Pekudei: Exodus 38:21 These are the accounts of the tabernacle, the tabernacle of the testimony, recorded, as Moshe ordered, by the L’vi’im under the direction of Itamar the son of Aharon, the cohen.
22 B’tzal’el the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Y’hudah, made everything that Adonai ordered Moshe to make. 23 Assisting him was Oholi’av the son of Achisamakh, of the tribe of Dan, who was an engraver, a designer and a weaver in colors — in blue, purple and scarlet yarn and in fine linen.
24 All the gold used for the work in everything needed for the sanctuary, the gold of the offering, weighed 29 talents 730 shekels [1,930 pounds], using the sanctuary shekel.
25 The silver given by the community weighed 100 talents 1,775 shekels [6,650 pounds], using the sanctuary shekel. 26 This was a beka per person, that is, half a shekel [one-fifth of an ounce], using the sanctuary shekel, for everyone twenty years old or older counted in the census, 603,550 men. 27 The hundred talents of silver were used to cast the sockets for the sanctuary and the sockets for the curtain — one hundred sockets made from the hundred talents, one talent [sixty-six pounds] per socket. 28 The 1,775 shekels [fifty pounds] he used to make hooks for the posts, to overlay their capitals and to make fasteners for them.
29 The bronze in the offering came to 4,680 pounds. 30 He used it to make the sockets for the entrance to the tent of meeting, the bronze altar, its bronze grate, all the utensils for the altar, 31 the sockets for the courtyard around it, the sockets for the gateway to the courtyard, all the tent pegs for the tabernacle and all the tent pegs for the courtyard around it.
39:1 From the blue, purple and scarlet yarn they made the garments for officiating, for serving in the Holy Place; and they made the holy garments for Aharon, as Adonai had ordered Moshe.
Today in Jewish History:
• Rebbe Falls Ill (1992)
On the 27th of Adar I, 5752 (Monday, March 2, 1992), the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, suffered a disabling stroke while praying at the gravesite of the previous Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak of Lubavitch. On the same date two years later, the Rebbe lost consciousness following another stroke; three months later, on the 3rd of Tammuz 5754 (June 12, 1994), the Rebbe's soul ascended on high, orphaning a generation.
Links: A Gathering with the Rebbe
A Silence Louder Than Words
Daily Quote:
One who increases flesh, increases worms; one who increases possessions, increases worry[Hillel (Ethics of the Fathers 2:7)]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Pekudei, 2nd Portion Exodus 39:2-39:21 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class
• Exodus Chapter 39
2And he made the ephod of gold, blue, purple, and crimson wool, and twisted fine linen. בוַיַּ֖עַשׂ אֶת־הָֽאֵפֹ֑ד זָהָ֗ב תְּכֵ֧לֶת וְאַרְגָּמָ֛ן וְתוֹלַ֥עַת שָׁנִ֖י וְשֵׁ֥שׁ מָשְׁזָֽר:
3They hammered out the sheets of gold and cut threads [from them] to work [the gold] into the blue wool, into the purple wool, into the crimson wool, and into the fine linen, the work of a master weaver. גוַיְרַקְּע֞וּ אֶת־פַּחֵ֣י הַזָּהָב֘ וְקִצֵּ֣ץ פְּתִילִם֒ לַֽעֲשׂ֗וֹת בְּת֤וֹךְ הַתְּכֵ֨לֶת֙ וּבְת֣וֹךְ הָֽאַרְגָּמָ֔ן וּבְת֛וֹךְ תּוֹלַ֥עַת הַשָּׁנִ֖י וּבְת֣וֹךְ הַשֵּׁ֑שׁ מַֽעֲשֵׂ֖ה חשֵֽׁב:
They hammered out: Heb. וַיְרַקְּעוּ, like “To Him Who spread out (לְרוֹקַע) the earth over the water” (Ps. 136:6), as the Targum [Onkelos] renders: וְרַדִידוּ, they hammered thin plates out of the gold, estendre in Old French [etendre in modern French, meaning] to extend into thin sheets. Here [the text] teaches you how they spun the gold [together] with the [wool] threads. They would hammer [the gold into] thin sheets and cut threads out of them along the length of the sheet, [in order] to work those threads by combining them with each kind [of colored material] in the choshen and in the ephod, about which gold is mentioned [to be included with them [i.e.,] one thread of gold [was intertwined] with six threads of blue wool, and similarly with each kind [of wool], for each kind had threads of six strands, and the gold was the seventh thread with each one. -[from Yoma 72a] וירקעו: כמו (תהלים קלו ו) לרוקע הארץ, כתרגומו ורדידו טסין היו מרדדין מן הזהב, אישטינדר"א בלעז [למתוח] טסין דקין. כאן הוא מלמדך, היאך היו טווין את הזהב עם החוטין מרדדין הטסין דקין וקוצצין מהן פתילים לאורך הטס, לעשות אותן פתילים מעורבין עם כל מין ומין בחשן ואפוד שנאמר בהן זהב, חוט אחד של זהב עם ששה חוטין של תכלת, וכן עם כל מין ומין שכל המינים חוטן כפול ששה, והזהב חוט שביעי עם כל אחד ואחד:
4They made connecting shoulder straps for it at both its ends, it was entirely connected. דכְּתֵפֹ֥ת עָֽשׂוּ־ל֖וֹ חֹֽבְרֹ֑ת עַל־שְׁנֵ֥י קְצוֹתָ֖יו (כתיב קצוותיו) חֻבָּֽר:
5And its decorative band, which is above it, [emanated] from it, of the same work: gold, blue, purple, and crimson wool, and twisted fine linen as the Lord had commanded Moses. הוְחֵ֨שֶׁב אֲפֻדָּת֜וֹ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָלָ֗יו מִמֶּ֣נּוּ הוּא֘ כְּמַֽעֲשֵׂ֒הוּ֒ זָהָ֗ב תְּכֵ֧לֶת וְאַרְגָּמָ֛ן וְתוֹלַ֥עַת שָׁנִ֖י וְשֵׁ֣שׁ מָשְׁזָ֑ר כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶת־משֶֽׁה:
6And they prepared the shoham stones, enclosed in gold settings, engraved [similar to] the engravings of a seal, with the names of the sons of Israel. ווַֽיַּֽעֲשׂוּ֙ אֶת־אַבְנֵ֣י הַשֹּׁ֔הַם מֻֽסַבֹּ֖ת מִשְׁבְּצֹ֣ת זָהָ֑ב מְפֻתָּחֹת֙ פִּתּוּחֵ֣י חוֹתָ֔ם עַל־שְׁמ֖וֹת בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:
7And he put them upon the shoulder straps of the ephod [as] stones of remembrance for the sons of Israel, as the Lord had commanded Moses. זוַיָּ֣שֶׂם אֹתָ֗ם עַ֚ל כִּתְפֹ֣ת הָֽאֵפֹ֔ד אַבְנֵ֥י זִכָּר֖וֹן לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶת־משֶֽׁה:
8He made the choshen, the work of a master weaver like the work of the ephod, of gold, blue, purple, and crimson wool, and twisted fine linen. חוַיַּ֧עַשׂ אֶת־הַח֛שֶׁן מַֽעֲשֵׂ֥ה חשֵׁ֖ב כְּמַֽעֲשֵׂ֣ה אֵפֹ֑ד זָהָ֗ב תְּכֵ֧לֶת וְאַרְגָּמָ֛ן וְתוֹלַ֥עַת שָׁנִ֖י וְשֵׁ֥שׁ מָשְׁזָֽר:
9It was square [and] they made the choshen doubled its length one span and its width one span, doubled. טרָב֧וּעַ הָיָ֛ה כָּפ֖וּל עָשׂ֣וּ אֶת־הַח֑שֶׁן זֶ֧רֶת אָרְכּ֛וֹ וְזֶ֥רֶת רָחְבּ֖וֹ כָּפֽוּל:
10And they filled into it four rows of stones. One row: odem, pitdah, and bareketh, the one row. יוַיְמַ֨לְאוּ־ב֔וֹ אַרְבָּעָ֖ה ט֣וּרֵי אָ֑בֶן ט֗וּר אֹ֤דֶם פִּטְדָה֙ וּבָרֶ֔קֶת הַטּ֖וּר הָֽאֶחָֽד:
11And the second row: nofech, sappir, and yahalom. יאוְהַטּ֖וּר הַשֵּׁנִ֑י נֹ֥פֶךְ סַפִּ֖יר וְיָֽהֲלֹֽם:
12And the third row: leshem, shevo, and achlamah. יבוְהַטּ֖וּר הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֑י לֶ֥שֶׁם שְׁב֖וֹ וְאַחְלָֽמָה:
13And the fourth row: tarshish, shoham, and yashpheh; enclosed in gold settings in their fillings. יגוְהַטּוּר֙ הָֽרְבִיעִ֔י תַּרְשִׁ֥ישׁ שֹׁ֖הַם וְיָֽשְׁפֵ֑ה מֽוּסַבֹּ֛ת מִשְׁבְּצֹ֥ת זָהָ֖ב בְּמִלֻּֽאֹתָֽם:
14And the stones were for the names of the sons of Israel twelve, corresponding to their names; [similar to] the engravings of a seal, every one according to his name, for the twelve tribes. ידוְ֠הָֽאֲבָנִ֠ים עַל־שְׁמֹ֨ת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֥ל הֵ֛נָּה שְׁתֵּ֥ים עֶשְׂרֵ֖ה עַל־שְׁמֹתָ֑ם פִּתּוּחֵ֤י חֹתָם֙ אִ֣ישׁ עַל־שְׁמ֔וֹ לִשְׁנֵ֥ים עָשָׂ֖ר שָֽׁבֶט:
15For the choshen they made chains at the edges, of cable work, of pure gold. טווַיַּֽעֲשׂ֧וּ עַל־הַח֛שֶׁן שַׁרְשְׁרֹ֥ת גַּבְלֻ֖ת מַֽעֲשֵׂ֣ה עֲבֹ֑ת זָהָ֖ב טָהֽוֹר:
16They made two golden settings and two golden rings, and they placed the two rings on the two ends of the choshen. טזוַיַּֽעֲשׂ֗וּ שְׁתֵּי֙ מִשְׁבְּצֹ֣ת זָהָ֔ב וּשְׁתֵּ֖י טַבְּעֹ֣ת זָהָ֑ב וַיִּתְּנ֗וּ אֶת־שְׁתֵּי֙ הַטַּבָּעֹ֔ת עַל־שְׁנֵ֖י קְצ֥וֹת הַחֽשֶׁן:
17And they placed the two golden cables on the two rings, at the ends of the choshen. יזוַיִּתְּנ֗וּ שְׁתֵּי֙ הָֽעֲבֹתֹ֣ת הַזָּהָ֔ב עַל־שְׁתֵּ֖י הַטַּבָּעֹ֑ת עַל־קְצ֖וֹת הַחֽשֶׁן:
18And the two ends of the two cables they placed upon the two settings, and they placed them upon the shoulder straps of the ephod, on its front part. יחוְאֵ֨ת שְׁתֵּ֤י קְצוֹת֙ שְׁתֵּ֣י הָֽעֲבֹתֹ֔ת נָתְנ֖וּ עַל־שְׁתֵּ֣י הַמִּשְׁבְּצֹ֑ת וַיִּתְּנֻ֛ם עַל־כִּתְפֹ֥ת הָֽאֵפֹ֖ד אֶל־מ֥וּל פָּנָֽיו:
19And they made two golden rings and placed them on the two ends of the choshen, on its edge that faced the inner side of the ephod. יטוַיַּעֲשׂ֗וּ שְׁתֵּי֙ טַבְּעֹ֣ת זָהָ֔ב וַיָּשִׂ֕ימוּ עַל־שְׁנֵ֖י קְצ֣וֹת הַח֑שֶׁן עַל־שְׂפָת֕וֹ אֲשֶׁ֛ר אֶל־עֵ֥בֶר הָֽאֵפֹ֖ד בָּֽיְתָה:
20And they made two golden rings and placed them on the two shoulder straps of the ephod, from below, toward its front, adjacent to its seam, above the band of the ephod. כוַיַּֽעֲשׂוּ֘ שְׁתֵּ֣י טַבְּעֹ֣ת זָהָב֒ וַיִּתְּנֻ֡ם עַל־שְׁתֵּי֩ כִתְפֹ֨ת הָֽאֵפֹ֤ד מִלְּמַ֨טָּה֙ מִמּ֣וּל פָּנָ֔יו לְעֻמַּ֖ת מַחְבַּרְתּ֑וֹ מִמַּ֕עַל לְחֵ֖שֶׁב הָֽאֵפֹֽד:
21And they fastened the choshen by its rings to the rings of the ephod with a cord of blue wool, so that it could be upon the band of the ephod, so that the choshen would not move off the ephod, as the Lord had commanded Moses. כאוַיִּרְכְּס֣וּ אֶת־הַח֡שֶׁן מִטַּבְּעֹתָיו֩ אֶל־טַבְּעֹ֨ת הָֽאֵפֹ֜ד בִּפְתִ֣יל תְּכֵ֗לֶת לִֽהְיֹת֙ עַל־חֵ֣שֶׁב הָֽאֵפֹ֔ד וְלֹֽא־יִזַּ֣ח הַח֔שֶׁן מֵעַ֖ל הָֽאֵפֹ֑ד כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶת־משֶֽׁה:
---------------------
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 120 - 134
• Hebrew text
• English text
• Chapter 120
This psalm rebukes slanderers, describing how the deadly effect of slander reaches even further than weapons.
1. A song of ascents. I have called out to the Lord in my distress, and He answered me.
2. O Lord, rescue my soul from the lips of falsehood, from a deceitful tongue.
3. What can He give you, and what [further restraint] can He add to you, O deceitful tongue?
4. [You resemble] the sharp arrows of a mighty one, and the coals of broom-wood.1
5. Woe unto me that I sojourned among Meshech, that I dwelt beside the tents of Kedar.
6. Too long has my soul dwelt among those who hate peace.
7. I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war.
FOOTNOTES
1.Which remain hot on the inside while appearing cool to the touch (Rashi).
Chapter 121
This psalm alludes to the Lower Paradise, from which one ascends to the Higher Paradise. It also speaks of how God watches over us.
2. My help will come from the Lord, Maker of heaven and earth.
3. He will not let your foot falter; your guardian does not slumber.
4. Indeed, the Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps.
5. The Lord is your guardian; the Lord is your protective shade at your right hand.
6. The sun will not harm you by day, nor the moon by night.
7. The Lord will guard you from all evil; He will guard your soul.
8. The Lord will guard your going and your coming from now and for all time.
Chapter 122
The psalmist sings the praises of Jerusalem and tells of the miracles that happened there.
1. A song of ascents by David. I rejoiced when they said to me, "Let us go to the House of the Lord.”
2. Our feet were standing within your gates, O Jerusalem;
3. Jerusalem that is built like a city in which [all Israel] is united together.
4. For there the tribes went up, the tribes of God-as enjoined upon Israel-to offer praise to the Name of the Lord.
5. For there stood the seats of justice, the thrones of the house of David.
6. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem; may those who love you have peace.
7. May there be peace within your walls, serenity within your mansions.
8. For the sake of my brethren and friends, I ask that there be peace within you.
9. For the sake of the House of the Lord our God, I seek your well-being.
Chapter 123
The psalmist laments the length of time we have already suffered in exile.
1. A song of ascents. To You have I lifted my eyes, You Who are enthroned in heaven.
2. Indeed, as the eyes of servants are turned to the hand of their masters, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so are our eyes turned to the Lord our God, until He will be gracious to us.
3. Be gracious to us, Lord, be gracious to us, for we have been surfeited with humiliation.
4. Our soul has been overfilled with the derision of the complacent, with the scorn of the arrogant.
Chapter 124
1. A song of ascents by David. Were it not for the Lord Who was with us-let Israel declare-
2. were it not for the Lord Who was with us when men rose up against us,
3. then they would have swallowed us alive in their burning rage against us.
4. Then the waters would have inundated us, the torrent would have swept over our soul;
5. then the raging waters would have surged over our soul.
6. Blessed is the Lord, Who did not permit us to be prey for their teeth.
7. Our soul is like a bird which has escaped from the fowler's snare; the snare broke and we escaped.
8. Our help is in the Name of the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth.
Chapter 125
1. A song of ascents. Those who trust in the Lord are as Mount Zion which never falters, but abides forever.
2. Mountains surround Jerusalem, and the Lord surrounds His people from this time and forever.
3. For the rod of wickedness will never come to rest upon the lot of the righteous; therefore the righteous need not stretch their hand to iniquity.
4. Be beneficent, O Lord, to the good and to those who are upright in their hearts.
5. But as for those that turn to their perverseness, may the Lord lead them with the workers of iniquity. Peace be upon Israel.
Chapter 126
The psalmist speaks of the future, comparing our Divine service in exile to one who sows arid land, then cries and begs God to send rain upon it so that the seed not be wasted. When he merits to reap the crop, he offers thanks to God.
1. A song of ascents. When the Lord will return the exiles of Zion, we will have been like dreamers.
2. Then our mouth will be filled with laughter, and our tongue with songs of joy; then will they say among the nations, "The Lord has done great things for these.”
3. The Lord has done great things for us; we were joyful.
4. Lord, return our exiles as streams to arid soil.
5. Those who sow in tears will reap with songs of joy.
6. He goes along weeping, carrying the bag of seed; he will surely return with songs of joy, carrying his sheaves.
Chapter 127
King David instructs his generation, and especially his son Solomon, to be sure that all one's actions be for the sake of Heaven. He also criticizes those who toil day and night in pursuit of a livelihood.
1. A song of ascents for Solomon. If the Lord does not build a house, then its builders labor upon it in vain. If the Lord will not guard a city, the vigilance of its watchman is in vain.
2. It is in vain for you, you who rise early, who sit up late, and who eat the bread of tension, for in fact He gives His loved ones sleep.
3. Behold, the heritage of the Lord is children; the fruit of the womb is a reward.
4. As arrows in the hand of a mighty man, so are the children of youth.
5. Fortunate is the man who has his quiver full of them; they will not find themselves shamed when they speak with enemies in public places.
Chapter 128
This psalm extols one who enjoys the fruits of his own labor, avoiding theft and deception, even refusing gifts. It also describes behavior appropriate to the God-fearing.
1. A song of ascents. Fortunate is every man who fears the Lord, who walks in His ways.
2. When you eat of the labor of your hands, you will be happy, and you will have goodness.
3. Your wife will be like a fruitful vine in the inner chambers of your house; your children will be like olive saplings around your table.
4. Behold, so will be blessed the man who fears the Lord.
5. May the Lord bless you out of Zion, and may you see the goodness of Jerusalem all the days of your life.
6. And may you see children [born] to your children; peace upon Israel.
Chapter 129
The psalmist laments the troubles of Israel.
1. A song of ascents. Much have they persecuted me from my youth on. Let Israel declare it now-
2. "Much have they persecuted me from my youth on, [but] they have not prevailed against me.”
3. The plowmen plowed upon my back; they wished to make their furrow long.
4. But the Lord is just; He cut the cords of the lawless.
5. They will be humiliated and will be turned back, all the haters of Zion.
6. They will be as grass upon the rooftops that withers before one plucks it,
7. wherewith the reaper has never filled his hand, nor the sheaf-binder his arm;
8. and of which the passers-by never have said: "The blessing of the Lord be upon you; we bless you in the name of the Lord."
Chapter 130
The psalmist prays for an end to this long exile.
1. A song of ascents. Out of the depths I call to You, O Lord.
2. My Lord, hearken to my voice; let Your ears be attentive to the sound of my pleas.
3. God, if You were to preserve iniquities, my Lord, who could survive?
4. But forgiveness is with You, that You may be held in awe.
5. I hope in the Lord; my soul hopes, and I long for His word.
6. My soul yearns for the Lord more than those awaiting the morning wait for the morning.
7. Israel, put your hope in the Lord, for with the Lord there is kindness; with Him there is abounding deliverance.
8. And He will redeem Israel from all its iniquities.
Chapter 131
In this prayer, David declares that never in the course of his life was he haughty, nor did he pursue greatness or worldly pleasures.
1. A song of ascents, by David. O Lord, my heart was not proud, nor were my eyes haughty; I did not seek matters that were too great and too wondrous for me.
2. Surely I put my soul at peace and soothed it like a weaned child with his mother; my soul was like a weaned child.
3. Let Israel hope in the Lord from this time forth and forever.
Chapter 132
David composed this psalm while he and the elders of Israel wore sackcloth, in mourning over the plague that had descended upon the land, and their being distant from the Holy Temple. David therefore offers intense prayers, entreating God to remember the hardship and sacrifice he endured for the sake of the Temple.
1. A song of ascents. O Lord, remember unto David all his suffering,
2. how he swore to the Lord, and vowed to the Mighty Power of Jacob:
3. "I will not enter into the tent of my house; I will not go up into the bed that is spread for me;
4. I will not give sleep to my eyes, nor slumber to my eyelids;
5. until I will have found a place for the Lord, a resting place for the Mighty Power of Jacob.”
6. Lo, we heard of it in Ephrath; we found it in the field of the forest.
7. We will come to His resting places; we will prostrate ourselves at His footstool.
8. Ascend, O Lord, to Your resting place, You and the Ark of Your might.
9. May Your priests clothe themselves in righteousness, and may Your pious ones sing joyous songs.
10. For the sake of David Your servant, turn not away the face of Your anointed.
11. For the Lord has sworn to David a truth from which He will never retreat: "From the fruit of your womb will I set for you upon the throne.
12. If your sons will keep My covenant and this testimony of mine which I will teach them, then their sons, too, will sit on the throne for you until the end of time.
13. For the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His habitation.
14. This is My resting place to the end of time. Here will I dwell, for I have desired it.
15. I will abundantly bless her sustenance; I will satisfy her needy with bread.
16. I will clothe her priests with salvation, and her pious ones will sing joyous songs.
17. There I will cause David's power to flourish; there I have prepared a lamp for My anointed.
18. His enemies will I clothe with shame, but upon him, his crown will blossom."
Chapter 133
1. A song of ascents, by David. Behold, how good and how pleasant it is when brothers dwell together.
2. Like the precious oil [placed] upon the head, flowing [in abundance] down the beard, the beard of Aaron which rests upon his garments.
3. Like the dew of Hermon which comes down upon the mountains of Zion, for there the Lord has commanded blessing, life unto eternity.
Chapter 134
The psalmist exhorts the scholarly and pious to rise from their beds at night, and go to the House of God.
1. A song of ascents. Behold: Bless the Lord, all you servants of the Lord who stand in the House of the Lord in the nights.
2. Lift up your hands in holiness and bless the Lord.
3. May the Lord, Who makes heaven and earth, bless you from Zion.
---------------------
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 32
• Lessons in Tanya
• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Monday, Adar I 27, 5776 · March 7, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 32
אבל מי שאינו חבירו, ואינו מקורב אצלו
But as to one who is not his companion — his equal — in the Torah and the mitzvot, so that (as our Sages say concerning the ignorant in general) even his deliberate transgressions are regarded as inadvertent acts, since he is unaware of the gravity of sin; nor is he on intimate terms with him; — not only is one not enjoined to hate him: on the contrary, he must in fact, strive to become closer to him, as the Alter Rebbe states shortly.
To hate such a sinner is surely unjustifiable, since no sin that he commits is considered deliberate. There is also no reason to keep one’s distance from him out of fear that he will learn from his evil ways (in fulfillment of the exhortation of theMishnah, “Do not fraternize with a wicked man”), since he is not on close personal terms with him in any case.
הנה על זה אמר הלל הזקן: הוי מתלמידיו של אהרן, אוהב שלום וכו׳, אוהב את הבריות ומקרבן לתורה
Therefore, on the contrary: Of this situation Hillel said, 1 “Be one of the disciples of Aharon, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving creatures and drawing them near to the Torah.”
לומר שאף הרחוקים מתורת ה׳ ועבודתו, ולכן נקראים בשם בריות בעלמא, צריך למשכן בחבלי עבותות אהבה
This usage of the term “creatures” in reference to human beings means that even those who are far from G‑d’s Torah and His service, for which reason they are classified simply as “creatures“ — indicating that the fact that they are G‑d’s creations is their sole virtue — even those one must attract with strong cords of love.
וכולי האי ואולי יוכל לקרבן לתורה ועבודת ה׳
Perhaps thereby one will be able, after all, to draw them close to the Torah and the service of G‑d.
והן לא, לא הפסיד שכר מצות אהבת ריעים
And even if one fails in this, he has not forfeited the merit of the mitzvah of neighborly love which he has fulfilled by his efforts in this direction.
FOOTNOTES
1. Avot 1:12.
---------------------
Rambam:• Sefer Hamitzvos:
• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Monday, Adar I 27, 5776 · March 7, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 94
Fulfilling Verbal Obligations
"That which issues from your lips you shall keep and perform"—Deuteronomy 23:24.
We are commanded to carry through that which we pledge to do [or not to do].
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Fulfilling Verbal Obligations
Positive Commandment 94
Translated by Berel Bell
The 94th mitzvah is that we are commanded to fulfill every verbal obligation we have taken upon ourselves, whether an oath, a vow, a korban,1 etc.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "You shall be careful to carry out whatever you say."
Although our Sages have split up this verse and explained each word separately as referring to something different, the general meaning of everything they say is: it is a positive commandment for a person to fulfill every verbal obligation he has taken upon himself, and a prohibition not to do so. This will be explained in our discussion of the prohibitions.3
The Sifri says, "The verse, 'Whatever you say,' constitutes a positive commandment." You find it obvious that the words, "whatever you say" by themselves have no meaning whatsoever. The intention [of the Sifri] is therefore as I explained above — that the plain meaning of the verse is that a person is obligated to carry out his verbal commitments.
This commandment is stated a second time in G‑d's statement,4 "A person must fulfill all he has verbally said."
The details of this mitzvah — i.e. how exactly the person must fulfill his obligation, and how he can be released [from his obligation] when in doubt regarding his statement — are explained in a number of passages in Sh'vuos, Nedarim, the end of Menachos, as well as in Kinim.
FOOTNOTES
1.Literally, a sacrifice. When a person says, "a sacrifice that I won't eat something of yours," he means to say that he considers that person's food to be forbidden for him to eat just as a sacrifice is forbidden to him. This constitutes a vow not to eat that person's food.
2.Deut. 23:24.
3.N157.
4.Num. 30:3.
------------------------------------------------------------
• 1 Chapter: Klei Hamikdash Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 1
• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 1
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment to prepare1 the anointing oil so that it will be ready [to use] for those articles that require anointing,2 as [Exodus 30:25] states: "And you shall make it3 as the oil of sacred anointment."
Halacha 2
While in the desert, Moses our teacher [had]4 it prepared. He took the equivalent of 500 shekel5 of the holy shekalim of musk, cinnamon, and costus6 and the equivalent of 250 shekel of fragrant cane. The Torah's statement [ibid.:23]: "And fragrant cinnamon, half its measure, 250," implies that [the entire quantity] should be weighed out in two measures, 250 each time. Each one should be ground separately, mixed together7 and then soaked in pure, sweet water until all of its power was extracted into the water. A hin - which is equivalent to twelve log with each log comprising four revi'iot8- of oil was placed above the water.9 The entire mixture was then cooked over fire until the water boiled off and only the oil remained.10 It was then set aside for [future] generations.
Halacha 3
Musk refers to the blood contained with a wild beast from India that is of universal renown which people everywhere use as a fragrance.11 Cinnamon is a tree that comes from the Indian islands which has a pleasant fragrance and which people use as incense. The term kidah refers to costus.12 Fragrant cane, this refers to thin canes13 like red straw that come from the Indian islands and have a pleasant fragrance. They are types of herbs which doctors place in balsam.
Halacha 4
One who willfully prepares anointing oil in this manner and with these measurements without adding or reducing [the quantity of the herbs] is liable for karet.14 If he prepares it unknowingly, he must bring a fixed sin-offering,15[as ibid.:34] states: "One who makes such a compound shall be cut off from his nation." [The above applies] provided he prepared it for anointment. If, however, he prepared it for practice or to give to other people,16 he is exempt.17
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
[One is liable] whether he anoints himself or others,22 as [the prooftext] states: "And one who applies it to an unauthorized person." One who spreads it on utensils, an animal, a gentile - who is [halachicly equivalent] to an animal23 - or who spreads it on a corpse, is exempt, as [implied by ibid.:32]: "It should not be spread on the flesh of a man."24
Halacha 7
For all time,25 we do not [use this oil] except to anoint the High Priest, the priest who leads the nation in war,26 and kings from the House of David.27Even a High Priest who is the son of a High Priest should be anointed,28 as [Leviticus 6:15] states: "The priest from his sons anointed in place of him...."
Halacha 8
Since there was no anointing oil [during] the Second Temple [era],29the High Priest was installed in his office by putting on the garments of the High Priest alone.
Halacha 9
How was the High Priest anointed? The oil should be poured on his head and applied between his eyes in the form of the Greek letter chi,30 like this C as [Leviticus 8:12] states: "And he poured the anointing oil on Aaron's head and anointed him to sanctify him." The kings of the Davidic dynasty are anointed [with the oil] spread as a crown on their foreheads.31 They should not be anointed on other places [on their bodies], nor should one use an excessive amount of oil.
Halacha 10
A person who places the anointing oil on a king or High Priest who had been anointed previously is exempt, for [the prooftext] speaks of "one who applies it to an unauthorized person." And these individuals are not unauthorized with regard to this oil.32
If, however, one - even a king or a High Priest - spreads it [on his flesh], he is liable, for [the prooftext] states: "It should not be spread on the flesh of a man." This implies all men.33 When a High Priest takes the anointment oil from his head and spreads it on his belly, he is liable for karet,34 provided he spreads an olive-sized portion.35
Halacha 11
A king should only be anointed next to a spring.36 We do not anoint the king who is the son of a king, for the kingship is a hereditary position for the king for all time,37 as [Deuteronomy 17:20] states: "[Thus] he and his descendants [will prolong their reign] in the midst of Israel." If there is a controversy, he should be anointed to resolve the controversy and to notify to all that he alone is the king, as Solomon was anointed because of the controversy [stirred up by] Adoniyahu.38 Yoash was anointed because of Atal'ya,39 and Yehoachaz was anointed because of his brother Yehoyakim.40 When Elisha had Yehu anointed,41 he did not have him anointed with the anointment oil, but with balsam oil. This is an accepted tradition among the sages.
Halacha 12
All of the vessels of the Sanctuary that were fashioned [at the command] of Moses were sanctified only by being anointed with the anointing oil,42 as [Numbers 7:1] states: "And he anointed them and sanctified them." This practiced was not followed in the coming generations. Instead, all of the utensils became sanctified when they were used for their purpose in the Temple, as [implied by Numbers 4:12] "...that they will serve with them in the Sanctuary," i.e., through service, they are sanctified.
Halacha 13
The spoons and the bowls used to contain the meal offerings and similarly, the basins used to receive the blood, and the other vessels used [in the Sanctuary] were all made of silver and gold. It was permitted to make them from other metals, as we explained.43 They receive their holiness by being used for the [desired] tasks. If they were broken, they should be smelted down and another utensil made from them,44 for their holiness never departs from them.
Halacha 14
If the sacred utensils became perforated or cracked, the cracks are not plugged close. Instead, the utensils should be smelted down and new utensils made.45
Halacha 15
When a knife has become dislodged from its shaft or blemished, it is not returned to its shaft, nor is it sharpened. Instead, it should be entombed on the side of the Temple, between the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall on the south46 and new ones should be made. For [conduct bespeaking] poverty is not [appropriate] in a place where wealth [is in place].
Halacha 16
Halacha 17
There were seven containers of liquid measure: a hin,50 a half a hin, a third of a hin, a fourth of a hin, a log, a half a log, and a fourth of a log. 51
Why were there measures of a half a hin, a third of a hin, a fourth of a hin? To measure out the wine libations for the sacrifices.52 A log was necessary to measure the oil for the meal offerings.53 A half a log was necessary to measure out the oil for every lamp of the lamps of the Menorah.54 And a fourth [of a log] to divide the oil for [the High Priest's] chavitan offering.55
Halacha 18
There is nothing that is measured with a hin. Why [then] was it there? [It remained, because] it had been in the Sanctuary from the time of Moses who used it to measure the oil for the anointing oil.56 With the measure of a half alog that was in the Temple, water was measured for the Sotah water57 and oil for the thanksgiving offerings.58 With the measure of a fourth [of a log], oil was measured for the bread brought by a nazirite59 and water for the purification of a metzora.60 It is not that through these deeds the measures became sanctified,61 but rather because of the tasks [performed] in the Sanctuary that were mentioned [in the preceding halachah].
Halacha 19
All of these measures are consecrated and are considered as sacred utensils. [There is, however a difference between them.] The liquid measures were anointed on both the inside and the outside, while the dry measures were anointed only on the inside. Therefore the overflow of the liquid measures was consecrated,62 and the overflow of the dry measures was not consecrated.63
FOOTNOTES
1.
The Rambam's wording here represents a change from his wording in Sefer HaMitzvot(positive commandment 35) where he describes the mitzvah in passive terms: "having the oil made in a unique fashion available for anointing." Perhaps he chose that wording for, as explained in Halachah 5, after the oil was made at Moses' command, no other such oil was ever made and the mitzvah was merely "to have it."
2.
Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.) and Sefer HaChinuch(mitzvah 107) includes this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. See the gloss of the Radbaz who explains that anointing the kings and the High Priest is not considered one of the mitzvot, for there were times when this anointment was not practiced.
3.
The mixture of spices mentioned in the previous verses.
4.
This addition is necessary, for as indicated by Exodus 37:29, Moses himself did not prepare the anointment oil. It was prepared by Betzalel and the other craftsmen working with him.
5.
According to Scriptural Law, based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 8:8), in modern measure a shekelof the Torah is equivalent to 16 grams of pure silver. Nevertheless, as the Rambam states in Hilchot Shekalim 1:2, in the era of the Second Temple, our Sages increased its measure by almost a fourth. Accordingly, the measure of silver required for the redemption of the firstborn and other obligations were a shekel is required is significantly larger.
6.
The Rambam describes these spices in the following halachah.
7.
The Kessef Mishneh states that the obligation to grind the herbs is derived from a comparison to the incense offering. The order in which they are ground and then mixed is a logical deduction. If they are ground first, they will be mixed more thoroughly and more effectively.
8.
A common halachic measure equivalent to approximately 86 cc according to Shiurei Torah and approximately 150 cc according to Chazon Ish. Thus a hin is 48 times this amount.
9.
For the oil will float above the water.
10.
Otherwise, the amount of oil used would not be sufficient to soak all the herbs (Rashi, in his commentary to Exodus 30:24).
11.
The Rambam is referring to a secretion of the abdominal gland of the male musk deer, a large animal that roams the mountains of Nepal and Tibet. The secretion is reddish-brown, with a honeylike consistency and a strong fragrance. After the gland is cut open, the secretion hardens, assumes a blackish-brown color, and when dry becomes granular.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's definition, stating that it is improper that the blood of a beast - and certainly, a non-kosher beast - be used in the Sanctuary. He interprets the term mor as referring to the fragrant herb, myrrh. The Kessef Mishnehsupports the Rambam's view, explaining that the loathsome quality one would associate with the blood of a beast departs from it when the secretion dries and becomes granular. See also the Ramban's commentary to Exodus 30:23, where he discusses both positions.
12.
It is the root of a tall herb, whose botanical name is Saussurea lappa, which even today grows only in the highlands of Kashmir.
13.
In his notes to his translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 1:1), Rav Kapach identifies this as the acorus calamus plant. In his Living Torah, Rav Aryeh Kaplan identifies this as the cymbopogon martini or palmarosa plant.
14.
Literally, the soul's being cut off. This involves premature death in this world (before the age of 50, Mo'ed Kattan 28a) and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1).
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 83) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 109) includes the prohibition against making such oil among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
15.
The term "fixed sin-offering" is used to differentiate between this offering and "an adjustable guilt offering" in which instance, the offering the person brings changes according to his financial capacity. SeeHilchot Shegagot 1:4.
16.
Even if those people desire to use it for anointment. As long as he personally does not intend to use it for anointment, he is not liable (Radbaz).
17.
I.e., the act is forbidden, but he is not liable.
18.
For to be liable, one must benefit from a minimum measure and that minimum measure is, as is true with regard to partaking of forbidden substances, an olive-sized portion.
19.
I.e., someone other than a High Priest, a king, and the priest who lead the people in war, as stated in Halachah 7.
20.
And not a copy, even if it was made in the exact same manner.
21.
That oil remained throughout the majority of the First Temple period until it was entombed by King Josiah together with the ark, as the Rambam relates in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah4:1. From that point onward, neither the High Priests or kings were anointed.
On the surface, one might ask: Since no other oil was ever made, why is making the oil considered one of the 613 mitzvot? For as the Rambam clarifies several times inSefer HaMitzvot, if an obligation is not ongoing, it is not appropriate to consider it as a mitzvah. On that basis, a number of commands, for example, the command to wage war against Midian (Numbers 7:2), were excluded from this reckoning.
The Minchat Chinuch (positive mitzvah 107) notes that the prooftext quoted by the Rambam concludes "for your generations," i.e., for all time. The mitzvah was to have the oil made by Moses available at all time. After the oil was entombed by King Josiah, new oil was not made, because the oil which Moses made is still available. At the coming ofMashiach, that oil will surface and again be used.
22.
The Radbaz maintains that if the others willfully allow the oil to be applied to their flesh, they are also liable. The Tosefta, Makkot, ch. 3, also rules in this manner.
23.
See Kiddushin 68a; Hilchot Eruvin 2:9.
24.
And none of the above are halachicly equivalent to a man.
25.
I.e., in contrast to the era of Moses where this oil was also used to anoint the priestly garments and the vessels of the Sanctuary, as stated in Halachah 12.
26.
See Hilchot Melachim, ch. 7, which states that a priest is appointed to speak before the nation and inspire them in war.
27.
The kings of the ten tribes, by contrast, were not anointed with this anointing oil, only balsam oil, as stated in Hilchot Melachim1:10. According to the Rambam (ibid.:7), King Saul was also anointed with this oil. He is not mentioned, because his regal line did not continue for posterity.
28.
In contrast, the kings were anointed only when there is a dispute over the inheritance or during a civil war (ibid.:12 and Halachah 11 of this chapter).
29.
As mentioned above, the anointing oil was entombed toward the conclusion of the First Temple Era.
30.
Our text follows the manuscript versions of the Mishneh Torah and the manuscript versions of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 6:3). Most of the later printings of the Mishneh Torah replace the C with an X, for in fact, this is the form of the Greek letter. Kin'at Eliyahu suggests that although the Rambam speaks about the Greek letter, perhaps his intent was the Roman letter.
31.
The translation of rosho as "forehead" rather than "head," is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 1:1).
32.
For we are obligated to apply it to them.
33.
Including a High Priest or king.
34.
Even though the oil was placed on his flesh, since it should not have been applied to this portion of the body, doing so is included in the above prohibition.
35.
The Ra'avad objects to this qualification, maintaining that once he places an olive-sized portion of the oil on his skin, he is liable even if he spreads a smaller measure. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that the simple meaning of Keritot 6b appears to support the Ra'avad's position. Nevertheless, they also provide interpretations that support the Rambam's understanding.
36.
Horiot 12a explains that the king was anointed there as an sign that his dynasty should be perpetuated, just as a stream continues in a never-ending flow. This symbolism is only appropriate for kings of the Davidic dynasty, whose dynasty will continue for-ever. In contrast, the dynasties of the kings of Israel will eventually be interrupted [see Hilchot Melachim 1:9 (Kessef Mishneh)].
Accordingly, King David ordered that Solomon be anointed at the Gichon Stream (1 Kings 1:33).
37.
When mentioning this law, Hilchot Melachim1:7 continues: "Not only the monarchy, but all other positions of authority and appointments in Israel, are transferred to one's children and grand-children as inheritances forever." The order of inheritance of the crown follows the order of inheritance of property as explained inHilchot Nachalot, ch. 1. The first in line for the monarchy are the deceased king's sons, in order of age. Should none of his sons be alive, the right is passed to his grandchildren. The children of the elder son are granted preference. If the king has no male descendents, the monarchy is given to his brothers. If they are not alive, it is granted to their sons. From them, the right to the throne passes to the deceased king's nephews (his sister's sons), then to his uncles, to his first cousins.
38.
1 Kings, Chapter l, describes Adoniyahu's abortive attempt to declare himself as David's successor.
39.
II Kings, Chapter 11, describes Atal'ya's murder of the children of King Achazyahu, her assumption of the throne, and the revolt which established Yoash as king.
40.
Yehoachaz was younger than Yehoyakim. Nevertheless, he was given the throne, because he was more capable than his brother, and better suited to serve in his father's position. See the commentaries to II Kings, ch. 23.
41.
See II Kings, ch. 9.
42.
The Radbaz uses this concept to reinforce his thesis that the Rambam does not consider applying the anointing oil as a mitzvah, because it did not apply for all time.
43.
Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:18-19. There the Rambam explains that it is preferable to make them from precious metals. Nevertheless, if this is beyond the financial capacity of the community, they can be made from base metals. Indeed, when the Hasmoneans conquered Jerusalem, it is said that they first made a Menorah of iron coated with tin.
44.
Note a similar ruling in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 8:21.
45.
For patchwork is not becoming to the Temple.
46.
This portion of the Temple was called Beit HaChalafot, "the Chamber of the Knives," for this reason (Middot 4:7).
47.
An isaron is the size of 43.2 eggs. According to modern measure, the size of an egg is considered to be 57.6 cc according toShiurei Torah and 99.5 cc according toChazon Ish.
48.
For as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:5, the meal offerings were measured out using an isaron as the basic measure.
49.
As stated in ibid. 12:4, 13:2, each day the High Priest would bring a meal offering and he would divide it in half. Half was offered in the morning, and half in the afternoon.
50.
See Halachah 2.
51.
As mentioned above, a revi'it, a fourth of alog, is a common halachic measure equivalent to approximately 86 cc according to Shiurei Torah and approximately 150 cc according to Chazon Ish.
52.
As Numbers 28:14 states, the wine libation for a bull was half a hin, for a ram, one third of a hin, and for a ewe, one fourth of a hin. See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbonot 2:4.
53.
As stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbonot12:7, a log of oil is poured over all the different meal offerings.
54.
For as stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim3:11, this quantity of oil was placed in the lamps every day of the year.
55.
For as indicated by Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:3, a fourth of a log of oil is poured on each of the cakes the High Priest brings.
56.
As stated in Halachah 2 above.
57.
A sotah, a woman accused of adultery, was forced to drink water in which a scroll containing a curse with God's name had been blotted out. See Hilchot Sotah 3:9.
58.
As stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbonot9:20, a log of oil was used in the baking processes of the different types of wafers used for this offering. Kin'at Eliyahu asks: Since there were specific measures employed in making each type of wafer, why weren't smaller measures used to measure out this oil?
59.
As stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot9:23, a fourth of a log of oil was used in the preparation of this bread.
60.
A person with a physical affliction similar to - but not identical with - leprosy. As related inHilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 11:1, as part of such a person's purification process, a bird was slaughtered and its blood poured over water.
61.
I.e., receiving the blood of a sacrificial animal is an act of service. Therefore it consecrates the container. Preparing the meal offerings, by contrast, is not an act of service. Therefore it does not sanctify the container.
62.
Because it had touched a sacred utensil, the outside of the measure. These liquids were collected and used as libations or sold and the proceeds used to bring sacrifices for the altar. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbonot 2:9-11.
See also Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:20.
63.
Because it never touched a sacred utensil.
• 3 Chapters: Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 4, Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 5, Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 6
• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download• Nedarim - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
Vows taken because of coercion,1 vows taken unintentionally,2 and vows involving exaggerations are permitted,3 as we explained with regard to oaths.4
If men of coercion or customs collectors made him take a vow, saying: "Take a vow to us that meat is forbidden to you if you possess something on which customs duty is due," should he take a vow and say: "Bread, meat, and wine are forbidden to me...", he is permitted [to partake of] all of them5 even though he added to what they asked him [to say].6 Similarly, if they asked him to take a vow [on the condition] that his wife not benefit and he took a vow [on the condition] that his wife, his children, and his brothers not benefit from him, they are all permitted. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 2
In all vows of this type, he must have the intent at heart for something that is permitted,7 for example, that they be forbidden for him for that day alone or for that hour alone or the like. He may rely on the intent in his heart, since he is being compelled by forces beyond his control.8 Thus at the time he is taking the vow for them, his mouth and his heart are not in concord. [This is required,] as we explained with regard to vows.9
Halacha 3
Similarly, vows of encouragement are permitted.10 What does this imply? One administered a vow to a colleague to eat at his [home] and that colleague took a vow not to eat there, because he did not want to trouble him. Whether he eat or did not eat, they are both exempt.
Similarly, if a merchant took a vow that he would not sell an article for less than a sela and a purchaser took a vow that he would not buy it for more than a shekel,11 if they agree on three dinarim,12 they are both exempt.13 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. [The rationale is that] neither of them made a definite conclusion in his heart. He took the vow only to encourage his colleague without making a definite conclusion in his heart.14
Halacha 4
What is the source which teaches that it is forbidden for a person to take even these four types of vows which are permitted with the intent of nullifying them? It is written [Numbers 30:3): "He shall not desecrate his word," i.e., he should not make his word an inconsequential matter.
Halacha 5
When a person took a vow and then [changed his mind and] regretted his vow, he may approach a sage and ask for its release. The laws pertaining to the release of vows are the same as those applying to the release of oaths.15A vow can be released only by a distinguished sage or by three ordinary men in a place where there are no sages.16 The same wording is used to release a vow as is used to release an oath.17 Similarly, all of the other concepts that we explained with regard to oaths apply to vows in the same way as they apply to oaths.
Halacha 6
We do not release a vow until it takes effect, as is the law pertaining to an oath.18
Halacha 7
Just as we may ask for the release of vows involving prohibitions and they are repealed, so, too, may we ask for the release of vows involving consecrated property and they are repealed.19 This applies both to [articles] consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple and [animals] consecrated to [be sacrificed] on the altar. When the holiness of a sacrifice is transferred from one animal to another, that holiness cannot be released.20
Halacha 8
Just as a father or a husband can nullify [a woman's] vows involving prohibitions,21 so, too, they can nullify vows of consecration that resemble vows involving prohibitions.
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
Similar principles apply when one has attached many entities to a single vow, e.g., he took a vow [forbidding] bread and extended it to meat,26 if he asks for release of [the prohibition against] bread and it is granted, the [prohibition against] meat is also released.27 If he asks for release of [the prohibition against] meat and it is granted, the [prohibition against] bread is not released.28
Halacha 11
When a person takes an oath or a vow saying: "I will not benefit from any one of you," if he asks for the release of his vow or oath concerning one of them and the release was granted, they are all released. [The rationale is that] when a vow is released in part, all of its [particulars] are also released.29
When a person says: "I will not benefit from this person, and from this person, and from this person," if [the prohibition against] the first is released, [the prohibitions against] all of them are released.30 If the prohibition against the last is released, that prohibition is released, but the others remain binding. If he said: "I will not benefit from this one; nor from this one; nor from this one," he must ask for a release for each one indidivually.31 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.32
Halacha 12
When a person took a nazirite vow, a vow to bring a sacrifice, and an oath [forbidding himself from partaking of something], or he took a vow, but does not know concerning which of these he took the vow, one request for release [can release] all of them.33
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
If one says: "This produce is forbidden to me today if I go to this-and-this place tomorrow," he is forbidden to partake of them that day. [This is a] decree lest he go that place tomorrow.36 If he transgressed and partook of it that day and then undertook the journey on the morrow, he is liable for lashes.37 If he did not go, he is not liable for lashes.38
Halacha 15
If one says: "This produce will be forbidden to me tomorrow if I go to this-and-this place today," he is permitted to go that place today and the produce will be forbidden for him tomorrow. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. [The rationale is that] a person is careful about not violating a prohibition,39 but he is not careful in keeping a condition that will cause a permitted entity to become forbidden.40
Halacha 16
When a person takes a vow to fast for ten days,41 whenever he desires and he was fasting one day and had [to interrupt the fast] for the sake of a mitzvah42 or to honor a person of stature, he may eat and repay [the fast] on another day. [The rationale is that] he did not specify the days [he would fast] when he took the vow initially.43
FOOTNOTES
1.
As explained immediately below.
2.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 3.
3.
Note, however, Halachah 4.
4.
Hilchot Sh'vuot 3:1, 5.
5.
Even though he possessed items for which customs duty was due. See Hilchot Sh'vuot3:2.
6.
I.e., one might think that since he was not compelled to mention the other substances, the vow would take effect with regard to them. Hence, the Rambam explains that since he was compelled to take the vow, his additions do not change its status.
7.
See Hilchot Sh'vuot 3:3.
8.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 232:14) emphasizes that the statement he makes may not be a direct contradiction to the intent in his heart. He also emphasizes that the vow may not be broken in a way that the gentile who forced the vow to be taken will be become aware of its violation. For this would lead to the desecration of God's name.
9.
See Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:12.
10.
The laws of this halachah do not apply with regard to oaths. Since an oath involves the mention of God's name, taking an oath for this purpose would be taking God's name in vain. A vow does not require the mention of God's name. Hence, this is permitted (Radbaz).
11.
I.e., two dinarim which are half a sela.
12.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 232:2) quotes opinions that maintain that each one can fluctuate slightly past the midway point, but may not accept the other's position completely. He also quotes other more lenient views.
13.
For neither definitely meant what he said. Taking the vow was just a bargaining technique. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 232:2) which states that this applies when they continue negotiating after taking the vow. Then it is clear that they were merely bargaining. If, however, they broke off negotiations, the vow is considered binding.
14.
Thus it could be said that his heart and his mouth were not in concord (Radbaz).
15.
See Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:1.
16.
See Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:1.
17.
See Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:4.
18.
See Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:14.
19.
Nevertheless, it is undesirable to do so. One should seek their release only in a pressing situation. See Chapter 13, Halachah 25.
Since ultimately, the person did not desire to make the vow, it is as if the article were consecrated in error. In such an instance, the consecration is not effective (Radbaz, based on Ketubot 78a).
20.
The rationale is that the release of vows is based on the principle that after the person changes his mind and regrets having made the vow, it is as if the vow was made in error. Since the transfer of holiness from a sacrificial animal to another animal is binding even if it is done in error (Temurah 17a), there is no reason why a release is possible after such a transfer has been effected (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh). Nevertheless, if one regrets the original consecration, that can be nullified and then, as a matter of course, the animal to which the holiness was transferred will also lose its status (seeMishneh LeMelech).
21.
See chs. 11-13.
22.
The latter two are bound by the vow taken by the first, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 3.
23.
For the vows of the latter individuals are dependent on the vow of the first. Once the first vow is nullified, they no longer have any basis on which they can stand.
24.
For their vows are not dependent on his.
25.
For his vow serves as the basis for theirs.
26.
See Chapter 3, Halachah 4.
27.
For it is dependent on the prohibition against bread.
28.
For it is not dependent on the prohibition against meat.
29.
I.e., at the outset, his intent was that the oath or vow include all the individuals in the group, once that intent is no longer valid, it is as if the entire vow or oath was taken in error. Hence, it is no longer binding. The Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 1:1) derives this concept from the exegesis of Numbers 30:3: "He should act according to everythingthat he uttered from his mouth." Since "everything" he uttered from his mouth need not be fulfilled, nothing must be fulfilled. If part of a vow is nullified, the entire vow is nullified.
30.
Since the person said "and" between each one, he made the latter individuals dependent on the first. Nevertheless, in contrast to the first clause, all of the individuals are not considered as being included in the same vow.
31.
Since he did not associate them by saying "and," it is considered as if he took a vow concerning each person individually. See also Hilchot Sh'vuot 7:10.
32.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 6.
33.
They are all considered as one vow. Hence, as in the previous halachah, once a portion of a vow is nullified, the entire vow is nullified. Even if he only has a reason to regret the last portion of the vow, the entire vow is nullified (Radbaz).
34.
As the Rambam states in Chapter 7, Halachah 9, initially, it is forbidden for the person to ask such a sage to release his vow, for in this way, he is benefiting from the people of the city. After the fact, however, the vow is released, because retroactively, it is as if the vow were never taken.
35.
In this instance, he may initially ask a Jewish sage to have his vow released, for he has no alternative. Only a Jewish sage can release a vow. In the previous instance, by contrast, he can ask a sage from another city to release the vow (Radbaz).
36.
And then the vow would take effect retroactively.
37.
As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Sh'vuot4:16, to be liable for lashes, one must be given a warning. This law indicates that even if the warning was delivered conditionally, the person can be held liable for lashes.
38.
Despite the fact that he violated the advice of our Sages, since he did not violate a Scriptural commandment, he is not liable for lashes.
39.
Hence, we do not fear that he will partake of the produce on the following day.
40.
Therefore, in the previous halachah, he is forbidden to partake of the produce at the outset.
41.
I.e., not consecutively.
42.
I.e., to participate in a feast celebrating the observance of a mitzvah, e.g., a circumcision or the completion of a Talmudic tractate (Mishnah Berurah 568:9).
43.
Since he did not stipulate the day on which he would fast, even though he began fasting on a particular day, he can change his mind and switch the fast to another day.
44.
Since he took a vow against eating that day, the fact that he broke his fast does not make it permissible for him to eat afterwards. This applies even if he is willing to fast another day instead. Compare to Hilchot Ta'aniot1:14. the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim568:1) quotes the Rambam's ruling. The Rama adds that there are some who accept upon themselves to fast another day to compensate for the fast he did not keep.
45.
Nevertheless, since he did not specify a particular day at the time of his vow, once he ate, he may eat on the day he began fasting.
Nedarim - Chapter 5
Halacha 1
When Reuven tells Shimon: "I [am forbidden] to you like a dedication offering"1or "You are forbidden to benefit from me," it is forbidden for Shimon to benefit from Reuven.2 If he transgresses and benefits from him, he is not liable for lashes, because Shimon did not say anything.3 Reuven is permitted to derive benefit from Shimon, because he did not forbid this to himself.
Halacha 2
If he tells Shimon: "You [are forbidden] to me like a dedication offering" or "I am forbidden to benefit from you," Reuven is forbidden to benefit from Shimon. If he derives benefit, he is liable for lashes, because he desecrated his word. Shimon is permitted to benefit from Reuven.
If he tells him: "I [am forbidden] to you like a dedication offering and you are [forbidden] to me" or "I am forbidden to benefit from you and you are forbidden to benefit from me," they are both forbidden to benefit from each other. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
If Reuven tells Shimon: "So-and-so's produce is forbidden to you" or "You are forbidden to benefit from so-and-so," his words are of no consequence. For a person cannot cause his colleague to be prohibited with regard to a matter that is not his unless [that person] responds Amen, as we explained.4
Halacha 4
When a person tells a colleague: "This loaf [of bread] mine is forbidden to you," it [remains] forbidden to him even if he gives it to him as a present.5 If he dies, and [the other person] inherits it or [it is acquired by a third party] who gives it to him as a present, he is permitted. For [the one taking the vow said] "My loaf," and now it is not his.6
Halacha 5
If he tells him: "This produce is forbidden to you," but does not say: "My produce," even if he sold it or died and it became the property of another person,7 it [remains] forbidden to him. For when a person causes his property to be forbidden to a colleague, it remains forbidden unless he says: "my property," "my house," "my produce," or uses another similar term. For in those instances, he only forbade [using] the articles while they were in his possession.8
Halacha 6
When a person tells his son: "You are forbidden to benefit from me" or he takes and oath that his son is forbidden to benefit from him, when he dies, the son may inherit his property. For this is as if he says: "My property is forbidden to you." If he forbade [the son] from benefiting from him and specified: "During my lifetime and after my death," if he dies, [the son] should not inherit his [estate].9 For this is as if he said: "This property is forbidden to you."
Halacha 7
When a person forbids his son from benefiting from him10 and says: "If this son's son will be a Torah scholar,11 this son will acquire this property to transfer it to his son,"12 this is permissible. The son is forbidden [to benefit] from his father's estate and the grandson is permitted to derive such benefit13if he is a Torah scholar as was stipulated.
Halacha 8
If this son who is forbidden to benefit from his father's estate gives14 [the property] he inherits from his father to his brother or his sons, they are permitted to benefit from them.15 This also applies if he paid a debt with them or paid [the money due] his wife [by virtue of] her ketubah.16He must tell [the recipients] that [the payment they receive] is from the estate of his father which was forbidden to him. [The rationale for this leniency is that] when a person takes an oath that a colleague will not benefit from his property, he may pay that colleague's debt, as will be explained.17
Halacha 9
When a person was forbidden - either through a vow or an oath - to partake of a type of food, he is permitted to partake of other types of food that were cooked or mixed together with [the forbidden] food, even though it has [acquired] the flavor of the forbidden food.18 If he was forbidden to partake of specific produce19 and that produce became mixed with others, if they have the flavor of the forbidden food, [the other food] is forbidden. If not,20 it is permitted.
Halacha 10
What is implied? A person who is forbidden to partake of meat or wine may partake of soup or vegetables that were cooked with meat or wine. [This applies] even if they have the flavor of meat or wine. He is forbidden only to eat meat alone or drink wine alone.
Halacha 11
If, however, he forbade himself [to partake of] "this meat" or "this wine,"21 if the vegetables have the flavor of meat or wine, they are forbidden. If not, they are permitted. For this meat or this wine become considered like the meat ofnevelot, teeming animals, or the like. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. Therefore if one says: "This meat is forbidden for me," he is forbidden to partake of it, its sauce, and the spices [cooked] with it.22
Halacha 12
If the wine which he forbade himself23 became mixed with other wine,24 even one drop in an entire barrel, the entire quantity becomes forbidden. [The rationale is that] since he has the possibility to ask for the release of his vow, [the forbidden substance] is considered as an entity that can be permitted and hence, never becomes nullified in [a majority of permitted] substances of its own kind, as explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot.25
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
[The following rules apply] if a person took a vow or an oath not to eat [produce] or not to taste it. If it is an entity whose seed decomposes when it is sown like wheat or barley, he is permitted [to partake of] the articles exchanged for it28 and the produce that grows from it.29 If it was an entity whose seed does not decompose in the earth when it is sown, like onions or garlic,30 even the produce that grows from the produce that grows from it is forbidden.31 In all situations, there is a doubt [whether he is forbidden to drink] the juices they produce.32 Therefore, if he drinks them, he is not liable for lashes.
Halacha 15
Similarly, if a person tells his wife: "The work produced by your hands33 is like a sacrifice to me," "...a sacrifice to my mouth," or "...a sacrifice because of my mouth," he is forbidden to partake of anything exchanged for [her earnings] or produce that grows from her work.34 If he says that he will not to eat [from the work of her hands], nor taste it, if the produce [that grew from] the work of her hands is an entity whose seed decomposes, he is permitted [to partake of] articles exchanged for it and the produce that grows from it. If it was an entity whose seed does not decompose, even the produce that grows from the produce that grows from them is forbidden.
Why do we not consider the original produce that is forbidden insignificant because of the [new] growth that is larger than it? Because the original produce is an entity whose prohibition can be released, which is not nullified [when mixed] with a majority [of permitted substances], as explained.35
Halacha 16
When a person forbids his produce to a colleague, whether by vow or by an oath, there is an unresolved question if the produce that grows from it36 and articles exchanged for it [are permitted to the colleague].37 Therefore the produce that grows from it and articles exchanged for it are forbidden to his colleague. If he transgresses and benefits, he has benefited.38
FOOTNOTES
1.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 14; Chapter 2, Halachah 8.
2.
It is as if Reuven designated his property as consecrated with regard to Shimon (Or Sameach).
3.
And the prohibition which Reuven established does not make Shimon liable. If, however, Shimon said Amen, he would be liable, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
See Chapter 10, Halachah 12, from which it is apparent that if Reuven voluntarily allows Shimon to benefit from his property, Reuven is liable for lashes, for he is desecrating his own vow.
As indicated by Hilchot Meilah 4:9, even though the person is not liable for lashes, he is liable to bring a sacrifice for atonement, since with regard to him, it is as if he benefited from consecrated property.
4.
Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
5.
For there is no way that he can acquire it in a permitted manner.
6.
I.e., once he dies, the loaf no longer belongs to him.
7.
The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 216) states that this applies when the person taking the vow says: "During my lifetime and after my death." From the Rambam's words and a comparison to Halachah 6, it is apparent that he need not make such a specification. SeeTurei Zahav 216:10 which discusses these two perspectives.
8.
For that is the implication of the term "my." Compare to Chapter 8, Halachah 11.
9.
See Halachah 8 which explains that the estate does become the son's property and he may use it in certain ways.
10.
And specifies that this applies after his death as well, as in the previous halachah.
11.
This is speaking about a situation in which the grandson is not born yet or is still a minor in which instance, the grandfather cannot transfer the property to him directly Alternatively, he is not yet a Torah scholar (Radbaz).
12.
The Ra'avad and others question the Rambam's ruling, for seemingly, it does not involve any new concept. The son becomes the owner of the estate regardless. Although he is forbidden to benefit from it, he has the right to give it to his son whether he is a Torah scholar or not as stated in the following halachah. The Kessef Mishnehexplains that ordinarily, the son may use the estate to pay a debt or to give it to his brother as a present. If, however, the grandson is a Torah scholar, this is forbidden and it is as if the estate was transferred to him directly and the father cannot use it for other purposes. The Radbaz explains that this is speaking about a situation where the father had two sons and if this son's son was not a Torah scholar, he would give his entire estate to the other son.
13.
The Kessef Mishneh interprets this as meaning that the estate will be given to the grandson. The Bayit Chadash (Yoreh De'ah223) explains that implicit in the grandfather's statement is the stipulation that if the grandson is not a Torah scholar, he - like his father - will be forbidden to benefit from the estate. See Siftei Cohen 223:4.
14.
Rabbenu Nissim explains that the intent is not that he actually gives the money to the recipients, but he informs them of where it is and allows them to take it. See Siftei Cohen223:3.
15.
Here also, the son must tell the recipients that they are receiving property that he is forbidden to benefit from. Implied is that the estate becomes the son's property. He is forbidden to benefit from it. Nevertheless, as indicated here, he may receive indirect benefit, for certainly the recipients of his gifts will be thankful to him and repay him in some way or other.
16.
For this also considered as another debt.
17.
Chapter 6, Halachah 4. The person is not considered to have received benefit from the payment of his debt, since holding back a creditor from pressing claim is not considered as benefit (Radbaz).
The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 223) questions the Rambam's ruling, explaining that although the father would have been permitted to pay the son's debt, for the son to pay his own debt with the estate's money is considered as benefiting from the estate. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 223:4) accepts the Rambam's ruling.
18.
For his vow involved only the food itself - i.e., something that people would have in mind when using that term - but not its flavor. It does not become like forbidden food, in which case, even the flavor is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
19.
That produce is considered as if it was inherently forbidden and hence, even its flavor is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
20.
I.e., a person who had not taken the vow tasted the food and said that the flavor of the forbidden food could not be detected. Alternatively, there was more than 60 times the amount of the forbidden food.
21.
I.e., designating a particular piece of meat or quantity of wine.
22.
For these other entities will derive the flavor of the meat.
23.
The Or Sameach emphasizes that the Rambam is speaking about a vow which a person made himself, for he can have such a vow released. If, however, he responds to another person, he cannot ask for the vow's release.
24.
If, however, the wine becomes mixed with a liquid of another type, its presence becomes nullified if its taste is no longer detectable (Turei Zahav 216:13).
25.
Chapter 15, Halachah 10. The rationale is that since the prohibition can be released, it is preferable to do that rather than have the prohibition nullified.
26.
I.e., just as he may not partake of a sacrifice with his mouth, he may not partake of this produce.
27.
I.e., if the produce forbidden because of the vow was sown and other produce grew from it, that produce is also forbidden.
Since the produce forbidden by the vow is equated to a sacrifice, like a sacrifice, it is forbidden to derive any benefit from it (Kessef Mishneh).
The Ra'avad (in his gloss to Halachah 16) asks: Why is the produce that grows from the forbidden produce prohibited. Seemingly, we should follow the principle: Zeh vizeh goraim mutar, when an entity is produced by two factors, one permitted and one forbidden, it is permitted. Here as well, since the second generation produce was produced by the forbidden produce and also by the earth, it should be permitted.
The Radbaz explains that since a vow is involved, we follow the principle mentioned in Halachah 12, that since the prohibition involved can be released entirely, we do not consider it nullified because another factor is also involved.
28.
For his vow specified only eating or tasting the produce, not benefiting from it. Nor is there any taste of the original produce in the produce that grows from its seeds.
29.
For the second generation produce is not the same substance concerning which the vow was taken.
30.
The onion or the garlic head is put in the ground and a new plant grows from it.
31.
For ultimately, even the third generation produce has the flavor of the first generation produce. As the Rambam explains at the conclusion of Halachah 15, we do not say that its flavor will be nullified because the greater portion of the substance of the new produce is permitted, because, as stated in Halachah 12, the forbidden fruit is an entity whose prohibition could be released.
32.
Nedarim 52b leaves unresolved the question whether in this context the juice produced from the fruit is considered as the fruit or not. Hence, because of the doubt, one is forbidden to partake of it, but cannot be held liable for punishment. This refers to fruits other than grapes or olives. In the latter instances, the liquid is considered as the fruit.
33.
The Siftei Cohen 216:8 states that we are referring to an instance that the husband uses wording similar to that suggested in Chapter 3, Halachah 11; alternatively, that he is referring to work which his wife already performed. Otherwise, there would be a difficulty because a vow is not effective unless the object concerned already exists.
34.
I.e., if she planted a tree, he is forbidden to partake of its fruit. The Rambam (based onNedarim 57a) is restating the concepts mentioned in the previous halachah in a different context.
35.
See Halachah 12 which explains that he has the potential to have his vow released.
36.
The Ra'avad protests the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that based on Nedarim 47a, it appears that the produce grown from the fruits of his efforts is definitely forbidden. The Radbaz, however, explains that the Rambam has a different way of understanding that Talmudic passage.
37.
Nedarim, loc. cit., explains that the question is: Since these entities have not come into existence as of yet, can he cause them to be forbidden to his colleague.
38.
I.e., he is not liable. Firstly, lashes are not given when an unresolved question is involved. Also, as stated in Halachah 1, when a person becomes forbidden because of another person's vow, he is not liable for lashes unless he responds Amen.
Nedarim - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
When a person tells a colleague: "Benefit that leads to your food is forbidden to me," or "Benefit that leads to my food is forbidden to you," the person who is forbidden should not borrow from the other person: a sifter, a strainer, a hand mill, an oven, or any other utensil used to prepare food. He may, however, borrow from him bracelets, rings, and other articles that are not used to produce food. He is forbidden to borrow from him a sack or a donkey to carry produce.1
Halacha 2
[In the above situation,] in a place where utensils are given out only for a fee, it is forbidden to borrow [without charge] even utensils that are not used to produce food.2If they were in a place where a fee is not charged and he borrowed from him utensils that are not used to produce food to look impressive to others because of them so that he will receive benefit from them3 or he sought to pass through his property so that he could reach a place where he would derive benefit,4 there is an unresolved question whether it is prohibited.5 Therefore, if he transgresses, he is not liable for lashes.
Halacha 3
There is no difference between one who takes a vow not to benefit from a colleague and one who takes a vow not to derive benefit that leads to food except [permission to] pass through [property]6 and borrowing utensils that are not used to produce food in a place where they are borrowed without charge.7
Halacha 4
When Reuven was forbidden to benefit from Shimon, either through a vow or through an oath, Shimon may give the half-shekel which Reuven is obligated to give.8 Similarly, he may pay a debt that he owes. [The rationale is that] Reuven does not receive anything, all [Shimon does] is prevent a claim from being lodged against him. And preventing a claim from being lodged is not included in the prohibition against [giving] benefit.9
Therefore [Shimon] may provide food for [Reuven's] wife,10 his sons, and his servants, even his Canaanite servants,11 even though [Reuven] is obligated to provide for their sustenance. He may not, however, provide food for [Reuven's] animal, whether a kosher animal or a non-kosher one,12 for any increase in the animal's weight is benefit given to Reuven.
Halacha 5
If Shimon was a priest, he is permitted to offer sacrifices brought by Reuven. [The rationale is that] the priests are agents of God and not the agents of the person bringing the sacrifice.13
Halacha 6
Shimon may separate terumah on behalf of Reuven and separate his tithes with his consent.17 What is meant by "with his consent"? For example, Reuven said: "Whoever desires to separate terumah [from my produce] may do so." He may not, however, tell Shimon to separate terumah on his behalf, for then he is making him his agent and this is [deriving] benefit from him.
Halacha 7
[Shimon] may instruct [Reuven] in the Oral Law,18 for it is forbidden to charge a wage for teaching it.19 The Written Law, by contrast, may not be taught by him, because a wage can be charged for teaching it.20 If it is not customary [in that community] to charge for instruction in the Written Law, this is permitted. Regardless of [the local custom with regard to payment], [Shimon] may teach [Reuven's] son.21
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
When an animal belonging to Reuven becomes ill,25 Shimon should not give it veterinary attention. He may, however, tell him: "Do such and such for it."26
[Shimon] may wash with Reuven in a large bath,27 but not in a small bath, because he gives him pleasure by raising the water over him.28 He may sleep in the same bed as him in the summer,29 but not in the winter, because he warms him.30 He may sit on the same couch as him and eat at the same table,31but may not eat from the same plate or from the same food trough that is placed before workers. [The rationale is that we fear that] Shimon will leave a nice piece of meat and refrain from eating it so that Shimon will eat it or move it closer to him and in this way, bring him benefit.32 Similar concepts apply with regard to produce in a food trough. It is, however, permitted for Shimon to eat from a plate even though he knows that when he returns it to the host, the host will place it before Reuven. We do not fear that [Shimon] will leave a choice cut of meat for [Reuven].33
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
Reuven is forbidden to use Shimon's coal, but he is permitted to use his flame.37
Halacha 12
[The following laws apply if] Shimon owned a bathhouse or an olive press that were hired out [to others] in the city. If Shimon retains a hold on them, e.g., he left a portion for himself and did not hire it out, it is forbidden for Reuven to enter that bathhouse or tread in that olive press.38 [This applies] even if he retains merely one tub in the bathhouse or one press39 in the olive press. If he did not retain anything for himself, but rather hired it out in its entirety, it is permitted [for Reuven to enter].40
Halacha 13
It is forbidden for Reuven to partake of the produce of Shimon's field, even during the Sabbatical year when everything is ownerless, for he took the vow before the beginning of the Sabbatical year.41 If he took the vow in the Sabbatical year itself, [Reuven] may partake of the produce that hangs outside the field.42 He may not, however, enter the field even though the land is ownerless. [This is] a decree lest he remain there after he partook of [the produce],43 for the Torah declared [the land] ownerless only during the time the produce is found within it.
Halacha 14
When does the above apply? When he told him: "Benefit from this property is forbidden to you."44 If, however, [Shimon] told [Reuven]: "It is forbidden for you to benefit from my property,"45 or Reuven took an oath or a vow [prohibiting him from benefiting] from Shimon's property, when the Sabbatical year begins, he may partake of the produce of his field, for they have left Shimon's domain.46 He may not, however, enter his field for the reasons we explained [in the previous halachah].
Halacha 15
[Different laws apply if] only benefiting from Shimon's food was forbidden to Reuven,47 If, either because of a vow or an oath, the prohibition took effect before the Sabbatical year, he may enter his field,48 but may not eat his produce.49If the prohibition took effect in the Sabbatical year, he may enter his field and partake of his produce, for this produce does not belong to Shimon. Instead, it is ownerless.50
Halacha 16
It is forbidden for Reuven to lend [articles] to Shimon. [This is] a decree, lest he borrow from him although it is forbidden for him to benefit from him. Similarly, it is forbidden for [Reuven] to give [Shimon] a loan. [This is] a decree, lest he borrow from him.51 Similarly, he may not sell something to him. [This is] a decree, lest he buy from him.52
Halacha 17
If it happened that [Shimon] was working with [Reuven], e.g., they were harvesting together, he should work far from him. [This is] a decree, lest he help him.
When [a father] takes a vow, forbidding his son to benefit from him because the son does not occupy himself in Torah study, the father is permitted to fill up a jug of water [for his son], light a lamp [for him], or roast a small fish. For [the father's] intent was only to forbid [his son] from deriving significant pleasure and these matters are not considered important by the son.53
FOOTNOTES
1.
For this also leads to him deriving pleasure from food.
2.
For the money that he saved by not paying the fee could be used to purchase food.
3.
E.g., he lent him attractive clothing which created a favorable impression on others who gave him gifts as a result.
4.
To attend a feast, but not when going to his business as stated in the notes to the following halachah.
5.
In both cases, he did not give him direct benefit, but he did enable him to receive benefit.
6.
I.e., to tend to his business. If he took a vow against benefiting from him, he may not pass through the property, for he is deriving some benefit. Nevertheless, that benefit does not lead to food. Hence, one who prohibits all benefit is forbidden, but one who forbids benefit that leads to food is permitted. If, however, he wishes to pass through his property to attend a feast, he is forbidden in all instances, as stated in the previous halachah (Radbaz).
7.
This is benefit, but not benefit that leads to food.
8.
I.e., the half-shekel which every Jew is obligated to pay to the Temple treasury as his share in the communal sacrifices. SeeHilchot Shekalim 1:1.
9.
See Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 26:6 where the Rambam states that if "a person pays a promissory note of a colleague without that colleague's knowledge, even if it is a debt for which security was given, the borrower is not required to pay him anything. The borrower may take his security.... The other person forfeits his money. [The rationale is that] perhaps the borrower would have been able to appease the lender and have him waive the debt." Thus by paying Reuven's debt, Shimon is not considered to have given him anything.
10.
See also Hilchot Ishut 12:19 which states that when a husband traveled to a distant country and left his wife without resources, if another person gives the woman money without clearly specifying that he is extending a loan to her, he forfeits his money. Even though the husband is obligated to pay for his wife's provisions, as long as a debt is not formally established, the person who pays the money has no claim upon him.
11.
The qualifier "even" is mentioned for the Canaanite servants, because it is not as great a mitzvah to sustain them as the others who are full-fledged members of the Jewish people.
12.
This applies even though the non-kosher animal may not be eaten by the Jew, he may sell it to a gentile and will receive a greater payment because of its increase in weight.
13.
And thus he is not considered as having performed a favor for the person bringing the sacrifice.
14.
For then, she is considered as having carried out the marriage. Her father is merely acting as her agent and thus is not considered as offering Reuven benefit.
15.
A girl between the ages of twelve and twelve and a half who has manifested signs of physical maturity (Hilchot Ishut 2:1-2). Needless to say, this applies if the girl is a minor, in which instance, her consecration is dependent entirely on her father.
16.
For at this age, she cannot marry without her father's consent, as stated in Hilchot Ishut 3:11.
17.
If, however, Reuven does not consent, the separation of the terumah is not effective (Bava Metzia 22a).
18.
Since Shimon is forbidden to receive a wage from teaching Reuven, he is not giving him tangible benefit. Although he is enabling him to observe a mitzvah, the mitzvot were not given for our satisfaction (Eruvin 31a).
19.
See Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:7, 3:10 where the Rambam issues such a ruling and explains that this is derived fromDeuteronomy 4:5: "Behold, I [Moses] have taught you laws and statutes, as God commanded me." On this basis, Nedarim37a teaches that Moses was implying: "Just as I learned at no cost, so, too, you have been instructed at no cost by me. And so, too, should you teach the coming generations at no cost."
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim4:3), the Rambam writes:
According to our Torah, there is no way that it is permitted to take a wage for teaching any of the Torah's professions....I am amazed at the men of stature who aroused by desire, denied the truth had wages designated for themselves for giving Torah rulings and instruction, citing flimsy support.
See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah Avot 4:7. It must, however, by noted that most authorities [see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 246:5) allow a teacher to charge for the time he spends teaching Torah on the basis of the principle of sechar batalah, i.e., he could have spent the time he spends teaching working at another profession which would bring him an income. He is allowed to be reimbursed for the money he loses by choosing to teach Torah instead. For this reason, the Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 221:2) does not accept the Rambam's ruling and forbids Shimon from teaching Reuven.
20.
Nedarim 37a gives two reasons why it is permitted for a teacher of young children to charge a wage for his services: a) he is not charging for teaching; he is charging for being a disciplinarian; b) he is not charging for teaching the wordings of Torah; he is charging for teaching the cantillation notes. (For at that time, there were no texts with vowels and the Written Law was studied by memorizing its chants.) The first rationale does not apply with regard to adults, but the second does.
21.
A father is obligated to teach his son the Torah. Hence, by instructing Reuven's son, Shimon is freeing him of an obligation. Nevertheless, this is not considered as providing him with benefit, for teaching his son is a mitzvah. And as stated above, the mitzvot were not given for our satisfaction. Moreover, it is possible that Reuven could find another person to teach his son without charge.
22.
For this is also a mitzvah. Even though the sick person derives benefit from the person's visit, the benefit is not granted him directly (see Nedarim 39a).
23.
I.e., pay a short visit and leave promptly. Since sitting with the sick person is worth money in that community, it is forbidden, by doing so, he will be providing the sick person with a tangible benefit. Payment is not given for visiting while standing. Therefore, there is no prohibition against doing so. See Siftei Cohen 221:19 who writes that if he charges for his time, he may sit and pay the sick person a longer visit.
24.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim4:4), the Rambam states that it is a mitzvah of Scriptural origin for a doctor to heal a sick person.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:4) states that when medical attention is given without charge, he may treat him without charge. If, however, it is customary for a doctor to charge, he must also do so.
25.
In certain manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah, this clause is included as the conclusion of the previous halachah rather than at the beginning of this one.
26.
I.e., he may give him advice with regard to which treatments to employ, but may not treat the animal himself. The rationale is that treating a colleague's animal is not considered a mitzvah (Tosafot, Nedarim41b). The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 221) explains that if there is no one else capable of treating the animal but Shimon, Shimon may do so, because the mitzvah of returning a lost object also includes doing what is necessary to save a colleague's livestock. The Radbaz also adds the rationale that Scriptural Law requires us to alleviate an animal's discomfort.
27.
For the entrance of one person into a large bath is not significant.
28.
And that is considered as pleasurable.
29.
Because the increase in warmth is not desirable.
30.
The more people under the same bed clothes, the greater the warmth produced. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:5) states that this applies with regard to a small bed. If the bed is large, even in the winter, it is permitted.
31.
This alone is not enough to create suspicion that he will offer him food.
32.
The Meiri explains that even though the two are at odds - and for that reason one has taken a vow not to offer the other benefit - we fear that he might make such a gesture out of good manners.
33.
The custom was that before passing the tray to another person, the host would fill it up again. Hence there would be no need for Shimon to worry about leaving a piece for Reuven [Radbaz; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:5)]. The Rama adds that if the serving plate contained a very large amount, there is no prohibition.
34.
It was customary to drink wine in the house of mourners to help him overcome his sorrow (see Ketubot 8b).
35.
A cup of hot water that was provided for bathers by the owner of the bathhouse (i.e., and not one belonging to Shimon).
Nedarim 38b states that Shimon may give Reuven "the cup of peace" and advances these two interpretations for the term. The Rambam does not consider the interpretations as mutually exclusive, for the same principle - that the satisfaction Shimon gives Reuven is minimal - applies in both instances (Kessef Mishneh).
36.
The Ra'avad offers a different interpretation than the Rambam, explaining that the "cup of the bathhouse" is given to save the person's life, lest he dehydrate. Moreover, he explains that since the cup belongs to Reuven, there is no difficulty. And he states that giving the cup of comfort is a mitzvah.
37.
For the coal is considered an entity of substance, while the flame is not (Siftei Cohen 221:57).
38.
Since Shimon retains a certain dimension of ownership, when Reuven makes use of it, he is still considered as benefiting from Shimon's property.
39.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Maaserot 1:7) the Rambam defines the term ekal as referring to a container made from ropes in which olives are placed and crushed.
40.
Provided Shimon did not specifically forbid Reuven from entering these structures, as indicated by Halachah 14.
41.
And once an entity has become forbidden because of a vow, it remains forbidden.
42.
For that is ownerless and is not affected by the vow.
43.
Although he is allowed to benefit from the produce, he is not allowed to set foot in Shimon's land, as stated in Halachah 3, and as the Rambam continues to explain.
44.
For then, benefit from that particular field itself becomes forbidden to Reuven forever. Compare to Chapter 5, Halachah 5.
45.
In which case, the prohibition involves only property actually owned by Shimon without applying to any particular property individually.
46.
For the entrance of the Sabbatical year causes them to be considered as ownerless. Shimon cannot cause the produce to be forbidden for Reuven, for a person cannot cause food that does not belong to him to be forbidden to a colleague (Nedarim 42b). And when Reuven takes an oath or a vow not to benefit from Shimon's property, the oath or the vow does not pertain to this produce, for it does not belong to Shimon.
47.
See Halachot 1 and 3.
48.
Because in such a situation, he is not forbidden to enter Shimon's property.
49.
Since the prohibition took effect before the Sabbatical year, it continues during the Sabbatical year, as stated in Halachah 13.
50.
Hence Shimon cannot cause it to be forbidden for Reuven, as above.
51.
Reuven is not receiving any benefit from lending out either his articles or his money. Nevertheless, he is forbidden lest Shimon reciprocate and that would involve receiving benefit.
52.
In a sale, even though the purchaser receives an article in return for his money, the seller is considered to have benefited. For if this was not so, he would not have sold the article.
53.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, explaining the source for this law (Nedarim38b) in another way. The Radbaz explains that halachically, both interpretations are acceptable. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 223:1) quotes the Ra'avad's interpretation, but not of the Rambam. Accordingly, the Bayit Chadash maintains that according to the Shulchan Aruch, the Rambam's interpretation is not accepted. See also Turei Zahav 223:1 and Siftei Cohen223:1.
54.
See Chapter 3, Halachot 10-11, for details on how a vow of this nature must be worded for it to be effective.
55.
The Baer HaGolah 221:65 rules that he may not write a note specifically for that person. Instead, he should write on the wall with the intent that the person see. Others, however, do not accept this stringency.
56.
He may not, however, speak to the wall, for in this instance, it is obvious that he is speaking to his colleague. The Beit Yosef(Yoreh De'ah 221) is even more stringent, stating that when it is obvious that he is intending for the person to whom he is forbidden to speak to hear, he may not speak even to another colleague.
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class
• "Today's Day"
Monday, Adar I 27, 5776 · 07 March 2016
Thursday 27 Adar I 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayakheil, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 120-134.
Tanya: But as for (p. 147)...neighborly love (p. 147).
My father said: Truth is the middle path. An inclination to the right, to be overly stringent with oneself and find faults or sins not in accord with the truth, or an inclination to the left, to be overly indulgent, covering one's faults or being lenient in demands ofavoda out of self-love - both these ways are false.
---------------------
• Daily Thought:
Healthy Contributions
A team, a society, a world is healthy when each member says, "If I don't add in my two bits, the whole system will fail."
Not just any two bits, but the two bits that belong to you alone.
No one is here just because everyone else is here. No system can function from the top-down alone.
Because each of us—and everything that was created—has a spark of the Divine. So that each of us is all of us.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment