Vayak'hel: Exodus 35:1 Moshe assembled the whole community of the people of Isra’el and said to them, “These are the things which Adonai has ordered you to do. 2 On six days work is to be done, but the seventh day is to be a holy day for you, a Shabbat of complete rest in honor of Adonai. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death. 3 You are not to kindle a fire in any of your homes on Shabbat.”
4 Moshe said to the whole community of the people of Isra’el, “Here is what Adonai has ordered: 5 ‘Take up a collection for Adonai from among yourselves — anyone whose heart makes him willing is to bring the offering for Adonai: gold, silver and bronze; 6 blue, purple and scarlet yarn; fine linen, goat’s hair, 7 tanned ram skins and fine leather; acacia-wood; 8 oil for the light, spices for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense; 9 onyx stones and stones to be set, for the ritual vest and the breastplate.
10 “‘Then let all the craftsmen among you come and make everything Adonai has ordered: 11 the tabernacle with its tent, covering, fasteners, planks, crossbars, posts and sockets; 12 the ark with its poles, ark-cover and the curtain to screen it; 13 the table with its poles, all its utensils and the showbread; 14 the menorah for the light, with its utensils and lamps, and the oil for the light; 15 the incense altar with its poles; the anointing oil; the fragrant incense; the screen for the entranceway at the entrance to the tabernacle; 16 the altar for burnt offerings, with its poles and all its utensils; the basin with its base; 17 the tapestries for the courtyard, with their posts and sockets; the screen for the gateway of the courtyard; 18 the tent pegs for the tabernacle; the tent pegs for the courtyard, with their ropes; 19 the garments for officiating, for serving in the Holy Place; and the holy garments for Aharon the cohen and the garments for his sons, so that they can serve in the office of cohen.’”
20 Then the whole community of the people of Isra’el withdrew from Moshe’s presence;
Daily Quote:Rabbi Elazar of Bartosa would say: Give Him what is His, for you, and whatever is yours, are His. As David says (I Chronicles 29:14): "For everything comes from You, and from Your own hand we give to You..."[Ethics of the Fathers 3:7]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Vayak'hel, 5th Portion Exodus 36:20-37:16 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Exodus Chapter 36
20And he made the planks for the Mishkan of acacia wood, upright. כוַיַּ֥עַשׂ אֶת־הַקְּרָשִׁ֖ים לַמִּשְׁכָּ֑ן עֲצֵ֥י שִׁטִּ֖ים עֹֽמְדִֽים:
21Ten cubits [was] the length of each plank, and a cubit and a half [was] the width of each plank. כאעֶ֥שֶׂר אַמֹּ֖ת אֹ֣רֶךְ הַקָּ֑רֶשׁ וְאַמָּה֙ וַֽחֲצִ֣י הָֽאַמָּ֔ה רֹ֖חַב הַקֶּ֥רֶשׁ הָֽאֶחָֽד:
22Each plank had two square pegs, rung like, one even with the other; so did he make for all the planks of the Mishkan. כבשְׁתֵּ֣י יָדֹ֗ת לַקֶּ֨רֶשׁ֙ הָֽאֶחָ֔ד מְשֻׁ֨לָּבֹ֔ת אַחַ֖ת אֶל־אֶחָ֑ת כֵּ֣ן עָשָׂ֔ה לְכֹ֖ל קַרְשֵׁ֥י הַמִּשְׁכָּֽן:
23And he made the planks for the Mishkan, twenty planks for the southern side. כגוַיַּ֥עַשׂ אֶת־הַקְּרָשִׁ֖ים לַמִּשְׁכָּ֑ן עֶשְׂרִ֣ים קְרָשִׁ֔ים לִפְאַ֖ת נֶ֥גֶב תֵּימָֽנָה:
24And he made forty silver sockets under the twenty planks; two sockets under one plank for its two square pegs, and two sockets under one plank for its two square pegs. כדוְאַרְבָּעִים֙ אַדְנֵי־כֶ֔סֶף עָשָׂ֕ה תַּ֖חַת עֶשְׂרִ֣ים הַקְּרָשִׁ֑ים שְׁנֵ֨י אֲדָנִ֜ים תַּֽחַת־הַקֶּ֤רֶשׁ הָֽאֶחָד֙ לִשְׁתֵּ֣י יְדֹתָ֔יו וּשְׁנֵ֧י אֲדָנִ֛ים תַּֽחַת־הַקֶּ֥רֶשׁ הָֽאֶחָ֖ד לִשְׁתֵּ֥י יְדֹתָֽיו:
25And for the second side of the Mishkan on the northern side he made twenty planks. כהוּלְצֶ֧לַע הַמִּשְׁכָּ֛ן הַשֵּׁנִ֖ית לִפְאַ֣ת צָפ֑וֹן עָשָׂ֖ה עֶשְׂרִ֥ים קְרָשִֽׁים:
26And their forty silver sockets: two sockets under one plank and two sockets under one plank. כווְאַרְבָּעִ֥ים אַדְנֵיהֶ֖ם כָּ֑סֶף שְׁנֵ֣י אֲדָנִ֗ים תַּ֚חַת הַקֶּ֣רֶשׁ הָֽאֶחָ֔ד וּשְׁנֵ֣י אֲדָנִ֔ים תַּ֖חַת הַקֶּ֥רֶשׁ הָֽאֶחָֽד:
27And for the western end of the Mishkan he made six planks. כזוּלְיַרְכְּתֵ֥י הַמִּשְׁכָּ֖ן יָ֑מָּה עָשָׂ֖ה שִׁשָּׁ֥ה קְרָשִֽׁים:
28And he made two planks at the corners of the Mishkan at the end. כחוּשְׁנֵ֤י קְרָשִׁים֙ עָשָׂ֔ה לִמְקֻצְעֹ֖ת הַמִּשְׁכָּ֑ן בַּיַּרְכָתָֽיִם:
29And they were matched evenly from below, and together they matched at its top, [to be put] into the one ring; so did he make for both of them; for the two corners. כטוְהָי֣וּ תֽוֹאֲמִם֘ מִלְּמַ֒טָּה֒ וְיַחְדָּ֗ו יִֽהְי֤וּ תַמִּים֙ אֶל־רֹאשׁ֔וֹ אֶל־הַטַּבַּ֖עַת הָֽאֶחָ֑ת כֵּ֚ן עָשָׂ֣ה לִשְׁנֵיהֶ֔ם לִשְׁנֵ֖י הַמִּקְצֹעֹֽת:
30And there were eight planks and their silver sockets, sixteen sockets two sockets [under one plank and] two sockets under one plank. לוְהָיוּ֙ שְׁמֹנָ֣ה קְרָשִׁ֔ים וְאַדְנֵיהֶ֣ם כֶּ֔סֶף שִׁשָּׁ֥ה עָשָׂ֖ר אֲדָנִ֑ים שְׁנֵ֤י אֲדָנִים֙ שְׁנֵ֣י אֲדָנִ֔ים תַּ֖חַת הַקֶּ֥רֶשׁ הָֽאֶחָֽד:
31And he made bars of acacia wood, five for the planks of one side of the Mishkan, לאוַיַּ֥עַשׂ בְּרִיחֵ֖י עֲצֵ֣י שִׁטִּ֑ים חֲמִשָּׁ֕ה לְקַרְשֵׁ֥י צֶֽלַע־הַמִּשְׁכָּ֖ן הָֽאֶחָֽת:
32and five bars for the planks of the second side of the Mishkan, and five bars for the planks of the [rear] side of the Mishkan, on the westward end. לבוַֽחֲמִשָּׁ֣ה בְרִיחִ֔ם לְקַרְשֵׁ֥י צֶֽלַע־הַמִּשְׁכָּ֖ן הַשֵּׁנִ֑ית וַֽחֲמִשָּׁ֤ה בְרִיחִם֙ לְקַרְשֵׁ֣י הַמִּשְׁכָּ֔ן לַיַּרְכָתַ֖יִם יָֽמָּה:
33And he made the middle bar to penetrate in the midst of the planks from one end to the other end. לגוַיַּ֖עַשׂ אֶת־הַבְּרִ֣יחַ הַתִּיכֹ֑ן לִבְרֹ֨חַ֙ בְּת֣וֹךְ הַקְּרָשִׁ֔ים מִן־הַקָּצֶ֖ה אֶל־הַקָּצֶֽה:
34And he overlaid the planks with gold, and their rings he made of gold as holders for the bars, and he overlaid the bars with gold. לדוְאֶת־הַקְּרָשִׁ֞ים צִפָּ֣ה זָהָ֗ב וְאֶת־טַבְּעֹתָם֙ עָשָׂ֣ה זָהָ֔ב בָּתִּ֖ים לַבְּרִיחִ֑ם וַיְצַ֥ף אֶת־הַבְּרִיחִ֖ם זָהָֽב:
35And he made the dividing curtain of blue, purple, and crimson wool, and twisted fine linen; the work of a master weaver he made it, in a [woven] cherubim design. להוַיַּ֨עַשׂ֙ אֶת־הַפָּרֹ֔כֶת תְּכֵ֧לֶת וְאַרְגָּמָ֛ן וְתוֹלַ֥עַת שָׁנִ֖י וְשֵׁ֣שׁ מָשְׁזָ֑ר מַֽעֲשֵׂ֥ה חשֵׁ֛ב עָשָׂ֥ה אֹתָ֖הּ כְּרֻבִֽים:
36And he made for it four pillars of acacia wood, and he overlaid them with gold, their hooks [were] gold, and he cast for them four silver sockets. לווַיַּ֣עַשׂ לָ֗הּ אַרְבָּעָה֙ עַמּוּדֵ֣י שִׁטִּ֔ים וַיְצַפֵּ֣ם זָהָ֔ב וָֽוֵיהֶ֖ם זָהָ֑ב וַיִּצֹ֣ק לָהֶ֔ם אַרְבָּעָ֖ה אַדְנֵי־כָֽסֶף:
37And he made a screen for the entrance of the tent, of blue, purple, and crimson wool, and twisted fine linen the work of an embroiderer, לזוַיַּ֤עַשׂ מָסָךְ֙ לְפֶ֣תַח הָאֹ֔הֶל תְּכֵ֧לֶת וְאַרְגָּמָ֛ן וְתוֹלַ֥עַת שָׁנִ֖י וְשֵׁ֣שׁ מָשְׁזָ֑ר מַֽעֲשֵׂ֖ה רֹקֵֽם:
38and its five pillars and their hooks, and he overlaid their tops and their bands with gold, and their five sockets were copper. לחוְאֶת־עַמּוּדָ֤יו חֲמִשָּׁה֙ וְאֶת־וָ֣וֵיהֶ֔ם וְצִפָּ֧ה רָֽאשֵׁיהֶ֛ם וַֽחֲשֻֽׁקֵיהֶ֖ם זָהָ֑ב וְאַדְנֵיהֶ֥ם חֲמִשָּׁ֖ה נְחֽשֶׁת:
Exodus Chapter 37
1Bezalel made the ark of acacia wood, two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high. אוַיַּ֧עַשׂ בְּצַלְאֵ֛ל אֶת־הָֽאָרֹ֖ן עֲצֵ֣י שִׁטִּ֑ים אַמָּתַ֨יִם וָחֵ֜צִי אָרְכּ֗וֹ וְאַמָּ֤ה וָחֵ֨צִי֙ רָחְבּ֔וֹ וְאַמָּ֥ה וָחֵ֖צִי קֹֽמָתֽוֹ:
Bezalel made: Since he devoted himself to the work more than the other wise men, it was called by his name [i. e., the work is attributed to him alone]. -[from Midrash Tanchuma 10] ויעש בצלאל: לפי שנתן נפשו על המלאכה יותר משאר חכמים, נקראת על שמו:
2And he overlaid it with pure gold from inside and from outside, and he made for it a golden crown all around. בוַיְצַפֵּ֛הוּ זָהָ֥ב טָה֖וֹר מִבַּ֣יִת וּמִח֑וּץ וַיַּ֥עַשׂ ל֛וֹ זֵ֥ר זָהָ֖ב סָבִֽיב:
3And he cast four golden rings for it upon its four corners, two rings on its one side and two rings on its other side. גוַיִּצֹ֣ק ל֗וֹ אַרְבַּע֙ טַבְּעֹ֣ת זָהָ֔ב עַ֖ל אַרְבַּ֣ע פַּֽעֲמֹתָ֑יו וּשְׁתֵּ֣י טַבָּעֹ֗ת עַל־צַלְעוֹ֙ הָֽאֶחָ֔ת וּשְׁתֵּי֙ טַבָּעֹ֔ת עַל־צַלְע֖וֹ הַשֵּׁנִֽית:
4And he made poles of acacia wood and overlaid them with gold. דוַיַּ֥עַשׂ בַּדֵּ֖י עֲצֵ֣י שִׁטִּ֑ים וַיְצַ֥ף אֹתָ֖ם זָהָֽב:
5And he inserted the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark, to carry the ark. הוַיָּבֵ֤א אֶת־הַבַּדִּים֙ בַּטַּבָּעֹ֔ת עַ֖ל צַלְעֹ֣ת הָֽאָרֹ֑ן לָשֵׂ֖את אֶת־הָֽאָרֹֽן:
6And he made an ark cover of pure gold, two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. ווַיַּ֥עַשׂ כַּפֹּ֖רֶת זָהָ֣ב טָה֑וֹר אַמָּתַ֤יִם וָחֵ֨צִי֙ אָרְכָּ֔הּ וְאַמָּ֥ה וָחֵ֖צִי רָחְבָּֽהּ:
7And he made two golden cherubim he made them of hammered work, from the two ends of the ark cover, זוַיַּ֛עַשׂ שְׁנֵ֥י כְרֻבִ֖ים זָהָ֑ב מִקְשָׁה֙ עָשָׂ֣ה אֹתָ֔ם מִשְּׁנֵ֖י קְצ֥וֹת הַכַּפֹּֽרֶת:
8one cherub from the one end and the other cherub from the other end; from the ark cover he made the cherubim from its two ends. חכְּר֨וּב אֶחָ֤ד מִקָּצָה֙ מִזֶּ֔ה וּכְרֽוּב־אֶחָ֥ד מִקָּצָ֖ה מִזֶּ֑ה מִן־הַכַּפֹּ֛רֶת עָשָׂ֥ה אֶת־הַכְּרֻבִ֖ים מִשְּׁנֵ֥י קְצוֹתָֽיו (כתיב קצוותיו) :
9The cherubim had their wings spread upwards, shielding the ark cover with their wings, with their faces toward one another; [turned] toward the ark cover were the faces of the cherubim. טוַיִּֽהְי֣וּ הַכְּרֻבִים֩ פֹּֽרְשֵׂ֨י כְנָפַ֜יִם לְמַ֗עְלָה סֹֽכְכִ֤ים בְּכַנְפֵיהֶם֙ עַל־הַכַּפֹּ֔רֶת וּפְנֵיהֶ֖ם אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־אָחִ֑יו אֶ֨ל־הַכַּפֹּ֔רֶת הָי֖וּ פְּנֵ֥י הַכְּרֻבִֽים:
10And he made a table of acacia wood two cubits long, one cubit wide, and a cubit and a half high. יוַיַּ֥עַשׂ אֶת־הַשֻּׁלְחָ֖ן עֲצֵ֣י שִׁטִּ֑ים אַמָּתַ֤יִם אָרְכּוֹ֙ וְאַמָּ֣ה רָחְבּ֔וֹ וְאַמָּ֥ה וָחֵ֖צִי קֹֽמָתֽוֹ:
11He overlaid it with pure gold, and he made for it a golden crown all around. יאוַיְצַ֥ף אֹת֖וֹ זָהָ֣ב טָה֑וֹר וַיַּ֥עַשׂ ל֛וֹ זֵ֥ר זָהָ֖ב סָבִֽיב:
12And he made for it a frame a handbreadth [wide] all around, and he made a golden crown for its frame all around. יבוַיַּ֨עַשׂ ל֥וֹ מִסְגֶּ֛רֶת טֹ֖פַח סָבִ֑יב וַיַּ֧עַשׂ זֵֽר־זָהָ֛ב לְמִסְגַּרְתּ֖וֹ סָבִֽיב:
13And he cast for it four golden rings, and he placed the rings on the four corners that are on its four legs. יגוַיִּצֹ֣ק ל֔וֹ אַרְבַּ֖ע טַבְּעֹ֣ת זָהָ֑ב וַיִּתֵּן֙ אֶת־הַטַּבָּעֹ֔ת עַ֚ל אַרְבַּ֣ע הַפֵּאֹ֔ת אֲשֶׁ֖ר לְאַרְבַּ֥ע רַגְלָֽיו:
14The rings were opposite the frame [as] holders for the poles [with which] to carry the table. ידלְעֻמַּת֙ הַמִּסְגֶּ֔רֶת הָי֖וּ הַטַּבָּעֹ֑ת בָּֽתִּים֙ לַבַּדִּ֔ים לָשֵׂ֖את אֶת־הַשֻּׁלְחָֽן:
15And he made the poles of acacia wood, and he overlaid them with gold, to carry the table. טווַיַּ֤עַשׂ אֶת־הַבַּדִּים֙ עֲצֵ֣י שִׁטִּ֔ים וַיְצַ֥ף אֹתָ֖ם זָהָ֑ב לָשֵׂ֖את אֶת־הַשֻּׁלְחָֽן:
16And he made the implements that are on the table: its forms, its spoons, its half pipes, and its supports with which it will be covered of pure gold. טזוַיַּ֜עַשׂ אֶת־הַכֵּלִ֣ים | אֲשֶׁ֣ר עַל־הַשֻּׁלְחָ֗ן אֶת־קְעָֽרֹתָ֤יו וְאֶת־כַּפֹּתָיו֙ וְאֵת֙ מְנַקִּיֹּתָ֔יו וְאֶ֨ת־הַקְּשָׂוֹ֔ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר יֻסַּ֖ךְ בָּהֵ֑ן זָהָ֖ב טָהֽוֹר:
---------------------
1. A song, a psalm by David.
2. My heart is steadfast, O God; I will sing and chant praises even with my soul.
3. Awake, O lyre and harp; I shall awaken the dawn.
4. I will thank You among the nations, Lord; I will sing praises to You among the peoples.
5. Indeed, Your kindness reaches above the heavens; Your truth reaches to the skies.
6. Be exalted upon the heavens, O God, [show] Your glory upon all the earth.
7. That Your beloved ones may be delivered, help with Your right hand and answer me.
8. God spoke in His holiness that I would exult, I would divide portions [of the enemies' land], I would measure the Valley of Succot.
9. Mine is Gilead, mine is Manasseh, and Ephraim is the stronghold of my head, Judah is my prince.
10. Moab is my washbasin, I will cast my shoe upon Edom, I will shout over Philistia.
11. Who brings me to the fortified city? Who led me unto Edom?
12. Is it not God, Who has [until now] forsaken us, and did not go forth, O God, with our armies?
13. Give us help against the adversary; futile is the help of man.
14. Through God we will do valiantly, and He will trample our oppressors.
Chapter 109
David composed this psalm while fleeing from Saul. At that time he faced many enemies who, despite acting friendly in his presence, spoke only evil of him; he therefore curses them bitterly.
1. For the Conductor, by David, a psalm. O God of my praise, be not silent.
2. For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful have opened against me; they spoke to me with a false tongue.
3. They have surrounded me with words of hate, and attacked me without cause.
4. In return for my love they hate me; still, I am [a man of] prayer.
5. They placed harm upon me in return for my favor, and hatred in return for my love.
6. Appoint a wicked man over him; let an adversary stand at his right.
7. When he is judged may he go out condemned; may his prayer be considered a sin.
8. May his days be few; may another take his position.
9. May his children be orphans and his wife a widow.
10. May his children wander about and beg; may they seek charity from amid their ruins.
11. May the creditor seize all that he has, and may strangers plunder [the fruits of] his labor.
12. May he have none who extends him kindness, and may none be gracious to his orphans.
13. May his posterity be cut off; may their name be erased in a later generation.
14. May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered by the Lord, and the sin of his mother not be erased.
15. May they be before the Lord always, and may He cut off their memory from the earth.
16. Because he did not remember to do kindness, and he pursued the poor and destitute man and the broken-hearted, to kill [him].
17. He loved the curse and it has come upon him; he did not desire blessing, and it has remained far from him.
18. He donned the curse like his garment, and it came like water into his innards, like oil into his bones.
19. May it be to him like a cloak in which he wraps himself, as a belt with which he girds himself always.
20. This is from the Lord for the deeds of my enemies, and [for] those who speak evil against my soul.
21. And You, God, my Lord, do [kindness] with me for the sake of Your Name; for Your kindness is good, rescue me!
22. For I am poor and destitute, and my heart has died within me.
23. Like the fleeting shadow I am banished, I am tossed about like the locust.
24. My knees totter from fasting, and my flesh is lean without fat.
25. And I became a disgrace to them; they see me and shake their heads.
26. Help me, Lord, my God, deliver me according to Your kindness.
27. Let them know that this is Your hand, that You, Lord, have done it.
28. Let them curse, but You will bless; they arose, but they will be shamed, and Your servant will rejoice.
29. May my adversaries be clothed in humiliation; may they wrap themselves in their shame as in a cloak.
30. I will thank the Lord profusely with my mouth, and amid the multitude I will praise Him,
31. when He stands at the right of the destitute one to deliver him from the condemners of his soul.
Chapter 110
This psalm records the response of Eliezer, servant of Abraham (to those who asked how Abraham managed to defeat the four kings). He tells of Abraham killing the mighty kings and their armies. Read, and you will discover that the entire psalm refers to Abraham, who merited prominence for recognizing God in his youth.
1. By David, a psalm. The Lord said to my master, "Sit at My right, until I make your enemies a stool for your feet.”
2. The staff of your strength the Lord will send from Zion, to rule amid your enemies.
3. Your people [will come] willingly on the day of your campaign; because of your splendid sanctity from when you emerged from the womb, you still possess the dew of your youth.
4. The Lord has sworn and will not regret: "You shall be a priest forever, just as Melchizedek!”
5. My Lord is at your right; He has crushed kings on the day of His fury.
6. He will render judgement upon the nations, and they will be filled with corpses; He will crush heads over a vast land.
7. He will drink from the stream on the way, and so will hold his head high.
Chapter 111
This psalm is written in alphabetical sequence, each verse containing two letters, save the last two verses which contain three letters each. The psalm is short yet prominent, speaking of the works of God and their greatness.
1. Praise the Lord! I will give thanks to the Lord with all my heart, in the counsel of the upright and the congregation.
2. Great are the works of the Lord, [yet] available to all who desire them.
3. Majesty and splendor are His work, and His righteousness endures forever.
4. He established a memorial for His wonders, for the Lord is gracious and compassionate.
5. He gave food to those who fear Him; He remembered His covenant always.
6. He has declared the power of His deeds to His people, to give them the inheritance of nations.
7. The works of His hands are true and just; all His mandates are faithful.
8. They are steadfast for ever and ever, for they are made with truth and uprightness.
9. He sent redemption to His people, [by] commanding His covenant forever; holy and awesome is His Name.
10. The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord; sound wisdom for all who practice it-His praise endures forever.
Chapter 112
This psalm, too, follows alphabetical sequence, each verse containing two letters, save the last two which contain three letters each. It speaks of the good traits man should choose, and of how to give charity-the reward for which is never having to rely on others.
1. Praise the Lord! Fortunate is the man who fears the Lord, and desires His commandments intensely.
2. His descendants will be mighty on the earth; he will be blessed with an upright generation.
3. Wealth and riches are in his house, and his righteousness endures forever.
4. Even in darkness light shines for the upright, for [He is] Compassionate, Merciful, and Just.
5. Good is the man who is compassionate and lends, [but] provides for his own needs with discretion.
6. For he will never falter; the righteous man will be an eternal remembrance.
7. He will not be afraid of a bad tiding; his heart is steadfast, secure in the Lord.
8. His heart is steadfast, he does not fear, until he sees his oppressors [destroyed].
9. He has distributed [his wealth], giving to the needy. His righteousness will endure forever; his might will be uplifted in honor.
10. The wicked man will see and be angry; he will gnash his teeth and melt away; the wish of the wicked will be ruined.
• Thursday, Adar I 23, 5776 · March 3, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 32
In the previous chapter the Alter Rebbe taught that when one is bitterly remorseful over his sorry spiritual state, he must strive for joy by considering the following. True, on account of his body and his animal soul he is utterly remote from G‑dliness. Yet he has within him a divine soul, veritably a part of G‑d. This soul, in exile within the body and the animal soul, is to be greatly pitied. One should therefore strive constantly to release it from this exile and to return it to its divine source, through engaging in the Torah and the mitzvot. Such a return will bring one great joy, the joy of freedom. The knowledge that the body and the animal soul remain in their unfortunate state should not disturb one’s joy on account of his divine soul, for the soul should be infinitely more precious in one’s eyes.
והנה על ידי קיום הדברים הנ״ל, להיות גופו נבזה ונמאס בעיניו, רק שמחתו תהיה שמחת הנפש לבדה
Acting on the advice mentioned above — to view one’s body with scorn and contempt, and to find joy in the joy of the soul alone —
הרי זו דרך ישרה וקלה לבא לידי קיום מצות ואהבת לרעך כמוך, לכל נפש מישראל למגדול ועד קטן
is a direct and easy path toward fulfilling the mitzvah,1 “You shall love your fellow as yourself,” with regard to every Jew both great and small — in spiritual stature.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Vayikra 19:18. |
---------------------
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Thursday, Adar I 23, 5776 · March 3, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 62
Vain Oaths
"You shall not take the name of the L-rd, your G‑d, in vain"—Exodus 20:7.
It is forbidden to needlessly swear in the name of G‑d.
Examples:
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Thursday, Adar I 23, 5776 · March 3, 2016Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 62
Vain Oaths
"You shall not take the name of the L-rd, your G‑d, in vain"—Exodus 20:7.
It is forbidden to needlessly swear in the name of G‑d.
Examples:
- To swear falsely regarding something that is an obvious untruth [e.g., to swear regarding a simple pebble that it is made of gold].
- To swear that a phenomenon that is known to be impossible has occurred.
- To swear to do something that violates a Torah commandment.
- To swear in attestation of an obvious truth, e.g., to swear that all that are slaughtered die.
Vain Oaths
Negative Commandment 62
Translated by Berel Bell
The 62nd prohibition is that we are forbidden to swear a sh'vuas shav (a vain oath).
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not take the name of G‑d your L‑rd in vain."
[A sh'vuas shav is] when one swears that something is the opposite of what it actually is;2 or that something exists, when in fact it cannot;3 or that he will violate a mitzvah of the Torah.4 So too if one swears to an obvious and undisputed fact, such as swearing to G‑d that anything which is slaughtered will die. This is also considered a sh'vuas shav.
The Mishneh says,5 "What is a sh'vuas shav? An oath which contradicts an obvious truth."
One who transgresses this prohibition intentionally is punished by lashes. If done unintentionally, he is exempt [from even bringing a sacrifice], as with many other prohibitions, as explained above.6
There — i.e. in tractate Sh'vuos — it is said that this is the sh'vuas shav for which one is lashed if done intentionally and exempt if done unintentionally. The details of this mitzvah are explained there.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ex. 20:7.
2.Such as swearing that a pillar stone is made of gold.
3.Such as swearing that a camel can fly.
4.Such as swearing that one will not wear tefillin.
5.Sh'vuos 29a.
6.N61.
-----------------------------------------------------------
• 1 Chapter: Beit Habechirah Beit Habechirah - Chapter 5 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Beit Habechirah - Chapter 5
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Beit Habechirah - Chapter 5
Halacha 1
Mount Moriah, the Temple Mount, measured 500 cubits by 500 cubits.1 It was surrounded by a wall.2 [The earth beneath it was hallowed out to prevent contracting ritual impurity] due to Tumat Ohel.3 Arches above arches were built underneath [for support].4 It was entirely covered,5 one colonnade inside another.6
Halacha 2
Halacha 3
The Chayl [a rampart] ten cubits high, was located further inside this partition.15 It is referred to in the [Book of] Lamentations [2:6]: 'The wall and the rampart mourned.' [This wall] refers to the wall surrounding the Temple Courtyard.
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
The Temple Courtyard was not situated directly in the center of the Temple Mount. Rather, it was set off further from the southern [wall] of the Temple Mount than from [the wall of] any other direction.25 It was closer to the western [wall] than to [the wall of] any other direction.26 There was a greater distance between it and the northern [wall] than between it and the western [wall]. [Similarly,] there was a greater distance between it and the eastern [wall] than between it and the northern [wall].27
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
For what purpose were they used?
The southeastern chamber32 was [called] the Chamber of the Nazirites.33There, they cooked peace offerings and shaved their hair.
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
Outside the Temple Courtyard,43 on its northern side,44 was a large structure between the Courtyard and the chayl. It was built with a dome45 and [its inner walls] were surrounded with stone protrusions.46 It was called the Chamber of the Hearth.47
There were four chambers inside it.50 Two were consecrated51 and two were not.52 Marking posts53 separated the consecrated [chambers] from those which were not consecrated.54
For what purpose were they used?
[In] the northeastern [chamber], the Hasmoneans entombed the stones of the Altar59 which were defiled by the Greek kings.60
[In] the northwestern chamber, [a stairwell] descended to the mikveh.61
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
The Temple Courtyard was 187 cubits long from east to west.67 The measurement can be broken down as follows:
Eleven cubits from the western wall of the Courtyard to the wall of the Temple building.100 cubits, the length of the Temple building.6822 cubits between the Entrance Hall and the Altar.6922 cubits, [the length of] the Altar.70Eleven cubits, the area where Israelites could walk.73 This was called the Courtyard of Israel.
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
Halacha 15
Halacha 16
The entire rectangle [described above] is called "the northern portion." The sacrifices of the most sacred order of holiness were slaughtered there.94
Halacha 17
The Courtyard of the Israelites had eight chambers:95 three in the north and three in the south.96 In the south,97 were the Chamber of Salt, Parve's Chamber,98 and the Washing Chamber.
The salt for the sacrifices was stored in the Chamber of the Salt.99 The hides of the sacrifices were salted in Parve's chamber.100 Its roof had a mikveh, used by the High Priest on Yom Kippur.101 The internal organs of the sacrifices were washed in the Washing Chamber.102 It had a winding ramp way leading to the roof of Parve's chamber.103
The three [chambers] in the north were the Chamber of Hewn Stone, the Chamber of the Bowl, and the Chamber of Wood.104
The Supreme Sanhedrin sat105 [in judgment] in the Chamber of Hewn Stone.106 Half was consecrated107 and half was not.108 The Sanhedrin sat in the half that was not consecrated.
The Chamber of the Bowl had a well from which water was drawn with a bowl. This [well] supplied water to the entire Temple Courtyard.
FOOTNOTES
1.
The commentaries, basing themselves on the Jerusalem Talmud (Eruvin 2:5), explain that this figure was derived as follows:
Exodus 27:18 states: 'The length of the courtyard shall be 100 cubits and its width, 50 by 50.' This verse can obviously not be understood literally, for area has only two coordinates. Hence, the Sages explained that rather than refer to the courtyard of the Tabernacle, the verse describes a measure related to the future Sanctuaries. The Temple Tabernacle, the verse describes a measure related to the future Sanctuaries. The Temple Mount measured a total of 50 x 100 x 50 cubits in area, i.e., a total of 250,000 sq. cubits.
The Piskei Tosafot (Middot 5) relate that the total area of the Temple Mount was greater than 250,000 sq. cubits. However, only the latter figure was consecrated.
2.
With the exception of the wall on the eastern side, the walls on all sides were very high. We know that their gates were 20 cubits high and the walls themselves were even higher. In modern terms, that would mean at least 10 meters (32.5 feet high).
3.
Tumat Ohel refers to ritual impurity contracted by being under the same tent or structure as a corpse. Even thought the corpse is buried, ritual impurity can be contracted unless there is a vacant space between the corpse and the earth above it. To prevent the possibility of impurity from a grave under the Temple courtyard, the entire earth below was hollowed out. SeeParah 3:3.
4.
Though the Mishnah (Parah, loc. cit.) states that the earth beneath the Temple was hollowed out, it does not mention the construction of arches. However, since the Mishnah (ibid.:6) states that arches supported the ramp leading from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives, we may assume that a similar technique was used in the instance (Kessef Mishneh). See also the commentary to Chapter 1, Halachah 13.
5.
With the exception of the Temple Courtyard.
6.
Rashi (Pesachim 13a) explains that this roof was built to protect the visitors to the Temple fom rain.
7.
Middot 1:3 relates that this gate was calledKaiphonus. The Shiltei Giborim explains that this means 'garden' in Greek. The name was given because a rose was planted outside this gate.
8.
This gate was called the Gate of Shushan, and the image of the city of Shushan was engraved upon it. This was done at the command of King Cyrus of Persia, who gave permission for the Temple to be rebuilt.
9.
It was called the Tadi gate, meaning 'hiddenness.' This gate was used when someone was forced to leave the Temple, but he did not want to publicize the circumstances (Middot 1:9, 2:2). Its construction differed from that of the other gates. Rather than have an ordinary lintel, it had two stones leaning against each other (ibid.:3).
10.
These were the gates most frequently used to enter the Temple Mount. They were named after the prophetess Chuldah. In the time of the First Temple, she stood before these gates and urged the people to repent.
The tractate Sofrim 19:12 relates that there were two additional gates to the Temple Mount: one for mourners and one for grooms. The Jewish people would sit between these two gates waiting to console the mourners and join in the celebration of the grooms. The Kaftor ViPerach states that these gates were on the east, to the north of the gate of Shushan. They were called the 'gates of mercy.' Today, the term is used to refer to the two gates on the east side of the Temple Mount, which can be seen from the Mount of Olives and are permanently shut.
11.
This was the standard size of the gates in the Temple complex.
12.
In contrast to the gateway to the Entrance Hall, which had no doors.
13.
Made of wooden shafts arranged in a crisscross pattern.
14.
Rabbenu Asher explains that this structure was constructed to allow the articles to be carried on the Sabbath. Therefore, it was made 10 handbreadths high. The Temple Mount was surrounded by a wall and, therefore, could not be considered a public domain. Nonetheless, its size exceeded the limits placed by the Sages, and without this partition, there would have been a Rabbinic against carrying on the Sabbath.
The Tosafot Yom TOv (Middot 2:3) objects to this reasoning, explaining that the Rabbinic prohibitions regarding the Sabbath were generally relaxed within the Temple premises. Instead, he offers the hypothesis that this partition served to delineate the point beyond which gentiles were not allowed to proceed.
15.
Middot 2:3 states: 'The Chayl, ten cubits.' In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Middot1:4), the Rambam describes the Chayl as a rampart. He, therefore, interprets this statement as referring to its height. In contrast, Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura does not define the Chayl as a wall. Rather, he refers to it as an empty space, 10 cubits wide.
16.
In this halachah, the Rambam does not mention the Women's Courtyard (See Halachah 7), because he intends to list the dividers which circumscribe an area of the Temple Mount on all four sides. The Women's Courtyard had the same dimensions as the Temple Courtyard on the north and south. Hence, it was not mentioned in this place.
17.
See Halachot 12 and where the Rambam details the space allocation of the Temple Courtyard.
18.
This statement raises a number of problems: Three mishnayot in the tractate ofMiddot mention the number of gates to the Temple Courtyard:
Mishnah 1:1 states: "The Levites [stood guard] in twenty one places: five at the five gates of the Temple Courtyard...."Mishnah 1:4 states: "There were seven gates to the Temple Courtyard...."Mishnah 2:6 states: "Thirteen prostrations were carried out there. Abba Yossi ben Chanan declared: 53[These were instituted] because of the thirteen gates... 54
It is difficult to conceive that the Mishnah would contradict itself within the same tractate. The apparent discrepancies can be explained as follows: The Sages do not disagree about the number of entrances to the Temple Courtyard. They did, however, debate the question of which entrance met the legal criteria for a gate. Guards were required to stand watch over every entrance that was considered a gate.
Similarly, although a person who is ritually impure may not enter the Temple premises, it is not clear whether he would be obligated to bring a sin offering if he came in through an entrance which is not considered a gate. See Chapter 8, Halachah 8, and Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 18, p.212-217.
19.
These gates were:
a) the gate of the spark. A two-floor structure with an entrance to the chayl.
b) the gate of the offerings. The most sacrifices of the highest order of sanctity, were slaughtered on the north side of the courtyard, and were brought in through this gate.
c) the gate to the Chamber of the Hearth. See Halachah 10.
20.
The Gate of Nicanor. It was most commonally used to enter the Temple Courtyard. The notes to the following halachah offers an explanation of that name.
21.
This was the standard size of the gates on the Temple Mount.
22.
See Chapter 1, Halachot 11 and 19.
23.
As mentioned in the beginning of Chapter 6, the Temple was built on an incline and had steps leading from the Women's Courtyard to the gate of Nicanor. Hence, the gate leading to the Women's Courtyard was referred to as the lower gate, and the gate of Nicanor, the Upper Gate. See Hilchot Klei HaMikdash, Chapter 7, Mishnah 6.
24.
In honor of the noble person who donated its doors.
Yoma 38a relates that Nicanor journeyed to Alexandria to ask the skilled bronzeworkers there to fashion these gates. When the gates were finished, he set sail with them to return to Eretz Yisrael.
At sea, a violent storm almost capsized the vessel. After other measures failed, the crew members decided to jettison some of the ship's cargo to reduce its weight. Immediately, they tossed one of the heavy bronzed gates to the waves.
The danger did not cease, and the crew wanted to cast the second gate overboard as well. Hearing this, Nicanor protested and declared that he would have to be thrown into the sea before the gate. Directly after he made that statement, the storm subsided and the ship was able to proceed.
Throughout the remainder of the journey, Nicanor was overcome with remorse. Why, he thought, hadn't he defended the first gate as well? How great was his joy when the ship docked at Acre and the gate emerged from under its hull.
When the financial situation of the Jewish people improved, they replaced all the Temple's bronze gates with gold-covered gates. Nevertheless, they allowed Nicanor's gates to remain in memory of the miracles which occurred. The Sages declared: "Their bronze shined like gold."
25.
As mentioned above (Halachah 2), the main entrance to the Temple Mount was on the South. Therefore, more space was left in this direction, and more Temple functions were carried out on that side.
26.
In deference to the Holy of Holies, no mundane business was carried on behind it. Hence, less space was left there than in the other directions.
According to most opinions, the Wailing Wall at which we worship today, is the western wall which surrounded the Temple Mount (Kaftor Viperach).
27.
The Tosafot Yom Tov calculated the distances between the Temple Courtyard and the walls as follows:
Between the Courtyard and the southern wall, 250 cubits,
Between the Courtyard and the eastern wall, 213 cubits,
Between the Courtyard and the northern wall, 115 cubits,
Between the Courtyard and the western wall, 100 cubits.
28.
The reason for this name is explained in Halachah 9 and notes.
29.
Except for certain unique circumstances, people entered the Temple through this area.
30.
The chambers were inside the walls of the Courtyard, and not on the outside.
31.
The Mishnah (Middot 2:5) bases the latter statement on the prophecy of Ezekiel (46:21-22): "Then he took me out into the outer courtyard.... Behold, there was a chamber in each corner of the courtyard. At the four corners, there were roofless chambers...."
32.
The chamber to the left upon entering the Women's Courtyard.
33.
Numbers 6:18 commands: "The Nazirite shall shave off the crown of hair on his head before the Tent of Meeting. He shall take the hair... and place it in the fire under the peace offering." Nazir 45a explains that, in deference to the presence of the Shechinah, the shaving was not carried out before the Sanctuary itself, but rather in this chamber, while the door to the Sanctuary was open. See also Hilchot Nizirut 8:2-3.
34.
The chamber to the right upon entering.
35.
Leviticus 21:16-24 lists the physical deformities which disqualified a priest for Temple service and the relevant regulations. See also Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, Chapter 6.
36.
Just as the choicest animals should be chosen for the sacrifices, so too, the wood used to burn them should be of the highest quality (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, 6:1-2).
37.
The chamber on the right side before the entrance to the Temple Courtyard.
38.
It contained a mikveh in which those seeking purification from tzara'at immersed themselves as part of their process of regaining ritual purity. See Hilchot Michusrei Kapporah, Chapter 4.
39.
The chamber on the left side before the entrance to the Temple Courtyard.
40.
Its name mentioned oil rather than wine, because a sacrifice is acceptable if a wine libation is lacking. In contrast, all meal offerings are invalidated if they lack oil (Yeriat Shlomo).
41.
Women were not allowed to enter the Temple Courtyard except to perform certain rituals in connection with sacrifices which they had brought. However, they were permitted to enter this outer courtyard and therefore, it was named accordingly.
42.
The Mishnah (Middot 2:5) relates that these balconies were a later addition to the Temple structure.
On the festival of Sukkot, the entire Jewish nation would gather in this courtyard to watch the Simchat Beit HaShoevahcelebrations (the festivities associated with the water libation). Though the men and the women were seated in separate sections, the closeness between them aroused a certain dimension of frivolity which was not appropriate to the holiness of the occasion. To avoid such circumstances, these balconies were constructed. See alsoSukkot 51b.
43.
Although the Kessef Mishneh and other commentaries explain that half of the Chamber of the Hearth was positioned within the Temple Courtyard, and half on the outside, the diagrams drawn by the Rambam depict it as being positioned entirely outside the Courtyard's walls.
44.
To the right upon entering the Temple Courtyard.
45.
As a roof.
46.
On which the priests slept at night (Tamid1:1).
47.
Because the priests kindled a fire there to keep warm.
48.
Each morning, the priests entered the Courtyard through this entrance to prepare it for the morning sacrifices.
49.
A priest who became impure at night and therefore, could not participate in the Temple services would leave through this exit.
50.
Middot 1:5 describes the chambers as resembling "bedrooms opening out to a large hallway."
Note the accompanying diagram which was copied from the Rambam's drawings in his Commentary to the Mishnah.
51.
Thus they were considered extensions of the Temple Courtyard. This distinction is significant in regard to the prohibition against eating the sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity outside the Temple Courtyard.
52.
According to the interpretation of the Kessef Mishneh mentioned above, this statement is quite clear. Two chambers were situated inside the Temple Courtyard, and two were on the outside. However, according to the Rambam, the entire structure was situated outside the Temple Courtyard. If so, how could two structures be consecrated?
This difficulty can be resolved as follows: The Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aser Sheni 3:4) states that chambers which are built on ground that was not consecrated, but which open up to the Temple Courtyard, are considered as consecrated. Should they open up to the outside, they are not sacred. According to the Rambam's diagram, the two southern chambers of the Chamber of the Hearth faced the Temple Courtyard, while the two northern chambers faced thechayl. Hence, the southern chambers alone were consecrated. See also Chapter 6, Halachah 8.
53.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam defines "marking posts" as "a lattice divider, sometimes made of reeds, sometimes made of wood, and at other times, made of other building materials." They were placed on the ceiling of this structure.
54.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid, loc. cit.), the Rambam writes that the priests only slept in the part of the chamber which was not consecrated. Hence, these marking posts were useful in clarifying this matter to them.
55.
The chamber to the right when facing the Temple Courtyard.
56.
Here the lambs to be offered as daily sacrifices were inspected to see if they had any disqualifying blemishes. The lambs were kept in this chamber before they were sacrificed. In Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 1:9, the Rambam writes that at least six lambs were always kept in this chamber.
57.
The chamber to the left when facing the Temple Courtyard.
16The southeastern [chamber] - The chamber to the left when facing the Temple Courtyard.
58.
Here, the Showbread offered each Sabbath on the Golden Table was baked.
59.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 15.
60.
The Greeks who occupied Jerusalem before the Maccabean revolt defiled the altar by offering sacrifices to idols upon it.
Tamid 3:3 mentions that there was a Chamber of Seals within the Chamber of the Hearth. There, the priests would authorize the sale of the wine and meal offerings. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Middot1:5), the Rambam explains that this chamber was used for that purpose in addition to the entombment of the altar's stones.
61.
As explained in the following halachah.
62.
Tamid 1:1 relates that the priests slept in the Chamber of the Hearth. "If one of them had a seminal emission [in his sleep,] he would descend to the mikveh."
The emission of semen renders a man ritually impure (Leviticus 15:16). Thus, a priest who had a nocturnal emission may not enter the Temple premises or take part in its services. The process of ritual purification involves immersion in a mikveh and waiting until nightfall. In the morning, the priest left the Temple premises through the gate leading to the chayl (Tamid, loc. cit.).
63.
An intricate chain of underground passageways was located under the Temple Mount, including this stairwell leading to a natural reservoir of water where amikveh was constructed.
This halachah raises a question. As mentioned above, in this condition, the priests were not able to enter the Temple premises. If so, how could they enter these passageways which passed under consecrated ground?
The commentaries answer (see Chapter 8, Halachah 7) that since these underground passageways did not open to the Temple Courtyard itself, they were not consecrated. See Pesachim 86a.
64.
The fire that the priests kindled at night, from which the entire chamber derived its name. See Tamid 3:3.
65.
I.e., a toilet.
66.
Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura wrote that no one ever entered this toilet while it was occupied by another person.
There are additional references to the Chamber of the Hearth and to the stairwell leading to the mikveh in Chapter 8, Halachot 5-7.
67.
This measure did not include the width of the courtyard's walls.
68.
As explained above, Chapter 3, Halachah 4.
69.
The washbasin and the steps leading to the Entrance Hall (See Chapter 6, Halachah 4) were located here.
70.
See Chapter 2, Halachah 7.
71.
When they were not directly involved with the Temple services.
72.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 7.
73.
As explained in Chapter 7, Halachah 19, an Israelite was only allowed beyond this region for four reasons:
a) to perform semichah on an animal he had brought as a sacrifice;b) to offer the confessional prayers that accompany the sacrifices;c) to slaughter a sacrificial animal;d) to wave the peace offerings.
The source for this halachah and those following is the fifth chapter of the tractate ofMiddot. It must be noted that the Rambam's text of the Mishnah does not have a fifth chapter. Rather, all these mishnayot are included as mishnah 8 of Chapter 3.
See the diagram of the Temple Courtyard at the conclusion of this chapter.
74.
The Rambam describes the breakdown of this figure in this and the following three halachot.
75.
In this instance as well, the width of the courtyard's walls are not included in the total measure.
76.
This area included eight posts permanently affixed to the floor of the Courtyard. The posts were made of a short stone pillar in which was embedded a post of cedar wood. Each post had three iron hooks from which the sacrifices were suspended (Middot 3:5).
77.
Also, at this time, the limbs of the animal which was suspended on these hooks were cut off, and given to the priests to bring to the altar.
78.
Middot 5:2 states as follows:
The ramp and the altar took up 62 cubits. From the altar to the rings, there were eight cubits. The area of the rings was 24 cubits wide. There were four cubits between the rings and the tables, and four cubits from the tables to the short pillars. From the short pillars to the wall of the Courtyard were eight cubits. The remainder [of the 5 cubits] was taken up by the short pillars and by the space between the ramp and [the Courtyard's northern] wall.
The Rambam's interpretation of the mishnah divides the 25 remaining cubits equally between the area of the pillars, the butchering area mentioned in the previous halachah, and the space between the ramp and the southern wall. The Rambam also combined the two measurements given for the space of the tables into one figure (Kessef Mishneh).
79.
As mentioned on several occasions above, an effort was made to use gold for all utensils in the Temple. However, marble was sometimes used, because it is a poorer conductor of heat. In this case as well, marble tables were used lest the heat cause the meat to spoil.
80.
This statement is somewhat difficult. Tamid4:2 states that a sacrificial animal's internal organs, except for its stomach, were washed on these tables. It does not mention the washing of the meat at all. The Rambam states that the internal organs were washed in the Washing Chamber (see Halachah 17) and that these tables were used for washing the meat. The commentaries question the source for the Rambam's statements (Ra'avad). Kin'at Eliyahu emphasizes that the Rambam's wording indicates that here we are not speaking about meat offered on the altar, but meat cooked and eaten by the priests.
81.
As a preliminary stage in the process of salting meat, the meat must be washed to remove all surface blood.
82.
See Shekalim 3:4.
Tosafot (Yoma 16b) notes that Yoma 30b describes the tables as being placed between the pillars. Two possible explanations are offered:
a) there were two sets of tables: one between the pillars, and one to their left;
b) even though there was a small gap between the pillars and the tables, the expression "between the tables" could be used.
83.
These rings were permanently affixed to the floor of the Temple Courtyard, at the request of Yochanan, the High Priest. The feet of an animal brought as a sacrifice were placed inside the rings to hold the animal in place while it was being slaughtered. (See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah 5:2. Note Rashi, Sukkah 56a for a different interpretation of the rings' use.)
84.
There were 24 rings. There is a debate inMiddot 3:5 whether there were six rows of four rings, or four rows of six. Though the Rambam does not specify which opinion he follows, his diagrams which accompany his Commentary to the Mishnah apparently tend toward the former opinion.
85.
As mentioned in Halachah 16, the sacrifices of the most sacred order had to be slaughtered in the northern portion of the courtyard. The rings included in that region were therefore used for this purpose. The sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness could be slaughtered any place within the Temple courtyard. When many people brought their sacrifices at the same time, for example on the festivals, the priests took advantage of this leniency.
Note the accompanying diagram.
86.
See Middot 3:5.
87.
See Chapter 2, Halachah 7.
88.
See Chapter 2, Halachah 13.
89.
See the notes to Halachah 14 of this chapter.
90.
The wall on the right upon entering.
91.
More specifically, the base of the altar.
92.
That measurement can be broken down as follows:
the space between the pillars and the northern wall 8 cubits,
the area of the pillars 12.5 cubits,
the area of the tables 8 cubits,
the area of the rings 24 cubits,
the space between the rings and the altar 8 cubits.
93.
See Halachah 12.
94.
Leviticus 1:11 declares that the burnt offerings are to be slaughtered "on the north side of the altar." Similar instructions were given in regard to sin offerings, guilt offerings, and communal peace offerings.
This definition of "the northern portion" of the Temple Courtyard follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah HaNasi (Zevachim 20a).
95.
See Middot 5:3, 4 and 1:4.
96.
These chambers were not situated parallel to each other.
97.
The side of the Temple Courtyard to the left when facing the Temple building.
98.
This chamber was named after a Gentile magician who dug an tunnel under the Temple Courtyard to observe the services. He was discovered and killed on the spot (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Middot 5:3).
99.
The Rambam writes in Hilchot Issurei HaMizbayach 5:11:
It is a positive commandment to salt all sacrifices before they are brought up to the altar, as in Leviticus 2:13: "You shall offer salt on all your sacrifices."
In Halachah 13 there, he continues:
They placed salt [on the sacrifices] in three places: in the Chamber of Salt, on the ramp [leading to the altar,] and on the top of the altar.
The Lechem Mishneh explains that salt for all the Temple's needs was stored in this chamber.
100.
The hides of the sacrifices were given to the priests for their private use. They were treated with salt to preserve them.
16There is a difficulty with this halachah. InHilchot Issurei Mizbeiach (loc. cit.), the Rambam states that the hides were salted in the Chamber of Salt. The Lechem Mishneh resolves that difficulty by explaining that although the salt was stored in the Chamber of Salt, the actual salting of the hides was carried out in Parve's Chamber.
101.
On Yom Kippur, the High Priest immersed himself in the mikveh five times. Except for the first immersion, all were carried out in this mikveh (Yoma 3:3).
102.
As mentioned previously in Halachah 14, there is a slight difficulty with this statement.Tamid 4:2 states that the internal organs were washed on the tables, except for the lower digestive organs. They were not washed in the open since it was not proper to spill out their contents before the Temple building. However, the Rambam goes beyond that source and states that all internal organs were washed in this chamber.
103.
Allowing access to the mikveh located there.
104.
The name "Chamber of Wood" is somewhat problematic. As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 9, it is forbidden to build a chamber of wood in the Temple Courtyard. The commentaries explain that the chamber itself was not made of wood. However, it was given that name either because it was used to store wood or because it had wooden paneling.
105.
Only kings from the House of David were allowed to sit in the Temple Courtyard (Yoma 25a).
106.
This name was given because of the seats of hewn stone upon which the Sanhedrin were seated. Two reasons are given for the placement of Israel's highest court in the Temple Courtyard. Firstly, to a large extent, they were involved with judging cases related to the priesthood (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 6:11).
Secondly, the holiness of the Temple inspired their decisions and provided them with additional insight. Once the Sanhedrin was forced to leave this site, it was not granted the authority to judge capital cases.
107.
Considered as part of the Temple Courtyard.
108.
Commenting on the Mishnah, the Rambam states that the chamber was situated entirely within the Courtyard. Nevertheless, half is considered unconsecrated because one entrance opened to the outside. In Chapter 6, Halachah 7, the Rambam states that even if a chamber is built within the Courtyard, if it opens to the outside, it is not considered consecrated. The Chamber of Hewn Stone had two entrances, one leading into the Temple Courtyard and one leading outside. Therefore, half was consecrated and half was not.
Nevertheless, there are unresolved difficulties concerning this Halachah. Among them:
a) How was it possible for all the judges and the students who would attend the sessions of the Sanhedrin to sit in so small an area?
b) Which entrance leading from the Courtyard is referred to? It was not mentioned among the seven gates mentioned in Halachah 5:4 or even among the 13 gates listed in Middot 2:6.
109.
Seven days before Yom Kippur, the High Priest left his own home and adjourned to this chamber, where he busied himself, preparing for the service of that holy day (Yoma 2a).
Yoma 8b (note Rashi's commentary) explains that the name Parhedrin meant "officer of the king." This name was given to this chamber in the days of the Second Temple when the High Priests would purchase this office from the king at a high price.
These "High Priests" were not righteous and as a sign of Divine retribution, they would die within a year of assuming office. Upon their death, the position would be sold again. To emphasize that these "High Priests" received the position through bribery and not through merit, they were referred to as "the officers of the king."
110.
Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura explains that one roof was placed over all three buildings. However, the Rambam's diagrams do not appear to subscribe to this idea.
111.
See Middot 1:4.
112.
The clothes-butler was responsible for weaving and knitting the priestly garments (Hilchot Klai HaMikdash 7:20).
According to the commentaries (Shekalim5:1), the first person entrusted with this task in the second Temple was named Pinchas. Hence, all his successors were called by that name.
113.
This term refers to a meal offering, prepared in a frying pan. The product resembled pancakes. This offering was prepared every day in this chamber and brought by the High Priest, as commanded in Leviticus 6:13-15.
---------------------
• 3 Chapters: Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 4, Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 5, Shvuot Shvuot - Chapter 6 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Shvuot - Chapter 4
Audio: Listen | Download• Shvuot - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
When a person takes an oath that he will not eat anything on that day and he ate less than an olive-sized portion of food, he is not liable. For "eating" does not involve a quantity less than an olive-sized portion.1 It is as if he partook of less than the minimum measure of a nevelah, a trefe, or the like.2
If he said: "[I am taking] an oath that I will not eat this substance," and he ate it, he is liable even if the substance concerning which he took the oath is one mustard seed or smaller.3
Halacha 2
If he took an oath that he would not taste anything and partook of even the smallest amount of food, he is liable.4
Halacha 3
When a person takes an oath that he will not eat on a specific day and drinks, he is liable, because [a prohibition against] eating includes drinking.5Therefore, if he both ate and drank, he is liable only for one set of lashes6 if he acted willfully or one sin offering if he transgressed inadvertently.
Halacha 4
When a person took an oath not to drink on a given day, he is permitted to eat, because [a prohibition against] drinking does not include eating. How much must he drink for him to be liable? It appears to me7 that he is not liable unless he drinks a revi'it8 as is the case with regard to other prohibitions.9
Halacha 5
When a person takes an oath that he will not eat on a particular day and partook of many types of food, or he takes an oath that he will not drink on a particular day and partakes of many types of beverages, he is only liable once.10 Even if he said: "[I am taking] an oath that today I will not eat meat, bread, or beans," and he eat all [these types of food]. He is only liable once. All [of these foods] can be joined together to reach the measure of an olive-sized portion.11
Halacha 6
When a person takes an oath that he will neither eat nor drink and then eats and drinks, he is liable twice. Although drinking is included in eating, since he specifically said: "And I will not drink," he revealed his intention not to include drinking in eating.12 Thus it is as if he took an oath on this independently and this independently. Therefore he is liable twice.
Halacha 7
Similarly, if a person said: "[I am taking] an oath that I will not eat bread from wheat, bread from barley, or bread from buckwheat," he is liable for each one individually if he partakes of them. He mentioned "bread" three times13 to make a distinction and cause him to be liable for each one individually.
Halacha 8
[The following laws apply when a person's] colleague was persistently imploring him to eat at his [home], telling him: "Come and drink with me, wine, milk, and honey." If he answers: "[I am taking] an oath that I will not drink wine, milk, and honey," he is liable for each one individually if he partakes of them. [To be liable only once,] he should have said: "[I am taking] an oath that I will not drink anything," or "...[that I will not drink] what you said." Since he repeated the phrase, stating each one individually,14 he revealed his intention that he obligated himself with an oath for each and every type [of beverage] individually. Therefore [the beverages] are not combined with each other [to reach the minimum measure]15 and the person is liable only when he eats the minimum measure from each one individually. Since a sin offering is required for each one individually, they are like fat and blood which cannot be combined for [the measure of] an olive-sized portion as explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot.16
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
Similarly, if one said: ["I am taking] an oath that I will not eat today,"21 and then took an oath concerning a loaf that he would not eat it up, [even though] he eats the entire [loaf] that day, he is not liable only once.22 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.23 [The rationale is that] an oath does not take effect when another is already in effect.24
If, however, one took an oath that he would not eat up a loaf and afterwards, took an oath that he would not eat anything or that he would not eat this loaf, he is liable twice. [The rationale is that] at the time he took the oath that he would not eat it up, he would not be liable unless he ate the entire loaf. Thus when he took a second oath that he would not eat anything or that he would not eat the loaf, he is liable [for the latter oath,] when he eats an olive-sized portion. And when he eats the entire [loaf], he is liable for his first oath.
Halacha 11
[When a person takes] an oath not to eat figs and afterwards, takes an oath not to eat figs and grapes, he is liable twice for [eating] figs. [The rationale is that] he included the figs which were forbidden in the first oath with grapes that were permitted. Since the second oath took effect with regard the grapes, it also took effect with regard the figs and he becomes liable for two oaths, as we explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot.25
Halacha 12
[If one said: "I am taking] an oath that I will not eat eight [of this item]," "...an oath that I will not eat nine," and "...an oath that I will not eat ten," he is liable only once whether he ate eight, nine, or ten.26
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
[The following rules apply when a person says: "I am taking] an oath that I will not eat figs," and then takes another oath that he will not eat figs and dates together.29 If he forgot, ate figs, and set aside a sacrifice,30 afterwards, forgot, and ate grapes, he is not liable for the grapes. [The rationale is that] this is like half the measure [for which one is liable]31 and one does not bring a sacrifice for half the measure.
Halacha 15
Similar [laws apply if] one took an oath that he would not eat ten, and then took an oath that he would not eat ten and nine.32 If he ate ten, separated a sacrifice,33 and then forgot and ate nine, this is like half the measure and one does not bring a sacrifice for half the measure. For the final oath concerned not eating nineteen.34
Halacha 16
[When a person says: "I am taking] an oath that I will not eat this large loaf if I eat this small loaf," if he forgets this stipulation when he eats the smaller loaf and afterwards willfully eats the larger [loaf], he is liable [for lashes].35
Halacha 17
If he ate the small one while he remembered the stipulation and knew that by eating it, the larger one would become forbidden and then forgot and ate the larger one while thinking that it was not forbidden yet, he is exempt.36 If he ate both of them unintentionally,37 he is exempt.38 [If he ate them] both willfully, he is liable,39 regardless of whether he ate the larger one first40 or last.
Halacha 18
Halacha 19
If he ate the first one willfully, but the second one inadvertently, he is exempt. [If he ate them] both willfully, he is liable.43
Halacha 20
[When a person says: "I am taking] an oath that I will eat this loaf today," and the day passes without him eating it, should he have acted unintentionally, he must bring an adjustable guilt offering. If he acted willfully, he is not liable for lashes, because he did not perform a deed,44 even though he violated [the prohibition against] taking a false oath.
Halacha 21
Why is a person who took an oath that he ate liable for lashes [if] he did not eat and one [who took an oath] that he did not eat [liable] if he did eat, even though he did not perform a deed. Because at the time he took the oath, he was taking a false oath.45 If, however, a person takes an oath that he will perform [a particular activity], it is not a false oath at the time it was taken.
Halacha 22
[The following laws apply when] a person tells a colleague: "[I am taking] an oath that I will not eat at your [home],"46 or [his colleague] was persistently imploring him to eat at his [home] and he refuses. If he takes an oath and says: "My oath [will take effect] if I eat at your [home]," or if he says: "There will be no oath if I do not eat at your [home],"47 these all bring about prohibitions. [It is considered that] he took an oath that he would not eat at his [home]. If he used all of these expressions [together] and transgressed and ate, he is only liable once.48
FOOTNOTES
1.
This is a principle applying to all of the Torah's prohibitions concerning eating.
2.
In such an instance, as stated in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 4,:7-8, the prohibition is of Scriptural origin, but the violator is not punished. Accordingly, the Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 238:1) rules that it is forbidden for the person who took such an oath to partake of even the slightest quantity of food.
3.
Because he singled out a specific article and by partaking of it broke his oath.
4.
For tasting does not imply eating a full measure of food. Since he used that expression, it is clear that his intent was to forbid partaking of even the slightest measure of food.
5.
Sh'vuot 22b derives this concept fromDeuteronomy 14:23: "And you shall eat before God, your Lord... the tithes of your grain, your wine, and your oil." Implied is that partaking of wine and oil is also eating.
6.
As in Halachah 5.
7.
This expression indicates a conclusion derived by the Rambam from logic without any explicit Talmudic or Midrashic source.
8.
I.e., a fourth of a log. In contemporary measure, a revi'it is equivalent to 86 cc. according to Shiurei Torah and 150 cc. according to Chazon Ish.
9.
The Radbaz explains that since this is the measure which the Torah considered significant in other contexts, one can extrapolate that anything less is not considered significant enough to warrant liability. Alternatively, with regard to oaths and vows, we follow the commonly accepted implications of the terms used and people do not consider partaking of a smaller measure as "drinking."
10.
I.e., for one set of lashes or one sacrifice. As will be explained, this applies only when the transgressor did not become aware of his oath between eating.
11.
The minimum measure for which one is liable as stated in Halachah 1. The Radbaz states that the superficial implication of the Rambam's words is that it is not necessary for one to partake of such a portion of each of the foods separately to be liable. He differs and maintains that the person must partake of all of them to be liable.
12.
Otherwise, it would be considered as eating as stated in Halachah 3.
13.
If, however, he mentioned "bread" only once, he is liable only once. See Halachah 5.
14.
I.e., the emphasis is one repeating his colleague's words, while stating each one individually. That shows that his intent is focused on each one individually. If, however, he made such a statement on his own initiative, without repeating his colleague's words, they are not considered to have been singled out [Rav Kapach's edition of the Rambam's Comemntary to the Mishneh (Sh'vuot 3:4)].
15.
I.e., if he drank half of a revi'it of wine and half of a revi'it of milk, he is not liable.
16.
Chapter 4, Halachah 16.
17.
We assume that his intention when taking the oath was to interpret the term eating according to its halachic definition (Radbaz).
18.
Since he spoke in a colloquialism, we assume that he was not referring to the halachic meaning and instead, meant the entire loaf.
19.
Whether an olive-sized portion or the entire loaf.
20.
Because once eating an olive-sized portion of the loaf is forbidden by an oath, a second oath concerning that same loaf cannot take effect, as the Rambam states in the following halachah.
21.
The implication is that he would not eat an olive-sized portion of food that day.
22.
The Ra'avad accepts the principle stated by the Rambam, but explains that this is not a good example of it. For in this instance, the second oath does take effect, for it applies not only on the day that the first oath applies, but for all time. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam would agree that the second oath will take effect as soon as the day on which the first oath is in effect ends. This he maintains is why the Rambam mentions eating it "that day."
23.
For example, that mentioned in Halachah 12.
24.
The rationale for this principle is that ash'vuat bitui applies only with regard to matters that are dependent upon one's volition, not on those forbidden by the Torah (Chapter 5, Halachah 17). Accordingly, once something is forbidden by an oath, it is no longer a matter dependent on one's volition. Hence, a sh'vuat bitui cannot take effect (Kiryat Sefer).
As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 17, if the person has the first oath nullified, the second oath takes effect.
25.
Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 8:6 states that although one prohibition does not take effect when an object is already prohibited, there are exceptions. One of them is when the second prohibition includes other entities that were not included in the first prohibition (issur kollel). Similarly, in this instance, since the second oath includes something which is not prohibited by the first oath (grapes), it takes effect.
26.
For he cannot eat nine or ten without first eating eight. Hence, the second and third oaths do not take effect, for one oath does not take effect when the objects it concerns are already forbidden. As mentioned in the Radbaz and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 238:12), there are instances where the second oath can take effect according to the principle of issur kollel, a more inclusive prohibition.
27.
For each oath was separate. After he took the oath forbidding ten, nine were still permitted. And after he took the oath forbidding nine, eight were still permitted. Hence, the later oaths take effect.
28.
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 238:13) states that if the person specifies 10 specific items in his oath, he is not liable if he later reduces their number to eight, for all ten have become forbidden to him.
29.
I.e., he takes an oath against eating an olive-sized portion of each type of fruit. He does not violate his oath unless he eats both of these portions. Since the second oath also includes grapes, it takes effect with regard to the figs based on the principle of issur kollel.
30.
For breaking his first oath.
31.
For to be liable he must eat grapes and figs together. By realizing his transgression, he makes a distinction between the figs he ate and the grapes.
32.
I.e., his first oath involved ten specific items. His second oath involved nine additional items from a larger group. The Ra'avad claims the Rambam's ruling is a distortion ofSh'vuot 28b. See also Rashi and Tosafotwho discuss the proper wording of that source.
33.
For breaking his first oath.
34.
This version, slightly different from that of the standard printed text, is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The intent is that the second oath included the original ten, plus a second nine. In this instance as well, had he not realized his first transgression, he would have been liable twice for eating the second nine.
35.
This ruling follows the version of Sh'vuot 28a suggested by Rabbenu Chananel. The standard published text of the Talmud reverses the ruling. Thus in the instance stated by the Rambam, one would be exempt as the Ra'avad notes. The ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 239:16) follows that of the standard printed text of the Talmud.
The Rambam's rationale can be explained as follows: Since the person willfully transgressed by eating the larger loaf, he is liable for lashes. The fact that he inadvertently caused the oath to take effect is not of consequence.
The person is liable for lashes only when he is given a warning before transgressing. From this we see that even if a warning is given conditionally, it is effective.
36.
He is exempt for lashes. Nor is he required to bring a sacrifice, for as explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 6, and notes. This is considered as violated an oath due to forces beyond one's control.
The Rambam's rationale is that he did not perform the transgression knowingly. At the time, he partook of the larger loaf, he was not aware that it was forbidden. In this instance as well, the Rambam's ruling does not follow the standard printed text of the Talmud. Hence there are authorities who differ.
37.
I.e., without awareness of the oath.
38.
For both lashes and a sacrifice as in the previous clause.
39.
For lashes (Ra'avad).
40.
And thus it becomes forbidden only retroactively. Although it was already eaten, when he eats the smaller loaf, his eating the larger loaf becomes a prohibited act.
41.
I.e., not only the large loaf dependent on the smaller loaf as in the previous instance, but each one was dependent on the other as the Rambam continues to explain.
42.
For lashes as in Halachah 16. Again, this runs contrary to the standard published text of the Talmud and there are other authorities who differ.
43.
As stated in Halachah 17.
44.
See Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2. Note the following halachah.
45.
Hence he is liable for lashes, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachot 3, 7.
46.
In the Hebrew, the Rambam restates this phrase using slightly different wording.
47.
The double negative implies that an oath will take effect if he does eat. See Tosafot,Sh'vuot 36b.
48.
I.e., it is not considered as if each one is an independent oath, because an oath cannot take effect when an object is already forbidden by another oath.
The Radbaz explains that the Rambam is interpreting Nedarim 16a. One might think that the passage means that the person took an oath that he would not eat at his colleague's home. Afterwards, his colleague implored him to eat and to appease him, he took an oath that he would eat at his home. Seemingly, this resembles an oath taken in vain, for he is taking an oath to nullify the observance of a mitzvah - the fulfillment of his previous oath. For this reason, the Rambam explains that all of these expressions should be interpreted to mean that he is taking an oath not to eat. Only one of them takes effect, because one oath does not take effect when an object is already forbidden.
Shvuot - Chapter 5
Halacha 1
When a person takes an oath that so-and-so threw a stone into the sea and he did not do so, or [he took an oath that] he did not throw it and he did, he is liable for taking a [false] sh'vuat bitui. [This applies] even though there is no [possibility of him taking such an oath] with regard to the future.1 For he cannot take an oath that so-and-so will throw [an article] or will not throw it.
[Indeed,] any person who takes an oath with regard to other people's [conduct - that they will or will not perform a particular activity is not liable for taking a [false] sh'vuat bitui. [This applies even if the person concerned] is his son or wife. For it is not within his potential to keep or nullify the oath. He is given stripes for rebellious conduct since it is not within his potential to keep this oath. Thus he is causing an oath to be taken in vain.2
Halacha 2
Why isn't he liable for lashes for taking an oath in vain? For it is possible for those other people to heed his [words] and keep his oath. Thus when he is given a warning at the time he takes the oath, the warning is of doubtful status. In such an instance, one is not given lashes because of it unless the prohibition is explicitly stated in the Torah, as will be explained in Hilchot Sanhedrin.3 Other people are not bound to fulfill the words of the person who took the oath unless they responded Amen, as we explained.4
Halacha 3
Halacha 4
When does the above apply? When he took an oath concerning a matter that was not in his domain. For example, Reuven took an oath that Shimon would not go on a commercial journey, not eat meat, or the like.7 [Different laws apply,] however, should Reuven take an oath that Shimon may not enter his home and may not derive any benefit from his property. If Shimon transgressed and entered Reuven's house and benefited from his property without Reuven's knowledge, Reuven is exempt, for [his oath was violated] due to forces beyond his control.8 Shimon is liable, for he performed a deed prohibited to him. For Reuven took an oath only with regard to a matter within his property.9 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 5
[When a person says: "I am taking] an oath that I will not eat," and he ate, but he ate articles that were not fit to be eaten10 or drank beverages that were not fit to be drunk, he is exempt.11 If he partook of foods that are forbidden to be eaten by the Torah, for example, he ate an olive-sized portion of a nevelah,12a trefe,13 teeming animals, or creeping animals, he is not liable for a [false]sh'vuat bitui.14
[When a person says: "I am taking] an oath that I will eat," and he ate articles that were not fit to be eaten or drank beverages that were not fit to be drunk, or he partook of a nevelah, a trefe, or the like, he is not liable for a falsesh'vuat bitui. He is considered to have fulfilled [his commitment to] eat. Since they are important in his eyes, eating them is considered as eating.15
Halacha 6
[When a person said: "I am taking] an oath that I did not eat," and he ate articles that were not fit to be eaten or he partook of a nevelah or a trefe, he is liable. Eating them is considered eating, because they are important to him, as evidenced by his having eaten them.16 With regard to the future, by contrast, i.e., he took an oath that he would not eat and then in an extraordinary instance, he ate them, this is not considered eating, as we explained [above].
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
[When a person says: "I am taking] an oath that I will eat even less than an olive-sized portion of a nevelah or a trefe," he may be liable for taking a falsesh'vuat bitui.19
[When a person says: "I am taking] an oath that I will not eat earth and the like from substances that are not fit to be eaten," if he eats an olive-sized portion, he is liable. If he ate less than an olive-sized portion, there is a doubt [concerning the ruling]. Perhaps he is liable even for [eating] the smallest amount. Since these substances are not usually eaten so that a full measure must be eaten [for him to be held liable].20
Halacha 9
Similarly, when one takes an oath that he would not eat grape seeds and he eats less than an olive-sized portion, there is a doubt [concerning his liability].21If the one taking the oath was a nazirite who is forbidden to eat an olive-sized portion of grape seeds,22 he is not liable for a [false] sh'vuat bitui if he ate less than an olive-sized portion. [The rationale is that] his intent in taking the oath is only concerning the olive-sized portion for which he is already liable and [hence] the oath does not take effect.23 Therefore if one said: "[I am taking] an oath that I will not eat even one grape seed," and ate it, he is liable.24
Halacha 10
[When a person says: "I am taking] an oath that I will not eat dates, a nevelahor a trefe," and he ate an olive-sized portion of a nevelah or a trefe, he is liable also25 for [taking] a [false] sh'vuat bitui.26 For he included forbidden entities together with permitted entities. Since the oath took effect with regard to the dates, it also takes effect with regard to the forbidden entities, as we explained.27
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
Halacha 13
[When a person says: "I am taking] an oath that I will eat this loaf. [I am taking] an oath that I will not eat it," the second oath is an oath taken in vain, for he is commanded to eat it.33 He is liable for lashes for the second oath whether he partakes of [the loaf] or not.34 If he does not eat it,35 he is liable also for [not fulfilling] a sh'vuat bitui.36
Halacha 14
[When a person says: "I am taking] an oath that I will not eat this loaf. [I am taking] an oath that I will eat it," the second oath is an oath taken in vain, for he is forbidden to eat it.37 He is liable for lashes for the second oath whether he partakes of [the loaf] or not. If he eats it, he is liable also for [not fulfilling] ash'vuat bitui.
Halacha 15
What is implied? For example, a person took an oath that he would not make a sukkah, he would not put on tefillin, he would not give charity, he is liable for lashes for taking an oath in vain.40 Similarly, [one is liable] if he takes an oath for a colleague that he will not give testimony that he knows or that he will not testify if he will know testimony, for he is commanded to testify.41 Similarly, if he tells a colleague: "[I am taking] an oath that I will never know testimony concerning you," it is an oath taken in vain, for it is not within his capacity [to be certain] that he will never know of testimony concerning him. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 16
When a person takes an oath to fulfill a mitzvah and fails to fulfill it, he is not liable for not fulfilling a sh'vuat bitui.42
What is implied? A person took an oath to make a lulav or a sukkah, to give charity, or to testify on behalf [of a colleague] if he knew testimony [that could affect him]. If he did not make [these articles], give [the charity], or testify, he is exempt for [not fulfilling his] sh'vuat bitui. For a sh'vuat bitui takes effect only with regard to matters left to one's choice - [i.e., matters that] if he wants to, he may perform and if he does not want to, he need not perform, as implied by [Leviticus 5:4]: "whether he will do harm or do good."
Therefore whenever anyone takes an oath to harm another person, he is exempt from a sh'vuat bitui, e.g., he takes an oath to strike so-and-so, to curse him, steal his money, or deliver him to the control of a man of force. [The rationale is that] he is commanded not to do [these things]. It appears to me that he is liable for lashes for taking an oath in vain.43
Halacha 17
If a person took an oath to harm himself, e.g., he took an oath to inflict injury upon himself, the oath takes effect even though he is not allowed to do so.44If he does not harm himself, he is liable for [not fulfilling] a sh'vuat bitui.
If he took an oath to help others with regard to a matter with which he could help them,45 e.g., to speak to the ruling authorities or to show him honor, the oath takes effect. If he transgresses and does not carry out [his promise], he is liable for [not fulfilling] a sh'vuat bitui.
Halacha 18
One who takes an oath not to eat matzah for a year or two is forbidden to eat matzah on the nights of Pesach.46 If he eats it, he is liable, for violating ash'vuat bitui. This is not considered as an oath taken in vain, since he did not take an oath [specifically] not to eat matzah on the nights of Pesach. Instead, he included the times when eating matzah is a matter of choice together with those when it is a mitzvah. Since the oath takes effect with regard to the other days, it also takes effect with regard to Pesach. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations,47 e.g., one took an oath not to sit in the shade of asukkah forever,48 or not to wear a garment for a year or two.49
Halacha 19
If one took an oath that he put on tefillin that day or did not put them on, or wrapped himself in tzitzit or did not wrap himself in them, he is taking a sh'vuat bitui with regard to the past.50 For he is describe something which happened. He is not taking an oath whether to fulfill or not to fulfill a mitzvah.
Halacha 20
If a person took an oath that he will not sleep for a three-day period, he will not eat for seven days, or the like, it is an oath taken in vain.51 We do not say that the person should remain awake until he is overcome by pain or fast until he is overcome by pain and [only] when he no longer has the strength to bear [the suffering], eat or sleep.52 Instead, he is liable for lashes53 immediately for taking an oath in vain. He may eat and sleep whenever he desires.54
Halacha 21
When a person takes an oath that he saw a camel flying in the sky and when questioned: "How could you have taken an oath in vain?", he responded: "I saw a huge bird and because of its size, I called it a camel. This was my intent," [his words] are of no consequence. For when all people mention a camel that is their intent. His intention is nullified because of that of people at large55 and he is liable for lashes.56 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 22
It is a known matter to the sages who are masters of wisdom and knowledge that the sun is 170 times greater than the earth.57 [Nevertheless,] if one of the common people takes an oath that the sun is greater than the earth, he is not liable for taking an oath in vain.58 For even though this is the fact, this concept is not known to people at large, only to great sages. One is liable [for an oath taken in vain] only when he takes an oath concerning a matter that is known and obvious to three ordinary people, e.g., [an oath that] a man is a man or a stone is a stone.
Similarly, when he takes an oath that the sun is smaller than the earth, he is not liable for lashes [for an oath taken in vain] although this is not the reality. For this matter is not known to all people.59 Such a person is not comparable to one who takes an oath that a man is a woman. For he took the oath according to his perception, for the sun looks small. Similar laws apply to other comparable concepts from the reckoning of the factors determining the calendar, astronomy, geometry, and other abstract concepts of the like that can be perceived only by other people.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Although the concept of a sh'vuat bituiapplies both with regard to the past and the future (Chapter 1, Halachah 2), it is not necessary that every sh'vuat bitui have both a past and a future component.
2.
As the Rambam continues to explain, the oath is not necessarily false, because the other people may do what he postulated. Rashi (Sh'vuot 25a) considers this a false oath. The Siftei Cohen 236:4 quotes Rashi's view.
3.
The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh point out several difficulties with the Rambam's words. Firstly, in Hilchot Sanhedrin, the Rambam does not make such statements explicitly. The only mention of a warning of a doubtful status is in Hilchot Sanhedrin 16:4. From those statements and those here, it appears that the Rambam considers such a warning as significant. There he does not explain the distinction of whether the prohibition is explicitly mentioned in the Torah or not. Also, the prohibition against taking a false oath is explicitly mentioned in the Torah. The Radbaz explains that the intent is that the concept that such an oath is considered as having been taken in vain is not explicit in the Torah and may not be known by an ordinary person.
4.
As stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 1, whenever one responds Amen to a colleague's oath, he is bound by it.
5.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 236:2) mentions two opinions. One emphasizes that the one who took the oath must certainly fulfill it. For example, if one takes an oath to marry a woman, the oath is considered as having been taken in vain, because the woman may not consent. Nevertheless, if she does consent, the man should keep his word and marry here. The other, however, does not consider this as an oath taken in vain, but rather as a false sh'vuat bitui.
6.
The Ma'aseh Rokeach maintains that even if the involved parties fulfill the oath, the person taking it is given stripes for rebellious conduct, for he should never have taken such an oath.
7.
For in these instances, he has no control over the other person's actions.
8.
For he did not know of Shimon's actions.
9.
The Tur questions the Rambam's ruling, focusing on the difference between an oath (sh'vuah) and a vow (neder). When taking an oath, a person causes his own person to be prohibited against performing a particular action. To use yeshivah terminology, it is anissur gavra; the prohibition is on the person. When taking a vow, by contrast, he places the prohibition on the object. It is an issur cheftzah.
Now when a person takes a vow against a colleague benefiting from his property, there is no difficulty, because he is placing the prohibition on the property. How can he, however, place a prohibition on a colleague's person? How can his oath take effect?
The Rambam's ruling is quoted by theShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 236:3; albeit using slightly different wording). The Turei Zahav 236:7 explains that the Rambam follows the principle stated by the Ramban that an oath expressed using the wording of a vow and a vow expressed using the wording of an oath is binding. The Radbaz, puzzled by the same difficulty, states that this refers to an instance where the colleague answered Amen to the oath.
10.
E.g., earth or spoiled foods.
11.
The Radbaz explains that he is eating them, not because he considers them as food, but in order to quench his pangs of hunger.
12.
An animal that died without ritual slaughter.
13.
An animal with a blemish that would cause it to die within twelve months.
14.
Since he is already forbidden to partake of these entities by the oath taken by the Jewish people as a whole at Sinai, the oath he takes is of no significance (Sh'vuot 22b). See Halachah 11.
The Radbaz emphasizes that this exclusion applies only with regard to entities forbidden by Scriptural Law, but not those forbidden by Rabbinic Law. For in such an instance, he is not bound by the oath taken by our people at Sinai.
15.
Rabbenu Nissim explains the difference between this and the first clause as follows: In the first clause, we assume that the not eating, he referred to in his oath was not eating foods that people usually eat. These articles were not included in his oath, for there is no reason to forbid them. In the second instance, he included everything that he considers as food in his oath.
16.
Even before he took his oath.
17.
As the Torah states: "Cursed is the man who will not observe the words of this Torah" (Deuteronomy 27:26).
18.
The Radbaz explains that although the Rambam maintains that there is a Scriptural prohibition against eating even less than the measure for which one is liable (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 14:2), this is not considered a matter for which one is bound by an oath from Sinai. For that oath includes only those matters which are explicitly mentioned by the Torah and this prohibition is not. There are, however, other Rishonimwho do not makes such a distinction. SeeSiftei Cohen 238:6.
19.
The oath takes effect, because, as stated in the previous halachah, for this quantity, he is not bound by an oath from Sinai. The Radbaz states that preferably, he should have this oath nullified. Nevertheless, if that is not possible, it is preferable for him to keep the oath and violate the Scriptural commandment.
20.
On the other hand, perhaps, he is not liable, for since he mentioned "eating" in his oath, we assumed that he meant an olive-sized portion.
21.
Perhaps he is liable for, as mentioned above, since such articles are not usually eaten, he may be held liable even for eating less than the usual amount or perhaps we require an olive-sized portion.
22.
As stated in Numbers 6:4.
23.
As stated in Halachah 11.
24.
See Chapter 4, Halachah 1.
25.
I.e., in addition to violating the prohibition against forbidden foods.
26.
We do not say he is required to eat the two together.
27.
Chapter 4, Halachah 11.
28.
Substances explicitly forbidden by the Torah.
29.
This oath does not take effect, because an oath cannot take effect with regard to an object bound by another oath. Since the entire Jewish people are bound by the oath taken at Sinai not to partake of these substances, no other oath involving these entities can take effect (Kessef Mishneh).
30.
Were the person to have taken an oath to eat the forbidden substance, he would be taking an oath in vain, for his oath would be to nullify one of the Torah's mitzvot. In this instance, however, he is taking an oath to fulfill the mitzvah. This is permitted. SeeNedarim 8b; Chapter 11, Halachah 3.
31.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 6.
32.
For the oath is considered as having been taken in vain at the moment it was uttered (see Rashi, Sh'vuot 29b).
33.
Due to his first oath.
34.
As stated in the previous halachah.
35.
I.e., within the time period he specified in the oath; alternatively, after the loaf was destroyed or eaten by others. As long as the loaf continues to exist, however, he may fulfill his oath.
36.
For his first oath is binding.
37.
Due to his first oath, as above.
38.
For the reasons stated in Halachah 11.
39.
As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 6.
40.
For these are all mitzvot that he is required to fulfill.
41.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 178) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 122) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. See Hilchot Edut 1:1.
42.
Nor is he liable for taking an oath in vain, for at the time he took the oath, it was not in vain. And one may take an oath to observe the mitzvot, so his intent was desirable (Radbaz).
43.
I.e., since performing any one of these acts violates one of the Torah's prohibitions, taking an oath to perform such an act is equivalent to taking an oath to nullify a mitzvah. Nevertheless, the Rambam prefaces his ruling with the words "It appears to me" - which indicate a ruling based on his own deductive processes - for, in prior Rabbinic sources, the statement that taking an oath to nullify a mitzvah is considered taking an oath in vain were made with regard to prohibitions between man and God and these are prohibitions between man and man.
44.
Hilchot Chovel UMazik 5:1 states that a person may not injure himself. Nevertheless, since this prohibition is not explicitly stated in the Torah, it is not considered as one is taking an oath to nullify a mitzvah (see Halachah 7) and the oath takes effect (Radbaz).
45.
If, however, it is not in his capacity to perform this favor, he is liable for taking an oath in vain, but not for failing to fulfill ash'vuat bitui (Radbaz).
Performing deeds of kindness fulfills a mitzvah. Nevertheless, since the specific deeds are not explicitly mentioned in the Torah as mitzvot, the violation of an concerning them is considered as a falsesh'vuat bitui.
46.
When we are commanded to eat matzah. The mitzvah applies only on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan and not throughout the holiday.
47.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 236:5, quoting the Maharam of Padua, Responsa 74) emphasizes that this ruling only applies with regard to positive commandments, but not with regard to the Torah's prohibitions. Thus if a person took an oath that he would eat all types of meat, we do not say that since the oath takes effect with regard to the kosher meat, it also takes effect with regard to the non-kosher meat.
48.
And thus the oath also prevents one from fulfilling the mitzvah of dwelling in a sukkahon Sukkot.
49.
The Radbaz interprets the oath as preventing the person from fulfilling the mitzvah of tzitzit. Nevertheless, as the Radbaz himself notes, this interpretation is somewhat problematic, because there is no Scriptural mitzvah to wear tzitzit each day. Instead, the mitzvah is that if one is wearing a four-cornered garment, one must attachtzitzit to it. See Hilchot Tzitzi 3:11. Others interpret this as referring to priests who take such an oath and thus are prevented from wearing the priestly garments while serving in the Temple. As stated in Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 10:4, wearing such garments is a mitzvah.
50.
And he is liable if the oath is false.
51.
For there is no way that he can keep his word. Thus from the moment he uttered the oath, it was uttered in vain (Radbaz). See Chapter 1, Halachah 7.
52.
The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rabbenu Nissim who questions the similarity between the two instances. It is impossible that a person will not sleep for seven days. He will fall asleep whether he desires to or not. Hence, he should not even try to remain awake. With regard to eating, by contrast, seemingly, the person should wait until he reaches a dangerous state and then he should be allowed to eat.
Based on the commentary of the Tzaphnat Paneach, it is possible to explain the differences in approach as follows: According to Rabbenu Nissim, the prohibition is lifted because of the danger, but it is not nullified entirely. Hence, when a person takes an oath on a matter that involves danger, we lift the prohibition, but only after we have waited until the danger is acutely felt. Hence, the oath not to eat is not necessarily a false oath. The oath not to sleep, by contrast, is definitely false, because it is impossible that he will not sleep.
According to the Rambam, by contrast, since there is danger to life involved, the prohibition is nullified entirely. Hence, even the oath not to eat is considered to have been taken in vain.
53.
Our translation is based on the commentary of the Radbaz. Even if there is no court to administer this punishment to him, he may eat and sleep whenever he desires. When he is brought before the court, they will subject him to punishment.
54.
For the oath is not considered to have taken effect at all.
55.
Because the meaning of phrases used by people at large determines the ruling with regard to oaths and vows (Radbaz).
56.
For taking an oath in vain.
57.
Actually, according to the scientific data available at present, the sun is far larger than this. Some have tried to reconcile the Rambam's statements with this data by explaining that the Rambam is speaking about the actual mass of the sun and not the burning energy on its surface. See Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 10, p. 180.
58.
I.e., one might think that since this is the reality, taking such an oath is considered an oath in vain. The Rambam is clarifying that since people at large may not be aware of this fact, it is not placed in that category.
59.
The Radbaz states that even if the person taking the oath knows that the sun is larger than the earth, he is not liable for taking an oath that is smaller, for people at large do not know this fact.
Shvuot - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
[The following rules apply when] a person took a sh'vuat bitui1 and [then] regretted having taken the oath. If he sees that he will suffer if he upholds this oath and his intent changes or a factor occurred that was not in his intent originally when he took the oath and he changed his mind because of this, he may appeal2 [to be released from his oath] from one sage3 - or from three ordinary people4 in a place where there are no sages. His oath is repealed and he is permitted to perform the matter that he took the oath not to do or not to do the matter that he took an oath to do. This is called the release of an oath.
Halacha 2
This provision has no source in the Written Law.5 Instead, we learned from Moses our teacher through the Oral Tradition that the phrase [Numbers 30:3]: "He should not desecrate his word" means that he himself should not abuse it in a frivolous and brazen manner, as [Leviticus 19:13] states: "[For] you will desecrate the name of Your God."6 Nevertheless, if a person changed his mind and retracted, a sage may release him [from the oath].7
Halacha 3
It is not possible for a person to release himself from his own oath. A person does not have the license to release an oath or a vow in a place where there is a person whose knowledge surpasses his own.8 In a place where his teacher is found, he may only release a vow with the consent of his teacher.
Halacha 4
The person who took the oath - whether male or female - must himself come before the sage to be released. He may not appoint an agent to seek that he be released from his vow.9 A husband may, however, become an agent to express his wife's regret and we release [the oath] for her.10 [This applies] provided the three judges had already gathered together. He should not, however, gather them together at the outset to release her [oath].11 Nor may he serve as an agent to have his wife's vow released.12
Halacha 5
How do we release [an oath]? The person who took the oath must come before the distinguished sage or three ordinary people if there is no expert.13He says: "I took an oath concerning this and this and I have changed my mind. If I knew that I would feel such discomfort concerning this, I would not have taken the oath. If, at the time of the oath, my understanding was as it is now, I would not have taken the oath."
The wise man or the foremost among the three asks: "Have you already changed your mind?"
He answers: "Yes."
He then tells him: "It is permitted for you," "It is released for you," "It is absolved for you," or the like with this intent in any language.14
Halacha 6
Relatives are acceptable to release vows17 and oaths.18 [Oaths and vows] can be released at night19 and while standing,20 for this release is not a judgment.
For this reason, one may request a release of an oath or a vow on the Sabbath21 if it is necessary for the Sabbath,22 for example, to release his oath so that he can eat and drink today. Even if the person had the opportunity to have his oath or vow released before the Sabbath [and did not], he may have it released on the Sabbath, because it is necessary for the Sabbath.
Halacha 7
When Reuven administered an oath to Shimon and [Shimon] answeredAmen23 or accepted the oath, if Shimon [later] regrets the oath and asks for it to be released, it should not be released except in the presence of Reuven24who administered it to him.25
Similarly, if Reuven took an oath or a vow not to benefit from Shimon or that Shimon may not benefit from him and changed his mind and appealed to a sage [for the oath or vow to be released], we do not release him from it except in the presence of Shimon from whom he had vowed not to benefit. Even if Shimon was a minor or a gentile,26 [the oath or vow] is released only in his presence so that the person concerning whom the vow was taken will know that the person had his vow or oath released and thus he will benefit from him.27
Halacha 8
Both a person who took an oath in private and one who took one in public - even one who took an oath in God's ineffable name, [swearing] by God, the Lord of Israel - may appeal for a release of his oath if he changes his mind.28
Halacha 9
What is implied? One took an oath and made his oath dependent on the understanding of others that he would not benefit from so-and-so at all and the people of that city needed someone to teach them the Torah, to circumcise their sons, or to perform ritual slaughter on their behalf and they only found this person,32 he may ask a sage or three ordinary persons [to release him from his oath]. We release his oath. He may perform these mitzvot on their behalf and he may receive his wage33 from the people concerning whom he had taken an oath that he would not benefit from them.
Halacha 10
[The following laws apply when] a person took an oath, did not regret it, and came to the court to carry out his oath. If the judges saw that releasing this oath will lead to a mitzvah and to peace between a husband and his wife or between a man and his associates and carrying it out will lead to transgression and strife, they encourage him [to take] the option [of having the oath released].34 They discuss the matter with him, pointing out the consequences of his oath until he regrets [having taken it].35 If he changes his mind because of their words, we release his oath. If he does not change his mind and persists in his stubbornness, he must carry out his oath.
Halacha 11
What is implied? A person took an oath that he would divorce his wife, that Jews would not benefit from his property, that he would not eat meat or drink wine for thirty days or the like, they tell him: "My son, if you divorce your wife, you will cause malicious gossip to circulate concerning her children36 [for people] will say: 'Why was their mother divorced?' In the future, they will be called: 'the children of the divorcee.' [Moreover,] perhaps she will marry someone else and you will never be able to remarry her"37 and the like.38
[And they say:] "The oath you took that Jews should not benefit from your property [is not to your advantage]. Tomorrow, someone may be in need and [by maintaining your oath,] you will violate [the commandments]:39 "And your brother will live with you and you shall support him" [Leviticus 25:35-36] and "You shall surely open [your hand to him" [Deuteronomy 15:8].
[And they say:] "The oath you took not to eat meat or drink wine for thirty days [is not to your advantage]. [Within that time,] you will encounter a festival and nullify the happiness of the festivals and the pleasure of the Sabbath."40
If he says: "Were I to have known this, I would not have taken the oath," we release him [from the oath]. If he says: "Nevertheless, I have not changed my mind and I desire all of this," we do not release him [from the oath].
Halacha 12
We do not encourage one [to take] the option [of having the oath released] because of something that had not occurred [at the time the oath was taken].41
What is implied? One took an oath not to derive benefit from so-and-so and that person became the city scribe. Since the person did not regret taking the oath, we do not encourage him [to take] the option [of having the oath released]. Even if he himself said: "If I knew that [he would be given this position], I would not have taken this oath," we still do not release him from it. For he does not regret [having taken the oath]. Instead, his desire is that he should not derive benefit from him, but that person not to be appointed the scribe. If, however, on his own initiative, he regretted because of what took place and his intent changed,42 we do release the oath. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 13
When a person takes an oath concerning a matter and then takes a [second] oath that he will never ask to have the [first] oath repealed, [if] he changes his mind, he must first ask that the second oath - that he would never ask to have the oath repealed - be repealed.43 Afterwards, he may ask that the first [oath] be repealed.
Halacha 14
[The following laws apply if] one took an oath that he would not speak to so-and-so and afterwards, took an oath that if he asks for the repeal of this oath and has it released, he will be forbidden to drink wine forever. If he changes his mind, he must first ask for the repeal of the first oath and have it released. Afterwards, he may ask for the repeal of the second oath. For we may not have a vow or an oath repealed before it takes effect.44 Accordingly, if during Nisan, a person took an oath that he will not eat meat for thirty days beginning at Rosh Chodesh Iyar, [should] he change his mind, he may not have the oath repealed until [the month of] Iyar begins.
Halacha 15
If a person takes an oath that he will not benefit from so-and-so and that he will not benefit from the sage who releases him from this oath, first he must ask for the repeal of the first [oath] and then for that of the second.45
Halacha 16
If a person takes an oath that he will not benefit from so-and-so and that he will become a nazirite if he asks for the repeal of this oath, first he must ask for the repeal of his oath and then for that of his nazirite vow.46 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 17
[The following rules apply when a person says:] "I am taking [an oath that I will not eat today, [I am taking] an oath that I will not eat today, [I am taking] an oath that I will not eat today," or "With regard to this loaf, [I am taking] an oath that I will not eat it, [I am taking] an oath that I will not eat it, [I am taking] an oath that I will not eat it." If he asks for the repeal of the first oath and it is released, he is, nevertheless, liable for the second oath.47 Similarly, if he asks for the repeal of the second oath, he is liable for the third oath. If he asks for the repeal of only the third oath, he is liable for the first and second. [Similarly,] if he asks for the repeal of the second oath,48 he is liable for the first.
If so, what is the meaning of the statement: "An oath cannot take effect [when the matter it concerns is already forbidden] by an oath"? That if the person did not repeal [any of] the oaths and ate [the forbidden article], he would be liable only once, as we explained.49
Halacha 18
When a person takes a sh'vuat bitui regarding the future and violated his oath, e.g., he took an oath that he would not eat a loaf of bread and ate it, if he changes his mind, he may ask a sage to repeal it after eating it before bringing his sacrifice if he [ate it] inadvertently or before he was lashed if he did so willingly. [If the sage] releases the oath, he is exempt from the sacrifice or from the lashes. Moreover, even if they bound him [in preparation for lashes], he asked for the repeal of the oath and it was released before they began to administer lashes, he is exempt.50
FOOTNOTES
1.
Kiryat Sefer emphasizes that the concept of repealing an oath applies only with regard to a sh'vuat bitui that involves the future. With regard to a sh'vuat bitui that involves the past, an oath taken in vain, a sh'vuat hapikadon, or an oath regarding testimony, it does not apply. These oaths cannot be repealed for the transgression was performed at the time they were uttered.
More particularly, as the Radbaz explains, there is a difference between a sh'vuat bituithat involves the future and one that involves the past. For when taking a sh'vuat bitui that involves the past as well, as soon as one utters the oath it is false. Nevertheless, he states that it is customary to repeal even this oath to minimize one's punishment.
2.
The Rambam uses the passive form, nishal, rather than the active form sho'el. Tosafot Yom Tov, Shabbat 24:5 explains that form is used because the person asked for the repeal of the oath is asked many questions by the sage.
3.
The sage must be of unique distinction in Torah knowledge to be given the privilege of releasing oaths alone. Nevertheless, he need not have been granted the specialsemichah extending back to Moses our teacher. For the Torah does not describe the judges with the term elohim in the passage concerning oaths (Rabbenu Nissim).
4.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro maintains that the Rambam's words can be interpreted simply: Even three ordinary people can perform this function. The Radbaz, by contrast, maintains that the intent is three Torah scholars who are knowledgeable, but are not worthy of being called sages. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 228:1), Rav Caro, however, rules that the three men repealing the oath must be knowledgeable. He also states that in the present age, there are no sages of the stature to repeal an oath alone.
5.
See Chagigah 10a which states: "The release of vows is hanging in the air and they have nothing to depend on."
6.
That verse begins: "You shall not take a false oath in My name."
7.
See also Chapter 12, Halachah 12.
8.
This is an expression of respect for the greater scholar. The Radbaz states that he has not seen this restriction observed and question why this leniency is taken. If the greater scholar grants permission, the lesser scholar may release the oath [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 228:2)]. Nevertheless, after the fact, if a lesser scholar releases an oath even without permission, the release is binding.
9.
Nor may he send a written request to the court (Radbaz). He may, however, use a translator [Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim10:8); Rama (Yoreh De'ah 228:16)].
10.
For a husband and his wife are considered as the same person.
11.
Nedarim 8b explains that if a person takes the effort to gather a court together, we fear that he will also exaggerate his wife's statements and the court's cross-examination of him will not be effective.
12.
I.e., he may not serve as one of the three judges who release the vow [Radbaz;Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:57)]. This interpretation resolves the objection raised by the Ra'avad. Since he is identified with his wife to the extent that he is considered as the same person, he cannot act objectively with regard to her issues.
13.
See Halachah 1.
14.
I.e., he need not make a formal statement in Hebrew.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah, Nedarim10:8, the Rambam elaborates on this rite:
He tells [the sage or the three ordinary people]: "I took a vow... and I changed my mind."They ask him the reason he changed his mind and he tells them.... The foremost among the three asks: "At the time, you took the vow, had you known that this and this would occur to you, would you have taken the vow?" And he says: "No."...He asks him: "Do you regret this oath?" and he says: "Yes."The foremost of the three addresses him with this wording: "It is permitted for you; it is permitted for you; it is permitted for you. It is absolved for you in the heavenly academy and the earthly academy as it is written (Numbers 15:26): 'And it will be forgiven for the entire congregation of Israel and the stranger who dwells among them for the entire nation has acted inadvertently.'
15.
The Torah gave them this power. SeeHilchot Nedarim, Chapter 13, for an explanation of this issue.
16.
The Radbaz explains that the term "nullify" or "uproot" imply being overpowered by a stronger authority without reason. For the woman is placed under the control of her husband or father and with or without reason, he may nullify her oath even against her will. His authority overpowers the oath, as it were. "Permit," "release," or the like, by contrast, imply that a decision is made on the basis of logic and the oath is revoked as if it never existed. See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit., where he discusses the differences between these two terms.
17.
Thus two relatives may sit on the same "court" that releases vows on the day preceding Rosh HaShanah.
18.
Although they are not acceptable to serve on the same court with regard to cases of law.
19.
In contrast to judgments of law which may be rendered only during the day.
20.
In contrast to judgments that are rendered while sitting.
21.
When it is forbidden to render judgments (Hilchot Shabbat 23:14).
22.
If, however, it is not for the sake of the Sabbath, it may not be released on the Sabbath, because it is forbidden to perform any activity for the weekdays on the Sabbath (Radbaz). See Hilchot Nedarim13:8 with regard to the nullification of vows and oaths by a husband or a father.
23.
Which causes the oath to take effect, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
24.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 228:20) states that Reuven must "be notified." The Rama maintains that he must also consent to the oath being released. The Shulchan Aruch also states that this law applies only when the oath was taken in response to a favor the person performed for him.
25.
Lest Shimon see Reuven not paying attention to the oath and think that he violated the Torah's prohibition. Alternatively, so that Reuven will be embarrassed and not treat oath and vows frivolously [Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 5:4)].
The Radbaz and the Hagahot Maimoniotstate that, after the fact, if Reuven had the oath released outside Shimon's presence, the release is binding. The Radbaz, however, states that if the oath involves financial claims, the person in whose presence the oath was taken must be present.
26.
Who are not obligated in the observance of mitzvot. Nedarim 65a states that since Moses took an oath in the presence of Jethro, his father-in-law, to stay in Midian, he had to have the oath nullified in Jethro's presence. At that time, Jethro was not Jewish.
27.
The standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah concludes "or provide benefit for him." This appears to be a printing error; it is not found in manuscripts or early printings.
28.
I.e., we do not say that since the respect due God's name will be compromised, the oath may not be released.
29.
At least three (Radbaz, based on Gittin 46a).
30.
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah228:21) state that we may release the oath or vow if those people consent. The Rama states that the oath can never be released. The difference between these rulings depends on the rationale for this decision. Rabbenu Nissim explains that taking an oath based on the understanding of others reinforces the severity of the oath and prevents it from being repealed. Others explain that the person is merely substituting the others for himself. Just as ordinarily an oath is dependent on his own understanding, now it is dependent on that of others.
31.
For we assume the others would agree not to enforce the oath when doing so would prevent the fulfillment of a mitzvah (Tosafot, Gittin 36a).
32.
I.e., the person who took the oath.
33.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, stating that he misinterpreted the passage from Gittin, loc. cit. The Ra'avad continues, explaining that in the situation described by the Rambam, it is preferable for the person to teach without charging a wage. Moreover, he is not responsible for the Torah education of those children and hence, the motivation to have the oath rescinded is not his.
The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam's ruling, noting (see Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:2) that a sage is obligated to teach all the students, not only the members of his family. The Radbaz explains that it is preferable that he work for a wage than do so gratuitously, for a person who does not receive a wage for his work will not apply himself sufficiently.
34.
I.e., they try to influence him to change his mind and express his regret.
35.
The Ma'aseh Rokeach explains that we are talking about a situation in which the person feels uncomfortable with keeping the oath in the future, but does not regret having made it. In such a situation, the oath cannot be repealed (see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah228:7). Therefore the court, as the Rambam illustrates, explains the negative consequences of the oath so that the person will feel genuine regret.
36.
I.e., people will spread rumors that the children were conceived out of adultery and are illegitimate.
37.
As stated in Hilchot Gerushin 11:12.
38.
For example, Nedarim 66b states that we warn him that paying the woman's ketubahis a significant expense.
39.
See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 7:1 which mentions these obligations.
40.
See Hilchot Shabbat 30:10; Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 6:16,18 which detail how partaking of these foods leads to the fulfillment of these mitzvot.
41.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, explaining that we do encourage the person to ask for the repeal of an oath if the factor that caused the oath was a reasonable probability. To support his argument, he refers to Nedarim 64b which states that God encouraged Moses to nullify his vow not to return to Egypt, telling him that the people who caused him to flee had died. The Talmud explains that the individuals concerned, Datan and Aviram, had not actually died; they merely became impoverished and "a poor person is considered as if he died." Since poverty is a frequent occurrence, it was appropriate for God to encourage Moses to ask to have his oath repealed. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam would also accept this principle, but the Kessef Mishneh differs.
42.
I.e., he regretted taking the oath not to benefit from him, because he realized that he could become the city scribe.
43.
Otherwise, asking for the repeal of the first oath would violate the second oath (Kessef Mishneh).
44.
And the second oath will not take effect until the first oath is released. The Siftei Cohen228:30 writes that even after the fact, an oath cannot be nullified until it takes effect.
This refers to the repeal of a vow or an oath by a sage. A father or a husband, by contrast, may nullify a vow before it takes effect. See Hilchot Nedarim 12:12.
45.
For as above, the second oath cannot be repealed until it takes effect. See the Radbaz who offers explanations why the Rambam includes this and the following halachah though seemingly they could easily be derived from the previous one.
46.
Even though it is a mitzvah, a nazirite vow can be repealed. See Hilchot Nazirut 3:10.
47.
For even though he is not liable for that second oath until the first oath is repealed, the second oath is not nullified. Instead, it is valid and thus can take effect after the first oath is nullified.
48.
The Rambam maintains that since this oath is prevented from taking effect only because of another oath, one can ask for it to be repealed. Based on this view, the Radbaz maintains that one may have all the relevant oaths repealed with one request. There are, however, other views (the Ramban), who maintain that since the second and third oaths have not taken effect, they cannot be repealed. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah228:46) cites the Ramban's view, while theSiftei Cohen 228:110 mentions that of the Rambam.
49.
Chapter 4, Halachah 10.
50.
Once the court begins administering the lashes, the oath cannot be repealed (Radbaz).
---------------------
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• "Today's Day"
Thursday, Adar I 23, 5776 · 03 March 2016
Sunday 23 Adar I 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayakheil, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 108-112.
Tanya: Ch. 32. Acting upon (p. 145)...great and small. (p. 145).
Rabbis and scholars are called the "eyes of the community" and "heads of the thousands of Israel," and when the head is healthy, the body is then also healthy.
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• "Today's Day"
Thursday, Adar I 23, 5776 · 03 March 2016
Sunday 23 Adar I 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayakheil, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 108-112.
Tanya: Ch. 32. Acting upon (p. 145)...great and small. (p. 145).
Rabbis and scholars are called the "eyes of the community" and "heads of the thousands of Israel," and when the head is healthy, the body is then also healthy.
---------------------• Daily Thought:
The Oppressive Neighbor
No one is a greater tyrant than your friendly neighbor.
Or fellow workers at the office. Or friends at the gym. The mere anticipation of their scrutiny arrests all growth before it can begin to germinate. “Why have you changed your way of life? Was everything you did until now wrong? Why do you feel a need to be different?” The most tyrannical regime could never be as oppressive.
The secret is, they may never even make a comment. They probably don’t even care. So where do all those intimidating questions come from?
They come from your own little tyrant inside.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment