wife of his father's brother and thus forbidden to him as an ervah.
Afterwards,] the sons of the elder woman may perform either chalitzah oryibbum. [With regard to each of the women, the same question applies:] If she is his brother's wife, he is performing yibbum. And if she is the wife of his brother's son, she is permitted to marry him, because she has already performed chalitzah.
Halacha 5
[In the above situation, the following procedure should be carried out if] the sons of the elder woman and her daughter-in-law whose identities had been established died [childless], and the two sons whose identities were confused were alive.
The sons whose identities were confused should perform chalitzah with the wives of the elder woman's sons; they may not perform yibbum. [The rationale is that] there is a doubt whether [each woman] is the wife of his father's brother and thus forbidden to him as an ervah, or the wife of his brother and thus permitted to her yavam.
With regard to the wives of the sons of the daughter-in-law: First, one should perform chalitzah and the other should perform yibbum. The rationale is that if the son of the daughter-in-law was the one who performed chalitzah first, he performed chalitzah with his brother's wife. The second one of those whose identities were confused was the son of the elder woman. He is permitted to marry the wife of his brother's son after her yavam performed chalitzah with her.
If it was the son of the elder woman who performed chalitzah first, he performed chalitzah with the wife of his brother's son, and his deed is of no consequence. The second one of those whose identities were confused was the son of the daughter-in-law, and he performed yibbum with his brother's wife.
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply with regard to] a woman who did not wait three months after the death of her husband [before] remarrying].12 She remarried and gave birth, and it is not known whether the child she bore was fathered by the first husband and was born after a full term pregnancy, or whether it was fathered by the second husband and was born after a seven-month pregnancy.13
If the woman bore other children to both her first and second husbands, and then this son whose [father's identity] is in doubt dies [childless], both the sons of the first husband and the sons of the second husband should performchalitzah with [the deceased's] wife, but they should not perform yibbum.
[The rationale is that the obligation for] each of them to perform yibbum is doubtful, for perhaps he is not the paternal brother [of the deceased]. And he is definitely a maternal brother [of the deceased], and the wife of a maternal brother is always forbidden as an ervah. For this same [reason], the son whose [father's identity] is in doubt should perform chalitzah with any of the wives of [his other brothers], but should not perform yibbum.
Halacha 7
If both this woman's first and second husbands had fathered another son14with another wife, and one of these other sons died [childless], the son whose [father's identity] is in doubt may perform either chalitzah or yibbum with the wife of the deceased. [The rationale is] that if [the deceased] was his paternal brother, then he has performed yibbum. And if he was not his paternal brother, then they have no family connection at all, and he is permitted to marry [the deceased's] wife.
Halacha 8
[In the above situation,] if the son whose [father's identity] is in doubt dies [childless], one of the two sons whose [father's identity] is known should first perform chalitzah with his wife, and afterwards the second should performyibbum.15
[The rationale is that if the deceased] was his brother, then he has performedyibbum. And if he is not his brother, but rather the son of the other father, his wife has already performed chalitzah with her husband's brother [and is permitted to remarry].
Halacha 9
[The following rules apply when] a woman's husband traveled to another country, his wife heard that he died and [on this basis] married another man, and then her first husband returned. If both husbands die [childless],16 and they both have brothers, one of each husband's brothers should performchalitzah, but not yibbum.17
Halacha 10
[The following rules apply when there were] five women who each had a son whose identity had been established, and then the five women all gave birth together in a hiding place to five other sons, and the identities of the second group of sons became confused to the extent that it was not known who gave birth to whom. The sons whose identity became confused matured and married, and then these five men died [childless] and their five wives fell before the wives of the sons whose identity was known, but none of these sons knows who is the wife of his brother.
What must be done [so that these women can remarry]? Four [of the sons whose identity was known] perform chalitzah for one of the wives first, and the fifth son should marry her after she has performed chalitzah four times.
Halacha 11
What is implied? If the woman was his brother's wife, he has performedyibbum. And if she is not his brother's wife, she is the wife of the brother of one of the other four, and they all performed chalitzah with her first.
Similarly, the second woman should have four [of the sons whose identity was known] - including the one who married the first [of the widows]18 - perform chalitzah with her, and the fifth one should marry her. [This process should be continued] until the five sons have married the five [widows] after each one performed chalitzah four times earlier.
Halacha 12
When dealing with questionable situations of this nature, one should always have these principles at hand: When there is a doubt whether a woman is required to perform chalitzah with a particular man or not, she is not permitted to marry another man until that [first] man performs chalitzah with her.
Whenever there is a doubt whether a woman is forbidden to engage in relations with a man - whether because of a Scriptural prohibition or a Rabbinic prohibition - she should not perform yibbum with him.
Halacha 13
Following the above patterns, you will be able to understand and rule with regard to any questionable situations that will arise with regard to yibbum andchalitzah. For we have explained all the fundamental principles on which one should rely. You will know who should perform chalitzah, who should performyibbum, who is not obligated to perform chalitzah or yibbum and who is fit to perform yibbum.
With God's help, this concludes "The Laws of Yibbum and Chalitzah."
FOOTNOTES
1.
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer176:1), which states that this law applies even if the deceased brother never knew which sister he consecrated, and thus it was forbidden for him to consummate the marriage. Nevertheless, chalitzah is required.
2.
This and the laws that follow are based on the Rambam's conception (see Chapter 1, Halachah 2) that when possible, the mitzvah of yibbum takes precedence over the mitzvah of chalitzah. According to the Ashkenazic authorities, different laws apply.
3.
This is a Rabbinic prohibition.
4.
Our translation is based on the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.). If a Rabbinical opinion was sought and then ignored, the yevamim are required to divorce their wives.
5.
Although one of them surely violated a Rabbinic prohibition, since we are unable to determine which of them it was, they are both allowed to remain married. This follows the principle sefeka d'rabbanan l'kula, "When a doubt arises regarding the violation of a Rabbinic prohibition, the more lenient perspective is followed."
6.
Even after the brother of one of the deceased performs chalitzah with both women, the brother of the other deceased may not perform yibbum with one of the sisters, because she is the sister of the woman with whom he is obligated to performyibbum (or with whom he performedchalitzah).
7.
This and the clause that follows are restatements of the principles mentioned in the previous halachah.
8.
In most instances, if there is a doubt with regard to a Rabbinic prohibition, one may a priori perform the act in question. In this instance, it is only after the fact that yibbumis permitted. The reason for this stringency is that chalitzah is performed in public, and when people see that a woman who performed chalitzah married a priest, they may not appreciate the details of the particular instance and come to the false conclusion that there is no prohibition in doing so (Maggid Mishneh).
9.
This also is basically a restatement of the principles mentioned in the first halachah.
10.
Although the woman may be his yevamah, she may also be the sister of the woman with whom he is obligated to performyibbum, and whom he is therefore forbidden to marry.
11.
For it is unknown who should perform eitheryibbum or chalitzah, the sons of the mother or the sons of the daughter-in-law.
12.
See Hilchot Gerushin 11:18, which states that a woman should wait three months after her husband's death, so that it will be possible to determine who fathered her child.
13.
For example, the woman remarried two months after her first husband's death and gave birth seven months after her second marriage. Thus, it is unknown whether her child was fathered by her first husband or her second.
14.
The law that follows applies when the woman's husbands have each fathered only one other son with another wife.
15.
It is, however, forbidden for one of the sons to perform yibbum first, because it is possible that the deceased's wife is obligated to the other brother and must perform chalitzah.
16.
Even if only one of the husbands dies childless, his brother still must performchalitzah and may not perform yibbum.
17.
Yibbum is prohibited because, as stated inHilchot Gerushin 10:5, such a woman is forbidden to both her husbands and must be divorced by both of them.
The chalitzah performed by the brother of the first husband is required by Scriptural law, while the chalitzah performed by the brother of the second husband is mandated by Rabbinic decree.
18.
I.e., each of the sons whose identity is known should marry one of the widows instead of having one marry more than one. When one son marries more than one widow, we are certain that he did not perform yibbum twice. Either - or neither - of the women he married could have been his brother's widow, but there was only one widow, not two. Our Sages preferred having each of the sons marry one woman and thus take the chance that they were all fulfilling yibbum, rather than have one marry more than one. See Yevamot 98b.
19.
See Chapter 5, Halachah 10.
20.
See Chapter 5, Halachah 9.
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• "Today's Day"
Wednesday, Adar I 1, 5776 · 10 February 2016
Shabbat 1 Adar I, Shabbat Rosh Chodesh 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Mishpatim, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 1-9.
Tanya: Ch. 26. Truly this (p. 111)...as mentioned above. (p. 115).
Here there appears an interpretation of an abbreviation in Torah Or, relevant only in Hebrew. Translator).
It is written: "Man goes out to his work and to his labor (avoda) until evening."1 Every soul in its descent into this material world has general and personal tasks. This, then, is the meaning of the verse:
Man goes out to his work - the soul "goes out" from its position in the trove of souls, in the highest heavens, and descends from plane to plane until it comes to be invested in a body and in the natural and animal souls. The purpose of this descent is "man to his work" - to his general task of achieving dominance of "form over matter" (meaning, the spiritual over the material),2to illuminate the world with the light of Torah and the candle of Mitzva.
..to his labor refers to each individual's particular mission, for every soul has its unique Avoda in intellect and emotions according to its nature and character.3
...until evening - while there is still time to accomplish, as it is written, "Today, to perform them (the mitzvot)."4
On a more profound level the verse may be explained as follows: The verse refers to the ascent of the soul5 in general, achieved by its prior descent (Man goes out) into the material world:
When the soul ascends from its being enclothed in the body in this material world, then...
...to his work - the soul's occupation in the World To Come6 is commensurate with its occupation in the material world. If he had studied Torah regularly, there too (in the World To Come) the soul is ushered into the "Tents of Torah";
...to his labor - if he performed his avoda properly then his ascent goes on...
...until erev ("evening") - higher and higher until he attains the ultimate delight and areivut7 ("sweetness") of the Essence of the En Sof,8 may He be blessed.
FOOTNOTES
1. Tehillim 104:23. This chapter (Borchi nafshi) is said on Rosh Chodesh.
2. See Kislev 7, footnote.
3. See Nissan 8.
4. Devarim 7:11.
5. To a plane higher than it had ever been.
6. Olam haba, the spiritual Hereafter.
7. Associated with erev, "evening."
8. The Ultimate Infinity, G-d.
---------------------• Daily Thought:
Just Go Over It
For each problem, look for the crux of the issue and find the most direct, simple and powerful solution. The solution that pulls the rug out from under the feet of the problem and leaves it no room to return.
This solution will likely also be the most outrageous. That’s okay. You’ll do it in a perfectly natural way, as though this is just the way things have always been done. Don’t bat an eyelid and no one else will.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment