Pekudei: Exodus 38:21 These are the accounts of the tabernacle, the tabernacle of the testimony, recorded, as Moshe ordered, by the L’vi’im under the direction of Itamar the son of Aharon, the cohen.
22 B’tzal’el the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Y’hudah, made everything that Adonai ordered Moshe to make. 23 Assisting him was Oholi’av the son of Achisamakh, of the tribe of Dan, who was an engraver, a designer and a weaver in colors — in blue, purple and scarlet yarn and in fine linen.
24 All the gold used for the work in everything needed for the sanctuary, the gold of the offering, weighed 29 talents 730 shekels [1,930 pounds], using the sanctuary shekel.
25 The silver given by the community weighed 100 talents 1,775 shekels [6,650 pounds], using the sanctuary shekel. 26 This was a beka per person, that is, half a shekel [one-fifth of an ounce], using the sanctuary shekel, for everyone twenty years old or older counted in the census, 603,550 men. 27 The hundred talents of silver were used to cast the sockets for the sanctuary and the sockets for the curtain — one hundred sockets made from the hundred talents, one talent [sixty-six pounds] per socket. 28 The 1,775 shekels [fifty pounds] he used to make hooks for the posts, to overlay their capitals and to make fasteners for them.
29 The bronze in the offering came to 4,680 pounds. 30 He used it to make the sockets for the entrance to the tent of meeting, the bronze altar, its bronze grate, all the utensils for the altar, 31 the sockets for the courtyard around it, the sockets for the gateway to the courtyard, all the tent pegs for the tabernacle and all the tent pegs for the courtyard around it.
39:1 From the blue, purple and scarlet yarn they made the garments for officiating, for serving in the Holy Place; and they made the holy garments for Aharon, as Adonai had ordered Moshe.
• Today in Jewish History
Rebbe Falls Ill (1992)
On the 27th of Adar I, 5752 (Monday, March 2, 1992), the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, suffered a disabling stroke while praying at the gravesite of the previous Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak of Lubavitch. On the same date two years later, the Rebbe lost consciousness following another stroke; three months later, on the 3rd of Tammuz 5754 (June 12, 1994), the Rebbe's soul ascended on high, orphaning a generation.
Links: A Gathering with the Rebbe
A Silence Louder Than Words
Daily Quote:
A chassidic melody fortifies hope and trust, brings joy, and places the entire householdhome and family in a state of light.[Hayom Yom, Tamuz 22]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Parshat Pekudei , Exodus Chapter 39 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Exodus Chapter 39
22And he made the robe of the ephod, the work of a weaver, completely of blue wool. כבוַיַּ֛עַשׂ אֶת־מְעִ֥יל הָֽאֵפֹ֖ד מַֽעֲשֵׂ֣ה אֹרֵ֑ג כְּלִ֖יל תְּכֵֽלֶת:
23And the opening of the robe was turned inward like the opening of a coat of armor; its opening had a border around it so that it should not be torn. כגוּפִֽי־הַמְּעִ֥יל בְּתוֹכ֖וֹ כְּפִ֣י תַחְרָ֑א שָׂפָ֥ה לְפִ֛יו סָבִ֖יב לֹ֥א יִקָּרֵֽעַ:
24And they made on the bottom hem of the robe pomegranates of blue, purple, and crimson wool, twisted. כדוַיַּֽעֲשׂוּ֙ עַל־שׁוּלֵ֣י הַמְּעִ֔יל רִמּוֹנֵ֕י תְּכֵ֥לֶת וְאַרְגָּמָ֖ן וְתוֹלַ֣עַת שָׁנִ֑י מָשְׁזָֽר:
25And they made bells of pure gold, and they placed the bells in the midst of the pomegranates all around on the bottom hem of the robe, in the midst of the pomegranates. כהוַיַּֽעֲשׂ֥וּ פַֽעֲמֹנֵ֖י זָהָ֣ב טָה֑וֹר וַיִּתְּנ֨וּ אֶת־הַפַּֽעֲמֹנִ֜ים בְּת֣וֹךְ הָֽרִמֹּנִ֗ים עַל־שׁוּלֵ֤י הַמְּעִיל֙ סָבִ֔יב בְּת֖וֹךְ הָֽרִמֹּנִֽים:
26A bell and a pomegranate, a bell and a pomegranate, all around on the bottom hem of the robe, to serve as the Lord had commanded Moses. כופַּֽעֲמֹ֤ן וְרִמֹּן֙ פַּֽעֲמֹ֣ן וְרִמֹּ֔ן עַל־שׁוּלֵ֥י הַמְּעִ֖יל סָבִ֑יב לְשָׁרֵ֕ת כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶת־משֶֽׁה:
27And they made the linen tunics, the work of a weaver, for Aaron and for his sons, כזוַיַּֽעֲשׂ֛וּ אֶת־הַכָּתְנֹ֥ת שֵׁ֖שׁ מַֽעֲשֵׂ֣ה אֹרֵ֑ג לְאַֽהֲרֹ֖ן וּלְבָנָֽיו:
28and the cap of linen, and the glorious high hats of linen, and the linen pants of twisted fine linen, כחוְאֵת֙ הַמִּצְנֶ֣פֶת שֵׁ֔שׁ וְאֶת־פַּֽאֲרֵ֥י הַמִּגְבָּעֹ֖ת שֵׁ֑שׁ וְאֶת־מִכְנְסֵ֥י הַבָּ֖ד שֵׁ֥שׁ מָשְׁזָֽר:
and the glorious high hats: Heb. פַּאִרֵי הַמִּגְבָּעֹת, the glory of the high hats, [i.e., meaning] the glorious high hats. ואת פארי המגבעות: תפארת המגבעות, המגבעות המפוארות:
29and the sash of twisted fine linen, and blue, purple, and crimson wool, of embroidery work as the Lord had commanded Moses. כטוְאֶת־הָֽאַבְנֵ֞ט שֵׁ֣שׁ מָשְׁזָ֗ר וּתְכֵ֧לֶת וְאַרְגָּמָ֛ן וְתוֹלַ֥עַת שָׁנִ֖י מַֽעֲשֵׂ֣ה רֹקֵ֑ם כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶת־משֶֽׁה:
30And they made the showplate, the holy crown, of pure gold, and they inscribed upon it an inscription like the engravings of a seal: "Holy to the Lord." לוַיַּֽעֲשׂ֛וּ אֶת־צִ֥יץ נֶֽזֶר־הַקֹּ֖דֶשׁ זָהָ֣ב טָה֑וֹר וַיִּכְתְּב֣וּ עָלָ֗יו מִכְתַּב֙ פִּתּוּחֵ֣י חוֹתָ֔ם קֹ֖דֶשׁ לַֽיהֹוָֽה:
31And they placed upon it a cord of blue wool to place over the cap, from above as the Lord had commanded Moses. לאוַיִּתְּנ֤וּ עָלָיו֙ פְּתִ֣יל תְּכֵ֔לֶת לָתֵ֥ת עַל־הַמִּצְנֶ֖פֶת מִלְמָ֑עְלָה כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶת־משֶֽׁה:
to place over the cap, from above: And by means of the threads, he would place them (sic) over the cap like a sort of crown. It is impossible to say that the showplate was over the cap, because in “Shechitath Kodashim” (Zevachim 19a) we learned: His [the Kohen Gadol’s] hair was visible between the showplate and the cap, where he would place the tefillin, and the showplate was placed on the [Kohen Gadol’s] forehead. Hence, the cap was above, and the showplate was below, so what is the meaning of: “over the cap, from above” ? Additionally, I found a problem in this [matter, namely that] here the text states, “And they placed upon it a cord of blue wool,” and in the section dealing with the command (Exod. 28:37) it says, “And you shall place it upon a cord of blue wool.” Therefore, I say that this cord of blue wool was composed of threads with which to tie it [the showplate] to the cap since the showplate extended only from ear to ear. Thus how should he [the Kohen Gadol] tie it onto his forehead? Threads of blue wool were fastened to it [to the showplate] at both its ends and at its center, with which he would tie it [the showplate] and hang it upon the cap when it was on his head. Two threads were at each end, one above [the showplate] and one below [it] toward his forehead, and similarly at its center, for it is easy to tie it in this way, and it is not customary to tie with fewer than two threads. Therefore, it says: “upon a cord of blue wool,” and “upon it a cord of blue wool,” and he would tie their [the threads’] two ends [one from above and one from below the showplate], all of them together behind him, opposite his nape, and he would place it [the showplate] upon the cap. Do not be astonished that it does not say, “cords (פְּתִילֵי) of blue wool” [i.e., in the plural], since they were many [threads, i.e., three threads], because we find in regard to the choshen and the ephod: “And they shall fasten the choshen by its rings to the rings of the ephod with a blue cord” (Exod. 28:28). [There] we are forced [to explain] that there were no fewer than two [threads even though the text states “cord” in the singular] because the two rings of the choshen were on the two ends of the choshen, and the two rings of the ephod were on the two shoulder straps of the ephod opposite them, and according to the [usual] way of tying [rings together], there were four threads [one for every ring]. In any case, fewer than two [threads] is impossible. לתת על המצנפת מלמעלה: ועל ידי הפתילים היה מושיבו על המצנפת כמין כתר, ואי אפשר לומר הציץ על מצנפת שהרי בשחיטת קדשים שנינו (זבחים יט א) שערו היה נראה בין ציץ למצנפת, ששם מניח תפילין, והציץ היה נתון על המצח, הרי המצנפת למעלה והציץ למטה, ומהו על המצנפת מלמעלה, ועוד הקשיתי בה כאן הוא אומר ויתנו עליו פתיל תכלת, ובענין הצוואה הוא אומר (שמות כח לז) ושמת אותו על פתיל תכלת. ואומר אני פתיל תכלת זה חוטין הן לקשרו בהן במצנפת, לפי שהציץ אינו אלא מאוזן לאוזן, ובמה יקשרנו במצחו, והיו קבועין בו חוטי תכלת לשני ראשיו ובאמצעיתו, שבהן קושרו ותולהו במצנפת כשהוא בראשו, ושני חוטין היו בכל קצה וקצה אחד ממעל ואחד מתחת לצד מצחו, וכן באמצעו, שכך הוא נוח לקשור, ואין דרך קשירה בפחות משני חוטין, לכך נאמר (שמות כח לז) על פתיל תכלת, ועליו פתיל תכלת, וקשר ראשיהם השנים כלם יחד מאחוריו למול ערפו, ומושיבו על המצנפת. ואל תתמה שלא נאמר פתילי תכלת, הואיל ומרובין הן, שהרי מצינו בחשן ואפוד וירכסו את החושן וגו' בפתיל תכלת. ועל כרחך פחות משנים לא היו, שהרי בשתי קצות החשן היו שתי טבעות החשן, ובשתי כתפות האפוד היו שתי טבעות האפוד שכנגדן, ולפי דרך קשירה ארבע חוטין היו, ומכל מקום פחות משנים אי אפשר:
32All the work of the Mishkan of the Tent of Meeting was completed; the children of Israel had done [it]; according to all that the Lord had commanded Moses, so they had done. לבוַתֵּ֕כֶל כָּל־עֲבֹדַ֕ת מִשְׁכַּ֖ן אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד וַיַּֽעֲשׂוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל כְּ֠כֹ֠ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֧ה יְהֹוָ֛ה אֶת־משֶׁ֖ה כֵּ֥ן עָשֽׂוּ:
the children of Israel had done: the work; according to all that the Lord had commanded, etc.. ויעשו בני ישראל: את המלאכה ככל אשר צוה ה' וגו':
--------------------
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 135-139
• Hebrew text
• English text
• Chapter 135
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Name of the Lord; offer praise, you servants of the Lord-
2. who stand in the House of the Lord, in the courtyards of the House of our God.
3. Praise the Lord, for the Lord is good; sing to His Name, for He is pleasant.
4. For God has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel as His beloved treasure.
5. For I know that the Lord is great, our Master is greater than all supernal beings.
6. All that the Lord desired He has done, in the heavens and on earth, in the seas and the depths.
7. He causes mists to rise from the ends of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain; He brings forth the wind from His vaults.
8. It was He who struck down the firstborn of Egypt, of man and beast.
9. He sent signs and wonders into the midst of Egypt, on Pharaoh and on all his servants.
10. It was He who struck down many nations, and slew mighty kings:
11. Sichon, king of the Amorites; Og, king of Bashan; and all the kingdoms of Canaan.
12. And He gave their lands as a heritage, a heritage to His people Israel.
13. Lord, Your Name is forever; Lord, Your remembrance is throughout all generations.
14. Indeed, the Lord will judge on behalf of His people, and have compassion on His servants.
15. The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the product of human hands.
16. They have a mouth, but cannot speak; they have eyes, but cannot see;
17. they have ears, but cannot hear; nor is there breath in their mouth.
18. Like them will their makers become-all who trust in them.
19. House of Israel, bless the Lord; House of Aaron, bless the Lord;
20. House of Levi, bless the Lord; you who fear the Lord, bless the Lord.
21. Blessed is the Lord from Zion, who dwells in Jerusalem. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 136
This psalm contains twenty-six verses, corresponding to the twenty-six generations between the creation of the world and the giving of the Torah.
1. Praise the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is forever.
2. Praise the God of the supernal beings, for His kindness is forever.
3. Praise the Master of the heavenly hosts, for His kindness is forever.
4. Who alone performs great wonders, for His kindness is forever.
5. Who makes the heavens with understanding, for His kindness is forever.
6. Who spreads forth the earth above the waters, for His kindness is forever.
7. Who makes the great lights, for His kindness is forever.
8. The sun to rule by day, for His kindness is forever.
9. The moon and stars to rule by night, for His kindness is forever.
10. Who struck Egypt through its firstborn, for His kindness is forever.
11. And brought Israel out of their midst, for His kindness is forever.
12. With a strong hand and with an outstretched arm, for His kindness is forever.
13. Who split the Sea of Reeds into sections, for His kindness is forever.
14. And brought Israel across it, for His kindness is forever.
15. And cast Pharaoh and his army into the Sea of Reeds, for His kindness is forever.
16. Who led His people through the desert, for His kindness is forever;
17. Who struck down great kings, for His kindness is forever.
18. And slew mighty kings, for His kindness is forever.
19. Sichon, king of the Amorites, for His kindness is forever.
20. And Og, king of Bashan, for His kindness is forever.
21. And gave their land as a heritage, for His kindness is forever.
22. A heritage to Israel His servant, for His kindness is forever.
23. Who remembered us in our humiliation, for His kindness is forever.
24. And redeemed us from our oppressors, for His kindness is forever.
25. Who gives food to all flesh, for His kindness is forever.
26. Praise the God of heaven, for His kindness is forever.
Chapter 137
Referring to the time of the destruction of the Temple, this psalm tells of when Nebuchadnezzar would ask the Levites to sing in captivity as they had in the Temple, to which they would reply, "How can we sing the song of God upon alien soil?" They were then comforted by Divine inspiration.
1. By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat and wept as we remembered Zion.
2. There, upon the willows, we hung our harps.
3. For there our captors demanded of us songs, and those who scorned us-rejoicing, [saying,] "Sing to us of the songs of Zion.”
4. How can we sing the song of the Lord on alien soil?
5. If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget [its dexterity].
6. Let my tongue cleave to my palate if I will not remember you, if I will not bring to mind Jerusalem during my greatest joy!
7. Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites the day of [the destruction of] Jerusalem, when they said, "Raze it, raze it to its very foundation!”
8. O Babylon, who is destined to be laid waste, happy is he who will repay you in retribution for what you have inflicted on us.
9. Happy is he who will seize and crush your infants against the rock!
Chapter 138
David offers awesome praises to God for His kindness to him, and for fulfilling His promise to grant him kingship.
1. By David. I will thank You with all my heart, in the presence of princes I shall praise You.
2. I will bow toward Your Holy Sanctuary, and praise Your Name for Your kindness and for Your truth; for You have exalted Your word above all Your Names.
3. On the day that I called out You answered me, You emboldened me, [You put] strength in my soul.
4. Lord, all the kings of the land will give thanks to You when they hear the words of Your mouth.
5. And they will sing of the Lord's ways, for the glory of the Lord is great.
6. For though the Lord is exalted, He sees the lowly; the High One castigates from afar.
7. If I walk in the midst of distress, keep me alive; against the wrath of my enemies stretch out Your hand, and let Your right hand deliver me.
8. Lord, complete [Your kindness] on my behalf. Lord, Your kindness is forever, do not forsake the work of Your hands.
Chapter 139
A most prominent psalm that guides man in the ways of God as no other in all of the five books of Tehillim. Fortunate is he who recites it daily.
1. For the Conductor, by David, a psalm. O Lord, You have probed me, and You know.
2. You know my sitting down and my standing up; You perceive my thought from afar.
3. You encircle my going about and my lying down; You are familiar with all my paths.
4. For there was not yet a word on my tongue-and behold, Lord, You knew it all.
5. You have besieged me front and back, You have laid Your hand upon me.
6. Knowledge [to escape You] is beyond me; it is exalted, I cannot know it.
7. Where can I go [to escape] Your spirit? And where can I flee from Your presence?
8. If I ascend to the heavens, You are there; if I make my bed in the grave, behold, You are there.
9. Were I to take up wings as the dawn and dwell in the furthest part of the sea,
10. there, too, Your hand would guide me; Your right hand would hold me.
11. Were I to say, "Surely the darkness will shadow me," then the night would be as light around me.
12. Even the darkness obscures nothing from You; and the night shines like the day-the darkness is as light.
13. For You created my mind; You covered me in my mother's womb.
14. I will thank You, for I was formed in an awesome and wondrous way; unfathomable are Your works, though my soul perceives much.
15. My essence was not hidden from You even while I was born in concealment, formed in the depths of the earth.
16. Your eyes beheld my raw form; all [happenings] are inscribed in Your book, even those to be formed in future days-to Him they are the same.
17. How precious are Your thoughts to me, O God! How overwhelming, [even] their beginnings!
18. Were I to count them, they would outnumber the sand, even if I were to remain awake and always with You.
19. O that You would slay the wicked, O God, and men of blood [to whom I say], "Depart from me!”
20. They exalt You for wicked schemes, Your enemies raise [You] for falsehood.
21. Indeed, I hate those who hate You, Lord; I contend with those who rise up against You.
22. I hate them with the utmost hatred; I regard them as my own enemies.
23. Search me, Lord, and know my heart; test me and know my thoughts.
24. See if there is a vexing way in me, then lead me in the way of the world.
• Tuesday, Adar I 28, 5776 · March 8, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 32
וגם המקורבים אליו, והוכיחם ולא שבו מעונותיהם, שמצוה לשנאותם, מצוה לאהבם גם כן
Furthermore, even those whom one is enjoined to hate — for they are close to him, and he has rebuked them but they still have not repented of their sins — one is obliged to love them too.
But is it possible to love a person and hate him at the same time?
The Alter Rebbe explains that since the love and the hatred stem from two different causes, they do not conflict.
ושתיהן הן אמת: שנאה מצד הרע שבהם, ואהבה מצד בחינת הטוב שגנוז שבהם, שהוא ניצו׳ אלקות שבתוכם, המחיה נפשם האלקית
And both the love and the hatred are truthful emotions in this case, [since] the hatred is on account of the evil within them, while the love is on account of the good hidden in them, which is the divine spark within them that animates their divine soul. For this spark of G‑dliness is present even in the most wicked of one’s fellow Jews; it is merely hidden.
One may now be faced with the anomaly of a fellow-Jew whom he must both love and hate. But what attitude should he adopt toward the person as a whole who possesses both these aspects of good and evil?
When, for example, the sinner requests a favor of him, should his hatred dictate his response, or his love?
The Alter Rebbe goes on to say that one’s relationship with the sinner as a whole should be guided by love. By arousing one’s compassion for him, one restricts one’s own hatred so that it is directed solely at the evil within the sinner, not at the person himself.
וגם לעורר רחמים בלבו עליה, כי היא בבחינת גלות בתוך הרע מסטרא אחרא הגובר עליה ברשעים
One must also arouse compassion on [the divine soul of the sinner], for in the case of the wicked it is in exile within the evil of the sitra achra which dominates it.
והרחמנות מבטלת השנאה ומעוררת האהבה, כנודע ממה שכתוב: ליעקב אשר פדה את אברהם
Compassion banishes hatred and arouses love — as is known from the verse, 1 “Jacob, who redeemed Abraham.”
“Jacob” represents compassion, and “Abraham”, love. When “Abraham”, love, must be “redeemed”, i.e., brought out of concealment, it is “Jacob”, compassion, that accomplishes this redemption; for as said, compassion banishes hatred and arouses love.
ולא אמר דוד המלך עליו השלום: תכלית שנאה שנאתים וגו׳, אלא על המינים והאפיקורסים שאין להם חלק באלקי ישראל
(2As for the statement by King David, peace upon him: 3 “I hate them with a consummate hatred,”reserving no love for them whatsoever, this refers only to [Jewish] heretics and atheists who have no part in the G‑d of Israel,
כדאיתא בגמרא, ריש פרק ט״ז דשבת
as stated in the Talmud, beginning of ch. 16 of Tractate Shabbat.)
Any sinner who is not, however, a heretic, must not be hated with “a consummate hatred,” for the mitzvah of ahavat Yisrael embraces him as well.
——— ● ———
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Yeshayahu 29:22. |
| 2. | Parentheses are in the original text. |
| 3. | Tehillim 139:22. |
---------------------
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Tuesday, Adar I 28, 5776 · March 8, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 157
Reneging on Verbal Obligations
"He shall not profane his word; he shall do according to all that issues from his mouth"—Numbers 30:3.
It is forbidden to violate one's verbal pledge, whether that pledge was worded as an oath or not.
Examples of such pledges:
"If so-and-so occurs, or if I do this-and-this, all fruit – or fruit from this city – will become forbidden for me."
"Wine/milk/fish are forbidden for me."
The pleasure of my wife's [intimate company] is forbidden for me."
Any pledge to bring a sacrifice or give an amount of money to charity or to a synagogue.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Tuesday, Adar I 28, 5776 · March 8, 2016Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 157
Reneging on Verbal Obligations
"He shall not profane his word; he shall do according to all that issues from his mouth"—Numbers 30:3.
It is forbidden to violate one's verbal pledge, whether that pledge was worded as an oath or not.
Examples of such pledges:
"If so-and-so occurs, or if I do this-and-this, all fruit – or fruit from this city – will become forbidden for me."
"Wine/milk/fish are forbidden for me."
The pleasure of my wife's [intimate company] is forbidden for me."
Any pledge to bring a sacrifice or give an amount of money to charity or to a synagogue.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Reneging on Verbal Obligations
Negative Commandment 157
Translated by Berel Bell
The 157th prohibition is that we are forbidden from violating any verbal obligation we have made, even if it was not said as an oath.
These obligations are known as nedarim (vows); for example, when a person says, "if a certain event occurs" or "if I do a certain act" then "all fruit will be forbidden to me" or "the fruit of this country [will be forbidden to me]" or a certain food, such as milk, fish, etc. "will be forbidden to me"; or when he says, "deriving pleasure from my wife is forbidden to me"; or any similar verbal obligation, as explained in tractate Nedarim. In all these cases he must carry out his vow, and violating it counts as a prohibition.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "He must not yachel ("break") his word. He must do everything that he stated verbally."
Our Sages explained the phrase, "He must not yachel his word" as meaning, "he must not make his word profane (chullin)," i.e. to obligate himself and then not fulfill his promise.2 As tractate Shavuos puts it, "vows comes under the prohibition, 'he must not break (yachel) his word.' "
The Sifra3 says [regarding a case where someone promised to bring a sacrifice and did not do so], "The verse, 'He must not break' teaches us that he violates the prohibition of not breaking one's word and that of not delaying as offering." This means that if a person vowed to bring a sacrifice, and three holidays have passed by and he still did not do so, then he is guilty of transgressing the prohibition of not delaying [the offering]4 and of not breaking his word.
The same applies to anything resembling a sacrifice, such as promising a gift to the fund of the Holy Temple,5 to charity, to a synagogue, etc.
One who transgresses this prohibition by doing something he has promised not to, is punished by lashes.
The details of this mitzvah are completely explained in tractate Nedarim.
FOOTNOTES
1.Num. 30:3.
2.The verse can therefore be translated, "He must not break his word."
3.See Kapach 5731, note 84.
4.N155.
5.Bedek haBayis
----------------------------------------------------------
• 1 Chapter: Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 2 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 2
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
The incense offering was prepared every year. Preparing it fulfills a positive commandment,1 as [Exodus 30:34] states: "And you take spices...." Four of the spices are explicitly mentioned in the Torah. They are balsum,2 onycha, storax, and frankincense. The others were communicated as a halachah communicated to Moses at Sinai.
Halacha 2
[The requirement for] eleven spices was communicated to Moses at Sinai.3The would prepare them with an exact weight and add to them - without weighing them: Salt of Sodom,4 Jordanian amber,5 and an herb that would produce smoke. Only select people would know its identity and that knowledge was conveyed as halachah from person to person.
Halacha 3
This is the weight of the eleven spices: balsam, onycha, storax, frankincense, 70 maneh from each one. A maneh is 100 dinarim,6musk, cassia, spikenard, and saffron, 16 maneh, costus, 12 maneh, cinnamon, 9 maneh, Ceylonese cinnamon 3 maneh. The weight of the entire mixture was 368 maneh.
The entire mixture was ground very thin. A fourth of a kab7 of the salt of Sodom and a small amount of Jordanian amber and the smoke raising herb were added. A maneh of it was burned every day8 on the golden altar. There were 365 maneh, corresponding to the 365 days of the year. The three remaining maneh were ground again on the day before Yom Kippur very finely for [the High Priest] to take a handful to offer on Yom Kippur.9 The remainder is the remainder of the incense that was mentioned in [Hilchot] Shekalim.10
Halacha 4
Nataf mentioned by the Torah are the balsam trees that produce balsam oil.11Onycha is tziporen12 which people include in incense. Storax is like black honey and it produces a disagreeable odor. It comes from the sap of the trees grown in Greece. These are the names of the spices in Arabic: od balasan, atzpar tiv, miyah,13 lican,14 muski,15 ketziyah,16 sanbali alnaturin,17 saffron, kosht,18 od,19 kesser silica,20 and anber.21
Halacha 5
How is the incense offering prepared? Nine kabbin of vetch lye are brought and the onycha is rubbed with it.22 Afterwards, the onycha is soaked in 21kabbin of caper wine23 or a very strong, aged white wine. Afterwards each of the spices is ground very finely alone. While he is grinding, he should say: "Grind thoroughly. Grind thoroughly," for the entire time that he is grinding.24Then he mixes them all together.
Halacha 6
All of the acts involved in its preparation are performed in the Sanctuary, in the Temple Courtyard, [using ingredients that] have been consecrated.25 When one prepares the incense offering from unconsecrated ingredients or in an unconsecrated utensil, it is unacceptable.
Halacha 7
Twice a year, the incense would be returned to the grinder.26 In the summer, it would be spread out so that it would not become musty. In the rainy season, it is stored away lest its fragrance be weakened.
Halacha 8
If one included any honey in it, it is disqualified.27 If one omits any of its spices, he is liable for death, for it is considered as foreign incense. If one prepared it little by little in appropriate proportions, it is acceptable. Even if one prepared half [a maneh] in the morning and half in the afternoon, [it is acceptable].
Halacha 9
When a person prepares incense from these eleven spices according to these proportions to smell its fragrance, he is liable for karet for its preparation28if he prepared it willfully, even if he did not actually smell its fragrance. If he did so inadvertently, he is liable for a fixed sin offering. Even if he did not prepare the entire quantity [of 368 maneh], but merely a half or a third, since he prepared it according to the above proportions, he is liable forkaret, as [Exodus 30:38] states: "You shall not make [incense] for yourselves according to its formula. Anyone who prepares [incense] like this to smell its fragrance shall be cut off from his people."
Halacha 10
If he prepared it to learn or with the intent of giving it to the community, he is not liable. If he smelled its fragrance, but did not prepare it, he is not liable forkaret. Instead, he is bound by the laws applying to all of those who derive benefit from consecrated property.29 The Torah obligated a person for karetonly when he prepared it according to its formula for the sake of smelling it.
Halacha 11
The incense offering is offered on the Golden Altar in the Temple each day. No other entity is offered on it. If one offered any incense other than this or offered this incense, but it was donated by an individual or a group,30 or one offered a sacrifice on it,31 or poured a libation on it, one is liable for lashes,32 as [ibid.:9] states: "You shall not offer upon it foreign incense, a burnt offering, or a meal offering."
Halacha 12
When the ark is transported from place to place, it should not be transported on an animal or on a wagon. Instead, it is a mitzvah for it to be carried on one's shoulders.33Since David forgot and had it transported on a wagon, there was an outbreak [of Divine anger] at Uzzah.34 Instead, it is a mitzvah to carry it on one's shoulders, as [Numbers 7:9] states: "For the holy task is their obligation. They shall carry it on their shoulders."
Halacha 13
When [the Levites] carry the ark on their shoulders, they should carry it face to face, with their backs pointed outward and their faces inward.35 They must be careful that the staves of the ark are not removed from the rings. Anyone who removes one of the staves36 from the rings is liable for lashes,37 as [Exodus 25:15] states: "The staves shall be in the rings of the ark. They shall not be removed from it."
FOOTNOTES
1.
As the Radbaz states, the Rambam does not consider the preparation of the incense offering as a separate mitzvah. Indeed, in his Sefer HaMitzvos, General Principle 10, he explains that preparing the incense offering should not be considered as a separate mitzvah, for until it is actually offered it is an incomplete act. The mitzvah of bringing the incense offering is mentioned in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:1.
2.
The Rambam defines the terms mentioned here in Halachah 4.
3.
I.e., through the principles of Biblical exegesis, our Sages (Keritot 8b) derived that the incense offering contained this number of spices.
4.
Although a measure of volume was mentioned for Salt of Sodom (see the following halachah), a measure of weight was not.
5.
Amber is the fossilized resin from ancient forests. The resin becomes buried and fossilized through a natural polymerization of the original organic compounds. Heating amber will soften it and eventually it will burn, producing a pleasant fragrance. Others identify kipat hayardein with roses. Living Torah refers to it as cycla men, an attractive flower that grows in the Mediterranean region.
6.
A dinar is 76.8 grams (81.6 grams according to a more stringent view) in modern measure.
7.
A measure of volume equal to 1376 cc according to Shiurei Torah, 2400 cc according to Chazon Ish.
8.
Half a maneh in the morning and half in the afternoon.
9.
In the Holy of Holies. See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 4:1.
10.
365 portions of incense were prepared although an ordinary lunar year has 353, 354, or 355 days. Hence, at the end of the year, there was a certain amount left over. InHilchot Shekalim 4:12, the Rambam writes that on Rosh Chodesh Nissan, the remainder of the incense was redeemed and then given to the craftsmen who prepared it. Afterwards, it was repurchased from them. Thus when a leap year was declared, there was enough incense.
11.
Balsalm is an evergreen tree whose sap has a very pleasant fragrance.
12.
The claw or nail of the strombus or wing-shell, a shell-fish common in the Red Sea. When burned, they emit a strong fragrance.
13.
These terms refer to balsam, onycha, and storax.
14.
Frankincense is the gum resin of a tree found growing in tropical regions, a member of the Burseraceae family. This resin exudes as a milky liquid and hardens into yellowish droplets, known as frankincense tears. It gives off a warm, slightly citrine perfume.
15.
Musk, see Chapter 1, Halachah 3.
16.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot1:1), the Rambam states that this is an herb that he cannot identify. Some have identified it with cassia, an aromatic bark, similar to cinnamon, but differing in strength and quality.
17.
Spikenard is obtained from an Indian plant, found in the Himalaya mountains, the Nardostachys jatamansi.
18.
Costus, see Chapter 1, Halachah 3.
19.
Cinnamon.
20.
Ceylonese cinnamon.
21.
Jordanian amber.
22.
This cleanses it thoroughly and improves its appearance.
23.
Alternatively, wine from Cyprus.
24.
For the chanting improves the spices (Keritot 6b).
25.
Keritot 6b derives this concept from the description of the anointment oil in Exodus 30:32: "It is holy; it shall be holy for you." The repetition of the term "holy" implies that all of the activity to prepare it must be performed with entities that are consecrated. An equation is established between that oil and the incense offering.
26.
To grind it again, lest it have solidified.
27.
Although this would greatly improved its fragrance, there is an explicit Biblical prohibition (Leviticus 2:11; Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:2) against burning any such incense.
28.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 85) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 110) consider the prohibition against preparing incense for its fragrance as one of the Torah's 613 commandments.
29.
This is speaking about a person who smells the fragrance of the communal incense offering. A person who smells the incense of a private individual who copied the formula of the incense offering is not liable.
See Hilchot Meilah 1:2 for the details of one's liability. See also ibid. 5:16 which states that this applies only when the column of smoke from the incense is rising. Once it has already risen, the prohibition no longer applies.
30.
But not to the community as a whole.
The Radbaz quotes Rashi (Keritot 6a) which states that one is liable for death at the hand of heaven for bringing such an incense offering. (The death of Aaron's sons, Nadav and Avihu, are cited as proof for this thesis.)
31.
The blood of certain sacrifices is, however, sprinkled on it, as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:13; Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 4:2.
32.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 82) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 104) consider the prohibition against making such offerings on this altar as one of the Torah's 613 commandments.
33.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 34) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 379) consider this mitzvah as one of the Torah's 613 commandments.
The prooftext cited by the Rambam refers to the ark being carried by the Levites, the descendants of the family of Kehot. In Sefer HaMitzvot, however, the Rambam writes that the mitzvah for all time was to have the ark carried by the priests and not the Levites. Indeed, the narrative of the ark being carried in Joshua 3:6 and II Samuel 15:25 corroborates this thesis. (The Ramban explains that this does not contradict the Biblical command, because the priests are also descendants of Kehot.) The reason the mitzvah was fulfilled by the Levites while the Jews journeyed through the desert is because there were not enough priests to carry the ark at that time.
34.
As the Bible relates, II Samuel, ch. 6, God vented His anger for the transgression on Uzzah, causing his death.
35.
Thus those in the front will be walking backwards. This is necessary so that they will not be turning their backs to the ark (Bamidbar Rabbah, ch. 5).
36.
Although the prooftext quoted by the Rambam speaks of the staves, using the plural term, he understands the prohibition as applying even to one of them. See theMinchat Chinuch (mitzvah 96) which discusses this issue.
37.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 86) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 96) consider the prohibition against removing the staves as one of the Torah's 613 commandments.
---------------------
• 3 Chapters: Nedarim - Chapter 7, Nedarim - Chapter 8, Nedarim - Chapter 9
English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Nedarim - Chapter 7
English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download• Nedarim - Chapter 7
Halacha 1
When two people are forbidden - by vow or by oath - to derive benefit from each other, they are allowed1 to return a lost article to each other, because doing so is a mitzvah.2 In a place where it is customary for the person who returns a lost article to receive a reward, the reward should be given to the Temple treasury.3 For if [the person who returns the lost article] will take the reward, he will be receiving benefit.4 If he does not take it, he will be giving the other person benefit.5
Halacha 2
They are [both] permitted [to make use of] those entities that are owned jointly by the entire Jewish people,6 e.g., the Temple Mount, its chambers, its courtyards, and a well in the midst of a highway.7 They are forbidden [to make use of] those entities that are owned jointly by all the inhabitants of that city,8e.g., its marketplace, its bathhouse, its synagogue, its ark, and its holy texts.
Halacha 3
What can they do so that they will be permitted to use these entities? Each one of them should sign over his portion to the nasi9 or to another person and have him acquire that portion through the medium of another person.10 Thus when either of them enter a bathhouse belonging to all the members of the city or to the synagogue, he is not entering the property of the colleague [from whom he is forbidden to benefit], for each of them has relinquished his share of the place and given it away as a present.
Halacha 4
[The following laws apply when] they are both partners in a courtyard.11If it can be divided,12 they are forbidden to enter it unless it is divided and each person enters his portion. If it cannot be divided,13 each one should enter his house, saying: "I am entering my property."14 Regardless,15 they are both forbidden to place a mill or an oven there or to raise chickens in this courtyard.16
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
Halacha 7
When a person forbids himself from benefiting from one of the nations, he is permitted to buy [an article] from them at more than the market price and sell to them at less than the market price.23 If he forbids them from benefiting from him, if they are willing, it is permitted for him to purchase from them for less than the market price and sell to them at more than the market price.24 We do not issue a decree forbidding him to sell [at less than the market price], lest he purchase [at less than the market price].25 [The rationale is that] he did not take a vow concerning only one individual, in which instance such a decree would be appropriate, but concerning an entire nation and if it is impossible for him to do business with one person, he will do business with another.26Therefore, if he forbade himself from benefiting from them, he may lend both articles and money to them, but may not borrow either of these from them.27
Halacha 8
If he forbade them from benefiting from him and himself from benefiting from them, he should not do business with them, nor may they do business with him.28 He may not borrow an article from them or lend an article to them, nor borrow money from them or lend money from them.
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
When it is forbidden for a person to benefit a colleague and that colleague has nothing to eat, the person may go to a storekeeper and say: "So-and-so is forbidden to benefit from me and I don't know what to do."38 It is permitted for the storekeeper to go and give [food] to the colleague and take [payment] from that person.39
Halacha 13
[Similar laws apply]40 if it is necessary to build [that colleague's] house, put up a fence for him, or harvest his field. If the person from whom it was forbidden to benefit approached workers and told them: "So-and-so is forbidden to benefit from me and I don't know what to do,"41 They may then perform these activities, go back to that person, and he may pay them. For he is paying the debt of the colleague and we already explained42 that a person [from whom one is forbidden to benefit] may pay a debt for his colleague.
Halacha 14
If the two43 were traveling on a journey and [the person who is forbidden to benefit from his colleague] does not have anything to eat, [that colleague] may give [food] to another person as a present and [the person who is forbidden] is then permitted to partake of it.44 If there is no one else with them, [the person whose property is forbidden] should put [food] on a stone and say: "This [food] is considered ownerless for everyone who desires it."45 The other person may then take it and eat.46
Halacha 15
If, [however,] he gives a colleague a present [of a feast] and tells him: "This feast is given to you as a present. Let so-and-so who is forbidden to benefit from me come and eat with us," this is forbidden.47 Moreover, even if he gave the present without saying anything, but afterwards48 said: "Do you want so-and-so to come and eat with us?" it is forbidden if it appears that initially, he gave the present solely so that ultimately so-and-so could eat with them. For example, it is a large feast and he wants his father, his teacher, or the like to partake of the feast. For [the size of] the feast indicates that he did not intend to give it to him. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 16
Any present that, were it to be consecrated [by the recipient], the consecration would not be effective, is not considered as a present.49
Whenever a person gives a colleague a present with the stipulation that he transfer it to another person, that other person acquires ownership at the time the first [recipient] transfers it to him.50 If the first recipient does not transfer it to that other person, neither the first, nor the second [recipient] acquires it.51
Halacha 17
[The following principle applies when a person's son-in-law is forbidden to benefit from him and he desires to give his daughter money so that she can benefit from it and spend it as she desires.52 He should give her a present and say: "This money53 is given to you as a present on the condition that your husband has no authority over it.54 Instead, it shall be used for what you put in your mouth, what you cloth yourself, and the like."55 Even if he said: "...on the condition that your husband has no authority over it. Instead, it shall be used for whatever you want to do with it,"56 the husband does not acquire it and she may do what she desires with it.
If, however, he gave her a present and told her. "...on the condition that your husband has no authority over it," but did not specify the purpose for which the present was being given or even did not say that it was intended for whatever she desires, the husband acquires it to derive benefit from it.57 This would be forbidden, because he is forbidden to benefit from his father-in-law.58
FOOTNOTES
1.
And since they are allowed, they are obligated.
2.
For he is not returning it as a favor to him, but instead, in fulfillment of the Torah's command [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 4:2).
3.
Or, in the present age, to charity. This is preferable to destroying it.
4.
I.e., he will be returning it for the sake of the reward and not for the sake of the mitzvah (ibid.).
5.
For ordinarily the person would pay a reward for the return of the lost article.
6.
Technically, the other person has a share in these places, for they are owned communally. Nevertheless, since each person's individual share is so small, these places are considered as if they are ownerless and not as communal property (see ibid. 5:4).
7.
I.e.., a well built for the pilgrims' journey to Jerusalem from Babylon for the pilgrimage festivals (ibid.).
8.
For in this instance, each person's share is greater and more distinct.
The Ramban and the Ran object to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that this ruling does not apply with regard to an entity like a synagogue that cannot be divided. In such an instance, it is considered as a communal entity and the person who took the vow is allowed to make use of it. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 224:1) quotes both views. See the Lechem Mishneh and theTurei Zahav 224:1 who elaborate in support of the Rambam's position.
9.
The leader of the Jewish people. He is mentioned, because it is very unlikely that he will forbid a member of the people from using his property (Nedarim 48a).
10.
I.e., the person acquiring the portion need not know about his acquisition. We follow the principle that a person can acquire property without his knowledge if it is to his benefit to do so (see Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 4:2).
11.
In the Talmudic era, it was common that several houses would open up to a courtyard that was the combined property of the homeowners. In this halachah, we are speaking of an instance where two of those homeowners took vows forbidding them to benefit from each other.
12.
See Hilchot Shechenim 2:1 which states that if after the division of a courtyard, each of the homeowners will receive a plot of land four cubits by four cubits as his individual property, the courtyard should be divided if one of the neighbors requests that this be done.
13.
I.e., if it were to be divided, the homeowners would not receive a portion of land that size.
14.
Rabbenu Nissim explains this ruling based on the principle of bereirah, i.e., retroactively, it becomes apparent that when he enters the courtyard, he is entering property that was designated as his. We are forced to accept this definition (even though generally, the principle of bereirah is not followed in questions of Scriptural Law), for there is no alternative in this instance. The person has a right to the courtyard and he cannot be forbidden from using his own property. See Siftei Cohen 226:4, Turei Zahav 226:1.
15.
Whether it cannot be divided or whether it can be divided, but was not divided yet.
16.
Bava Batra 57b relates that partners in a courtyard have the right to prevent each other from performing such activities. Although most partners do not exercise this right, in this instance, by failing to exercise the right, one is providing benefit to the other person (Rabbenu Nissim).
17.
I.e., a courtyard to small for the owners to divide.
18.
His vow imposes unnecessary hardship on the other person who has a legitimate right to the property. Hence, we compel him to sell his share of the courtyard rather than put his colleague in a situation where he might transgress.
19.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 226:2) states that the person who took the vow is forbidden to enter the courtyard. The rationale is that the Rambam's understanding is accepted, except that an additional stringency is applied, lest the person remain in the courtyard for other purposes besides entering and departing his home (Siftei Cohen 226:10).
20.
We do not force him to sell his portion of the courtyard because he is causing difficulty only to himself and he is willing to abide by his prohibition (Radbaz).
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, citing Nedarim 46a as support for his understanding. He mentions that the Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 5:2) appears to support the Rambam's interpretation, but states that we should abide by the principle that whenever there is a difference of opinion between the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, the perspective of the Babylonian Talmud should be followed. See the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh who try to reconcile the differences in the positions of the two Talmuds. As mentioned, theShulchan Aruch follows the Rambam's understanding, but is even more stringent.
21.
This is speaking about a courtyard that is too small to require division (Radbaz).
22.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 226:1) states that this applies only when the other owner of the courtyard needs that person. Otherwise, he is forbidden to enter.
23.
For thus he is suffering a loss every time he deals with them.
24.
For they are suffering a loss every time they deal with him.
25.
As a decree was made with regard to an individual. See Chapter 6, Halachah 16.
26.
I.e., with regard to one individual, there is room for stringency, but this stringency is not required with regard to an entire nation, for there is (Radbaz).
27.
I.e., we do not make a decree like we do with regard to an individual (Siftei Cohen227:7).
28.
For one of them, either they or he will be benefiting from the sale.
29.
For this is a benefit that he is receiving.
30.
For when a sage releases a vow, it is as if it never existed. Hence, it is as if he were never forbidden to approach the sage. See Chapter 4, Halachah 13, and notes.
31.
Leket refers to crops that drop from a reaper's hand in the field. He is forbidden to pick them up again, but instead must leave them for the poor (Leviticus 19:10).Shichechah refers to crops or bundles forgotten in the field by accident. The harvesters may not return and collect, but must instead leave them for the poor (Deuteronomy 24:19). Pe'ah refers to a corner of the field which must be left unharvested, so that it could be harvested by the poor (Leviticus 19:9). See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim chs. 1,4, and 5 where these mitzvot are discussed.
32.
In the third year of the six-year agricultural, instead of taking the second tithe to be eaten in Jerusalem in a state of holiness, it is given to the poor (Deuteronomy 14:28; Hilchot Matanot Aniyim ch. 6). The person who took the vow is allowed to benefit from these crops, because the owner of the field is not considered as giving him anything of his own. Instead, he is fulfilling a mitzvah.
33.
Nedarim 83-84a explains this distinction. When the tithe for the poor is distributed in the granaries, it may be taken by a poor person without asking. The owner does not have the right to decided to whom he will give it. If, however, he has already brought produce from the tithe for the poor home, he has the right to choose to whom to give it.
34.
I.e., the tithes that must be given to the Levites and terumah which must be given to the priests.
35.
Since he is obligated to give these presents to the priests and Levites, he has no choice in the matter and must make these gifts. Generally, a person is allowed to decide which Levite and which priest, he desires to give these gifts to. In this instance, however, since he forbade all priests from benefiting from his property, there is no one to whom he can give it. Hence his right to decide is taken from him and any priest or Levite can come and take the portions.
36.
Since the terumah and tithes may be given to others, there is no reason to take away the person's right to distribute them as he desires, for that right is of financial value (Nedarim 84b).
37.
E.g., those mentioned in the previous halachah. See Siftei Cohen 227:9 and Turei Zahav 227:3 who rule that this concept also applies with regard to charity.
38.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:8) is even more lenient and states that he may say: "Anyone who sustains so-and-so will not suffer a loss," for he is still merely intimating that one should support him. He may not say: "Whoever hears my voice should sustain so-and-so," for that it a direct command. Nor may he tell one person: "If you sustain so-and-so, you will not suffer a loss," for then it appears as if he is appointing him as an agent for this purpose.
39.
Since the person did not charge the storekeeper with providing the colleague with food, he is not responsible for the account [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 221:8)]. If he, nevertheless, chooses to pay it, he is not considered to have given benefit to that colleague.
40.
The Kessef Mishneh states that the two instances are not entirely analogous, for the first involves providing the person with food necessary for his livelihood, while the second involves the performance of a task that is important, but not vital for him. Perhaps this is the reason why in the preceding halachah, the Rambam stated: "The person may go to a storekeeper," i.e., he is permitted as an initial and preferred option. In this halachah, by contrast, he states: "If the person... approached workers," i.e., the Rambam is describing a law that applies after the fact, but not initially.
41.
The Radbaz explains that although the previous law was mentioned, it is also necessary to state this law, because it is uncommon for workers to extend credit on money do them. This is, by contrast, a common practice for storekeepers.
42.
Chapter 6, Halachah 4.
43.
I.e., a person who took a vow not to benefit from a person and that person.
44.
Giving a present is not permitted in the situations described in the previous halachot, because there are other alternatives. Hence it is considered as too great a leniency. In this situation, there is no other alternative and therefore it is permitted. See Siftei Cohen 221:52.
45.
Generally, according to Rabbinic Law, there must be three people present when an object is declared ownerless. In this instance, however, since there is no other alternative, we do not require anything more than required by Scriptural Law (Siftei Cohen221:53).
46.
For then he is not partaking of the property of the person from whom he is forbidden to benefit, but from ownerless property.
47.
For he is obviously making this gift solely so that the other person may partake of it. If it is a large feast, it is obvious that a person is not preparing it for the sake of giving it to a colleague. Nedarim 48b gives as an example, an instance where a person's father was forbidden to benefit from him. When he made a wedding feast for his son, he tried to employ this tactic to enable his father to attend.
48.
The Kessef Mishneh states that there are opinions that maintain that this law applies only when the statements were made immediately after giving the feast. The wording chosen by the Rambam, however, indicates that the law applies even if he makes the statements later. The interpretation of the Kessef Mishneh is borne out by the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 5:5).
49.
I.e., the giver tells the recipient: "I did not give you the present so that you could consecrate it."
Nedarim, loc. cit., states this principle in continuation of the above story. After the son gave the wedding feast to a colleague so that his father could attend, that colleague consecrated it. When the giver, protested saying that he had not given it to him for that purpose, the recipient complained that he was not going to serve as a medium to allow the first person to break his vow. When the Sages were asked to rule about this situation, they stated the principle mentioned by the Rambam here.
50.
I.e., we do not say that since the first recipient is going to give to the second, the second acquires it when it is acquired by the first. This is not a situation where the first recipient is acting as an agent for the second. Instead, he acquires it first on his own behalf and then transfers it to the other person.
51.
The first does not acquire it, because it was given to him only on condition that it be transferred to the second. Since that condition was not fulfilled, his own acquisition is not binding (see Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 3:6). The second person does not acquire it, because ownership was never transferred to him.
52.
Ordinarily, whatever a woman acquires immediately is given to her husband's jurisdiction. While she remains the legal owner, he has the legal right to control it and use the profits as he sees fit. In this instance, this would be forbidden for the son-in-law is prohibited against benefiting from his father-in-law, as the Rambam states in the conclusion of the halachah.
53.
If he gives her the food itself, it is not necessary to make any stipulations (Radbaz, Siftei Cohen 222:1).
54.
Tosafot Yom Tov (Nedarim 11:8) states that from Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 3:13, it appears that the inclusion of this part of the statement is not an absolute necessity. As long as he specifies that the present is being given for a specific purpose alone, the husband does not acquire rights to it. Rav Yosef Caro does not accept this option, however, in his Kessef Mishneh and quotes the Rambam's wording from this halachah in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 222:1; seeSiftei Cohen 222:2).
55.
Since the father has designated the money for a specific purpose, it may be used only for that and thus the son never acquires a right to it. The rationale is closely related to the concept of a vow. Just as a vow can determine how property may be used even after it leaves the domain of the person who took the vow, so, too, the father can determine how his property may be used even after it leaves his domain.
This ruling teaches that even though it is to the husband's benefit that his wife eats or is clothed - indeed, he is responsible to provide for these needs of hers - the husband is not considered to have benefited from this present (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Nedarim 11:8).
56.
In this instance, even though the specific purpose for which the present was given was not stated at the outset, when the woman decides what she desires to do with the present, retroactively, it is as if it was given for that purpose alone.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this point, noting that although the law stated in the first clause is accepted by all authorities, the one stated in this clause is the subject of a difference of opinion between the Sages Rav and Shmuel in Nedarim 88b. The Rambam's ruling follows the opinion of Shmuel although generally, with regard to matters involving the Torah's prohibitions, the halachah follows that of Rav. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh state that other Rishonim also follow Shmuel's perspective and give logical support for it. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 222:1) quotes both views without stating which should be followed.
57.
See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 3:13. The rationale is that the giver does not have the prerogative of negating the rights given the husband by the Rabbis.
58.
Nevertheless, the present is binding. The husband should purchase something that brings income with the money. That article belongs to his wife. He should give the proceeds to charity, since he is not allowed to benefit from them (Radbaz)
Nedarim - Chapter 8
Halacha 1
When a person takes a vow or an oath and at the time of the vow or the oath specifies a stipulation for which he is making the vow, it is as if he made the vow or the oath dependent on that matter. If the stipulation for which he took the oath is not fulfilled, he is permitted [to act is if the oath had never been taken].1
Halacha 2
What is implied? If he took an oath or vow saying: "I will not marry this-and-this woman whose father is evil" or "I will not enter this house, because there is a harmful dog within it," if they died or the father repented, he may [do so]. This is comparable to someone who says "I will not marry so-and-so..." or "...not enter this house unless the harmful factor is removed."2 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
[A different rationale applies] when one takes a vow or an oath: "I will not marry so-and-so who is ugly," and it is discovered that she is beautiful,3"...who is dark-skinned," and it is discovered that she is light-skinned, "...who is short," and it is discovered that she is tall, or "I am taking a vow that my wife shall not benefit from me, because she took my wallet and beat my son," and it was discovered that she did not take it or beat him. He is permitted, because the vow was taken in error. It is included among the category of inadvertent vows that are permitted.4 This does not resemble an instance where the vow was made dependent on a stipulation and that stipulation was not kept.5 For the reason for which the vow was taken never applied. Instead, it was an error [of perception].
Halacha 4
Moreover,6 even if a person saw from a distance that people were partaking of his figs and he said [concerning] them: "They are like a sacrifice for you,"7but when he came close to them and looked [at them], he saw that they were his father and his brothers, they are permitted [to partake of them]. Even though he did not explicitly state the reason why he took a vow [forbidding] them, it is as if he did. For it is obvious that he forbade his produce to them only because he thought they were people at large.8 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 5
When a person took a vow or an oath and then a factor came up that was not in his mind at the time he took the oath or the vow, he is forbidden [in the matter] until he requests a sage to release his vow.
What is implied? A person forbade himself from benefiting from so-and-so or from entering this-and-this place and that person became the city scribe9 or a synagogue was made at that place.10 Even though he said "If I knew that this person would become the scribe or that in this place a synagogue would be made, I would not have taken the vow or the oath," he is forbidden to benefit [from the person] or enter the place until he has his vow released, as we explained.11 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 6
Whenever a portion of a vow is nullified, the entire vow is nullified.12 This law also applies with regard to oaths.
What is implied? A person saw from a distance that people were partaking of his figs and he said [concerning] them: "They are like a sacrifice for you," but when he came close to them and looked [at them], he saw that they were his father and people at large. Since his father is permitted [to partake of them],13they are all permitted.14 Even if he said: "So-and-so and so-and-so are forbidden and my father is permitted, they are all permitted.15
If, however, when he reached them he said: "If I would have known that my father is with you, I would have said: 'You are all forbidden [to partake of my produce], except my father,' they are all forbidden except his father. For he revealed his intent was not to release a portion of his vow,16 but to make a vow as he did, but to make a stipulation concerning his father.17
Halacha 7
Similar [laws apply] when one says: "Wine is like a sacrifice18 for me, because wine is bad for digestion," but he was told: "Aged wine is good for digestion." If he said: "Had I known, I would not have taken the vow" or even: "Had I known, I would have said: 'Fresh wine is forbidden, but aged wine is permitted,' he is permitted [to drink] both fresh wine and aged wine.19 If, however, he said: "Had I known, I would have said: 'All wine is forbidden for me except aged wine,' he is permitted [to drink] only aged wine.20Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 8
Whenever a person takes a vow or an oath, we consider the motivating factor for the oath or the vow and extrapolate from it what the person's intent was. We follow his intent, not the literal meaning of his words.21
What is implied? He was carrying a load of wool or of linen and was perspiring, causing a foul odor. If he took an oath or a vow that he would never have wool or linen upon him again, he is permitted to wear woolen or linen clothes and cover himself with them. He is only forbidden to carry them on his back like a burden.
If he was wearing woolen clothing and became aggravated because of these garments and took an oath or a vow that he would never have wool upon him again, he is forbidden to wear [woolen clothes], but is permitted to carry wool and to cover himself with woolen spreads. For he intended only [to forbid] woolen clothes. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 9
[Similar laws apply if] people were asking him to marry his relative,22 but he refused and they pressured him, so he took a vow or an oath that she could not benefit from him forever. Alternatively, a person divorced his wife and took an oath that she would never benefit from him. These women are permitted to derive [ordinary] benefit from him. His intent was that only [to prevent himself from] marrying them.
Halacha 10
Similarly, if a person called to his friend, [inviting him] to eat at his [home] and he took an oath or a vow not to enter his home or even drink cold water of his, he is permitted to enter his home and drink his water. His intent was only that he would not eat and drink with him at that feast.23 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 11
When a person takes a vow or an oath, telling a colleague: "I will never enter your house" or "...buy your field," and [that colleague] dies or sells [the property] to someone else, [the person who took the vow] is permitted to enter the house or purchase the field from the heir or from the purchaser.24 His intent [when establishing the prohibition] was only for the time they belonged to [the original owner].25
If, by contrast, he said: "I will never enter this house" or "I will never purchase this field," even if [the original owner] dies or sells [the property] to someone else, [the person who took the vow] is forbidden.26
Halacha 12
[The following laws apply when a person] asks a colleague: "Lend me your cow," he answers him: "She is not free," and [the first person] takes an oath or a vow,27 saying: "I will never plow my field with it." If he is accustomed to plowing his field himself, he is forbidden to plow [his field with that cow], but any other person is permitted to plow [his field] with it.28 If he is not accustomed to plowing his field himself, both he and everyone else is forbidden to plow [his field] with it.29Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 13
When a person takes an oath or a vow that he will marry a woman, purchase a house,30 depart with a caravan, or set out to sea, we do not obligate him to marry, make the purchase, or set out immediately. Instead, he may wait until he finds something appropriate for himself.
An incident occurred concerning a woman who took a vow that she would marry anyone who asked her to marry him. Men who were not appropriate for her jumped at the opportunity. Our Sages ruled that her intent was [to marry] anyone from among those appropriate for her who asked her. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 14
When a person administers a vow to a colleague or takes an oath telling him to come and take a kor of wheat or two barrels of wine for his son, [the colleague] can release the vow without asking a sage to do so. [He need only] say: "Your intent was only to honor me.31 It is a greater token of respect for me not to take [the gift].32 I already received the honor that you desired to give me through your vow."
Similarly, if one took an oath or a vow: "You may not derive any benefit from me until you give my son a kor of wheat and two barrels of wine, he can release the vow without asking a sage to do so. [He need only] say: "It is as if I received them and they reached my hand." Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
FOOTNOTES
1.
He need not seek the release of the oath (Radbaz). This law applies with regard to vows as well.
2.
Even though the father dies or repents after the vow was taken, with his death or repentance, the vow is nullified, because the conditions under which it was taken no longer apply.
3.
If, however, she was ugly at the time the vow was taken, but was made beautiful, the vow takes effect [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 232:6)].
4.
See Chapter 4, Halachah 1, which states that such vows are not binding.
5.
As described in the first two halachot.
6.
I.e., the previous halachah describes an instance where one explicitly stated the condition under which he took the vow. This halachah, by contrast, describes a situation where the condition is not stated, but is self-apparent.
7.
Which would cause them to be forbidden to eat the figs.
8.
And thus the vow was taken in error.
9.
And everyone in the city needs the scribe to compose legal documents for him. Hence, he no longer desires to be forbidden to benefit from him.
10.
And everyone desires to be able to enter the local synagogue.
11.
Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:5, 12. As stated there, the vow was not made initially in error, for at the outset, he did not desire that the person become the scribe. Hence, the oath takes effect.
The Ra'avad suggests that the statement from Halachah 3: "This does not resemble an instance where the vow was made dependent on a stipulation and that stipulation was not kept" should be included here, for this is a different category of vows than those mentioned in the previous halachot.
12.
The Jerusalem Talmud, Nedarim 1:1 derives this from the exegesis of Numbers 30:3: "He shall do all that he utters from his mouth." Implied is that everything that he utters must be fulfilled or the vow does not take effect. Rabbenu Nissim gives a logical explanation for this concept. At the outset, his intent was that the vow would be kept in its entirety. If a factor arose that prevented that from taking place, it is as if the vow was taken in error.
13.
As explained in Halachah 4.
14.
Because the prohibition against them was mentioned in the same vow.
15.
Because the vow was taken against all of the persons together. Hence, it cannot be nullified only in part.
16.
For even when qualifying his statement, he still says that all of the individuals are forbidden, indicating that he did not desire to retract his original statement (Kessef Mishneh). In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 232:8), Rav Yosef Caro appears to follow a slightly different rationale.
17.
I.e., that the prohibition would not include his father.
18.
I.e., forbidden.
19.
The portion of the vow involving aged wine is nullified, because it was taken in error. And accordingly, the portion involving fresh wine is also nullified, based on the principle stated in the previous halachah.
20.
For he did not seek to nullify his former vow, merely to qualify it, as stated in the conclusion of the previous halachah.
21.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 218:1) emphasizes that this applies when a person takes a vow on his own initiative. If, however, he takes a vow in response to wording chosen by a colleague, we follow the meaning of that wording.
22.
For it is desirable that a person marry his relatives (see Yevamot 62b).
23.
The Radbaz states that he is even permitted to enter his home at the time of the feast.
24.
For it is no longer the colleague's house or field (Siftei Cohen 216:10).
25.
As emphasized by the fact that he said: "Your house" and "Your field."
26.
For in this instance, the vow was not associated with the owner of the property, but with the property itself. Compare to Chapter 5, Halachot 4-5.
27.
As an expression of resentment for the owner's refusal (Kessef Mishneh).
28.
Since he is accustomed to plowing his field himself, we assume that his vow applied only to his own actions.
29.
Since he is not accustomed to plowing his field himself, we interpret his vow as meaning that he would never have another person plow the field with it.
30.
Although the standard published text of Bava Kama 80a mentions purchasing a house or marrying a woman in Eretz Yisrael, the commentaries [nor the Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 219:1)] see no reason why the Holy Land is different from other places in this regard.
31.
By giving me a present in public.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 332:20) states that the person who administered the vow need not explicitly agree to this interpretation. Even if he remains silent, we accept it. The Siftei Cohen 332:46 states that if the person specifically says that he administered the vow so that he would receive honor by having the other person receive a gift from him, his word is accepted and a sage must be approached to have the vow released.
32.
For people seeing that I demur will respect me more.
Nedarim - Chapter 9
Halacha 1
With regard to vows, we follow the intent of the words people use at that place, in that language, and at that time when the vow or oath was taken.1
What is implied? A person took a vow or an oath not [to partake of] cooked food. If it was customary in that place in that language and at that time to call roasted meat and boiled meat2 also cooked food, he is forbidden to partake of all types of cooked food. If they were accustomed to use the term cooked food only to refer to meat cooked with water and spices, he is permitted [to partake of] roasted meat or boiled meat. Similarly, with regard to smoked food or food cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias. We follow the terminology used by the people of that city.
Halacha 2
[The following rules apply if a person] took a vow or an oath not to partake of salted foods. If it is customary to call all salted foods "salted food," he is forbidden to partake of all of them.3 If it is customary to use the term "salted food" to refer only to salted fish, he is only forbidden to partake of salted fish.
Halacha 3
[The following rules apply if a person] took a vow or an oath not to partake of pickled foods. If it is customary to call all pickled foods "pickled food," he is forbidden to partake of all of them.4 If it is customary to use the term "pickled food" to refer only to pickled vegetables, he is only forbidden to partake of pickled vegetables. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 4
If some of the people would refer to food with one term and others would not use that term, we do not follow [the practice of] the majority. Instead, it is considered an unresolved question with regard to his vow. And whenever there is an unresolved question with regard to a vow, we rule stringently.5 If one violates the vow, however, he is not worthy of lashes.6
Halacha 5
What is implied? A person takes a vow [not to partake] of oil in a place where both olive oil and sesame seed oil is used. When most people from that place use the term "oil" without any modifier, they mean olive oil. When they refer to sesame seed oil, they call it "sesame seed oil." A minority of the populace, however, also refer to sesame seed oil with the term "oil" without a modifier. [Hence,] he is forbidden to partake of both of them, but is not liable for lashes for [partaking of] sesame seed oil. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 6
Whenever an agent in a given locale would have to question [the principal if that was his intent], it is considered in the category of the substance that was mentioned to the agent when [the term is mentioned] without a modifier.
What is implied? In a place where if a person would send an agent to buy meat without using a modifier to describe the term, the agent would tell him: "I found only fish [being sold],"7 [a person who took a vow not to partake of meat] is forbidden to partake of fish as well.8 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
In all places, a person who takes a vow [not to partake] of meat is forbidden to partake of fowl and of the entrails,9 but is permitted to partake of grasshoppers.10 If it appears that at the time he took the vow, his intent was only to forbid meat from an animal - or meat from an animal and fowl - he is permitted [to partake] of fish even in a place where an agent would question [if fish would be considered as meat].11
Halacha 7
When a person takes a vow against partaking of cooked food, he is permitted to partake of an egg that has not been cooked until it hardens, but has merely been soft-boiled.12 When a person takes a vow [not to partake of food] boiled lightly in a pot,13 he is only forbidden [to partake] of those foods that are boiled in a pot, e.g., groats, dumplings, and the like.14 If he forbade himself from partaking of anything placed in a pot, he is forbidden to partake of all food cooked in a pot.
Halacha 8
A person who vows [not to partake] of fish is permitted to partake of brine and a dip made with fish oil.15 A person who vows [not to partake] of milk is permitted to partake of the whey, i.e., the liquid that is separated from the milk. If he vows [not to partake] of whey, he is permitted to partake of milk. If he vows [not to partake] of cheese, he is forbidden to partake of both salted cheese and unsalted cheese.16
Halacha 9
A person who vows not to partake of grains of wheat is forbidden to partake of wheat kernels whether they are fresh or cooked. If he says: "Neither wheat, nor grains of wheat will I taste,"17 he is forbidden to partake of either flour or bread. "I will not taste wheat," he is forbidden to partake of baked goods, but permitted to chew kernels of wheat. If he states: "I will not partake of grains of wheat," he is permitted to partake of baked goods, but forbidden to chew kernels of wheat. If he says: "Neither wheat, nor grains of wheat will I taste," he is forbidden to partake of baked goods, nor may he chew kernels of wheat. When a person takes a vow forbidding himself from partaking of grain, he is forbidden only [to partake of] the five species.18
Halacha 10
When a person takes a vow [not to partake of] green vegetables, he is permitted to partake of squash.19 If he takes a vow [not to partake of] leek, he is permitted to partake of the poret.20
If a person takes a vow [not to partake of] cabbage, he is forbidden to partake of the water cooked with cabbage, for the water in which food is cooked is considered as the food itself.21 If, however, he vowed not to partake of the water in which a food is cooked, he may partake of the cooked food itself.22
A person who takes a vow [not to partake of] sauce is permitted [to partake of] the spices. [One who takes a vow not to partake] of the spices is permitted [to partake of] the sauce. One who takes a vow [not to partake of] groats23 is forbidden [to partake of] the thick sauce produced by the groats.24
Halacha 11
A person who takes a vow [not to partake of] the produce of the earth is forbidden to partake of all the produce of the earth,25 but is permitted [to partake of] fungi and mushrooms.26 If he says: "Everything that grows upon the earth is [forbidden] to me," he is forbidden to partake of even fungi and mushrooms. [The rationale is that] although they do not derive their nurture from the earth, they grow upon the earth.
Halacha 12
When a person takes a vow forbidding himself from partaking of the produce of a particular year, he is forbidden to partake of all the produce of that year. He is, however, permitted to partake of kid-goats, lambs, milk, eggs, and, chicks.27 If, however, he said: "All of the products of a given year are [forbidden] to me," he is forbidden to partake of all of them.28
When a person takes a vow forbidding himself from partaking of the fruits of the kayitz, he is forbidden only to partake of figs.29
Halacha 13
In all of the above - and in analogous instances - follow this general principle: With regard to vows, we follow the intent of the words people use at that place, in that language, and at that time when the vow or oath was taken.30Based on this principle, one should rule and say: "The person who took the vow is forbidden [to benefit from] these entities and permitted [to benefit from] these entities."
Halacha 14
When a person takes a vow [not to partake of grapes], he is permitted to partake of wine, even fresh wine.31 [If he takes a vow not to partake] of olives, he is permitted to partake of oil. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of dates, he is permitted to partake of date-honey. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of grapes that blossom in the fall,32 he is permitted to partake of vinegar that is produced from them.33
If he takes a vow not to partake] of wine, he is permitted to partake of apple wine. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of oil, he is permitted to partake of sesame seed oil. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of honey,34 he is permitted to partake of date honey. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of vinegar, he is permitted to partake of vinegar produced from grapes that blossom in the fall. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of vegetables, he is permitted to partake of vegetables that grow on their own.35 [The rationale for all of these rulings is] that [the names of] all these substances have a modifier36 and [when] the person took the vow, he referred to the substance without a modifier. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 15
When a person takes a vow not to wear clothing, he is permitted [to cover himself] with sackcloth,37 a coarsely woven thick fabric,38 a thick sheet used as a rainshield.39
[When a person takes a vow not to enter] a house, he is forbidden to enter its loft. For the loft is part of the house. [If he] takes a vow [not to enter] a loft, he is permitted [to enter] the home.
[When a person takes a vow not to] use a dargeish,40 he is permitted [to use] a bed. [If he takes a vow not to use] a bed, he is forbidden to use a dargeish, because it is like a small bed.
Halacha 16
Halacha 17
When a person takes a vow not to benefit from the residents of a city and a person comes and lives there for twelve months, it is forbidden for the person who took the vow to benefit from him.43 If he stays for a lesser time, it is permitted.
If he takes a vow from those who dwell in a city, he is forbidden to benefit from anyone who dwells there for 30 days. He is permitted to benefit from one who dwells there for a lesser period.44
Halacha 18
When a person takes a vow [not to benefit] from the water that flows from this-and-this spring, he is forbidden [to benefit] from all the rivers that derive nurture from it. Needless to say, this refers to those that flow directly from it. Although the name [of the body of water] has changed and it is now called "the So-and-So River" or "the So-and-So well," and we do not associate it at all with the name of the spring concerning which a vow was taken, since it is the source for these bodies of water, he is forbidden to benefit from all of them. If, however, a person takes a vow [not to benefit] from this-and-this river or spring, he is only forbidden [to benefit] from those rivers called by that name.
Halacha 19
When a person takes a vow not [to benefit] from sea-farers,45 he is permitted [to benefit] from those who dwell on the land. When he takes a vow not [to benefit] from those who dwell on the land, he is forbidden [to benefit] from sea-farers even though they set out to the Mediterranean Sea. For sea-farers are considered as among those who dwell on land.46
When he takes a vow not [to benefit] from those who see the sun, he is forbidden to benefit from the blind.47 For his intent was those who are seen by the sun. If he takes a vow not [to benefit] from those who are dark-haired, he is forbidden to benefit from men who are bald and grey-haired48 and permitted to benefit from women49 and children.50 If it customary to refer to all people as dark-haired, he is forbidden to benefit from everyone.
Halacha 20
When a person takes a vow not [to benefit] from those who rest on the Sabbath, he is forbidden [to benefit] from Jews and Samaritans.51 One who takes a vow not [to benefit] from those who make pilgrimages to Jerusalem is forbidden to benefit from the Jews and permitted to benefit from Samaritans. For his intent was to include only those for whom it is a mitzvah to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.52
When one takes a vow not [to benefit] from the descendants of Noah, he is permitted to benefit from the Jews.53 For the term "descendants of Noah" is used only to refer to members of other nations.
Halacha 21
When a person takes a vow not [to benefit] from the descendants of Abraham, he is permitted [to benefit] from the descendants of Yishmael and the descendants of Esau.54 He is forbidden to benefit only from the Jews,55 as [indicated by Genesis 21:12]: "Through Isaac, your offspring will be called."56And Isaac told Jacob [ibid. 28:4]: "And I will give you the blessing of Abraham."57
Halacha 22
When a person takes a vow not [to benefit] from uncircumcised individuals, he is forbidden [to benefit] from circumcised gentiles,58 but is permitted [to benefit] from uncircumcised Jews. If he takes a vow not [to benefit] from circumcised individuals, he is forbidden [to benefit] from uncircumcised Jews, but is permitted [to benefit] from circumcised gentiles.
[The rationale is that] the foreskin is identified with the gentiles, as [Jeremiah 9:25] states: "For all the gentiles are uncircumcised. His intent is only to refer to those who are commanded concerning the circumcision and not to those who were not commanded concerning it.
Halacha 23
When a person takes a vow not [to benefit] from the Jewish people, he is forbidden [to benefit] from converts. [When a person takes a vow not to benefit] from converts, he is permitted [to benefit] from natural born Jews. When he takes a vow [not to benefit] from Israelites, he is forbidden [to benefit] from priests and Levites.59 [When he vows not to benefit] from the priests and the Levites, he is permitted to benefit from an Israelite. [When he vows not to benefit] from the priests, he is permitted to benefit from the Levites.60 [When he vows not to benefit] from the Levites, he is permitted to benefit from the priests. [When he vows not to benefit] from his sons, he is permitted to benefit from his grandchildren.61In all these and analogous matters, the laws regarding those who take a vow and an oath are the same.
FOOTNOTES
1.
The Rambam's rationale is that since everything depends on the person's intent, it is logical to assume that the meaning of his statements follows the usage common at that time and place. See also Halachah 13.
One might ask: If so, why in the halachot that follow does the Rambam set out guidelines with regard to vows. The Radbaz (in his gloss to Halachah 13) explains that these guidelines should be followed only in places where there is no clarity regarding the expressions commonly used.
2.
I.e., boiled without spices (Rav Avraham MinHaHar).
3.
Although the Rambam's ruling runs contrary to the statements of the Mishnah (Nedarim6:2), the Rambam relies on the principle that the determinant factor in values is the meaning attached to the terms used by people at that time and in that place. TheShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 217:3) follows the Rambam's approach.
4.
Although the Rambam's ruling runs contrary to the statements of the Mishnah (Nedarim6:2), the Rambam relies on the principle that the determinant factor in values is the meaning attached to the terms used by people at that time and in that place. TheShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 217:3) follows the Rambam's approach.
5.
Since there is a possibility that a prohibition is involved, we must rule stringently.
6.
For corporal punishment is inflicted only when we are certain that a prohibition has been violated.
7.
I.e., he is not certain whether the principal's intent when telling him to buy meat was to buy fish or not.
8.
For in that locale, it is possible that it is referred to as "meat."
9.
For they are generally referred to as meat.
10.
For they are not. In the present age, this principle also applies to fish. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 217:8) goes further and states that even fowl is not usually implied by the term "meat."
11.
The commentaries have noted that the Rambam's ruling is not entirely identical with that of his source (Nedarim 54a). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 8:1), the Rambam explains this difficulty, stating that the meanings of terms used today are different than the meanings used for the same terms in the Talmudic period.
12.
See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 6:1).
13.
This is the implication of the Hebrew term used by the Rambam [Bayit Chadash(Yoreh De'ah 217)].
14.
E.g., porridge (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.). See also Hilchot Berachot 3:4 which discusses these terms.
15.
See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 6:3).
16.
In the Talmudic and Rabbinic era, most hard cheeses were salted to preserve them.
17.
The term chittim is plural, implying many kernels of grain. Chitah is singular, referring not to a single kernel, but rather to a single entity made from wheat flour (Rabbenu Nissim, as cited by the Kessef Mishneh).
18.
I.e., wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt. Other grains, e.g., rice and millet, are not included.
19.
For in Talmudic terminology, the term green vegetable refers to vegetables that are eaten raw and squash must be cooked.
20.
These two species of vegetables are similar, but not identical. Therefore, the Rambam feels it necessary to make this clarification. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim5:7), he uses the same Arabic term to define the two species but explains that the latter is more commonly grown in Eretz Yisrael.
21.
For through the cooking process, it takes on the flavor of the food (see Berachot 39a;Hilchot Berachot 8:4). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 5:8), the Rambam maintains that this is the meaning of the first clause of that mishnah. Rashi and others, while accepting this principle, interpret that clause differently.
22.
For there is obviously a difference between the food and the liquid in which it was cooked.
23.
I.e., ground beans (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.).
24.
For it has the flavor of the groats.
25.
Not only vegetables, but fruit as well [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 217:23)].
26.
Our Rabbis explain that the terms refer to species that have little botanical difference between them. The first term refers to those mushrooms which grow on the earth and the second, to those which grow in trees. The rationale is that, as the Rambam states, these fungi do not have roots. Thus they do not derive their nurture from the earth, but from the atmosphere (see Nedarim 55b;Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 7:4).
27.
The Hebrew word peirot can also be interpreted as: "benefit accruing from." Thus these entities could be included in the term. Nevertheless, since this is not the popular usage, they are not included.
28.
The Siftei Cohen 217:31 explains that this applies only when it is possible for a person to abide by this prohibition. If, however, the vow prevents him from eating enough to maintain his wellbeing, it is nullified.
29.
The term kayitz has a specific meaning "fruit harvested by hand," rather than cut from the tree with a knife. Therefore, it refers to the fig harvest alone (Nedarim 61b).
30.
As stated in Halachah 1. The Radbaz explains that the only reason the Rambam mentioned all the principles in the above and following halachot is to clarify the guidelines set forth by our Sages. They should be followed only in places where there is no clarity regarding the expressions commonly used.
31.
Even though the wine tastes the same as grapes, since it is called by a different name, it is not considered in the same category (Siftei Cohen 216:27). This principle is reflected in all the rulings of this halachah: As long as an entity has a different name, even if its flavor is the same as another entity and even their substance is fundamentally the same, they are considered as different entities with regard to vows.
32.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim6:6) explains that these grapes are not fit to be eaten and instead, are used to produce vinegar.
33.
The substances produced by the fruit are considered as being different from the fruit itself.
34.
Although the Torah uses the term honey to refer to date-honey, in common usage, everyone understands the term as referring to bee honey (Siftei Cohen 217:22).
35.
The Siftei Cohen 217:15 states that in the present age, people do not make such a distinction when referring to these vegetables.
36.
I.e., they are not referred to by the name of the substance as it is used without a modifier.
37.
This term refers to a weave from goat's hair (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Nedarim 7:3).
38.
This translation is taken from the above source.
39.
This translation is also taken from the above source. The rationale is that none of these fabrics are considered as garments.
40.
A small bed that is placed before a larger bed to use as a stepstool for the larger bed (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Nedarim 7:4).
41.
The area 2000 cubits around the city. SeeHilchot Shabbat 27:1-2.
In other contexts, this area - and indeed, even further removed places - are considered as part of a city. With regard to vows, this is not the case, for we follow the terminology people commonly used (Siftei Cohen 217:35).
42.
This term refers to homes that are located within 70 cubits of each other on the perimeter of the city. As long as they are within that distance of another home, they are considered as part of the city itself (Hilchot Shabbat 28:1; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Nedarim, loc. cit.).
Nedarim 56b derives these concepts from the exegesis of Biblical verses. Joshua 5:13states: "And while Joshua was in Jericho" and describes an event that took place while the Jews were camp on the outer reaches of the city. And when speaking about measuring the area 2000 cubits around a city, Numbers 35:5 speaks of measuring "outside the city."
43.
Note the parallel to Hilchot Shechenim 6:5 which states that a person who lives in a city for twelve months becomes obligated to pay all the city's levies.
44.
See the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 217:32) and theSiftei Cohen 217:37 who emphasizes that if the common terminology used at present is different, the laws are dependent on the current usages.
45.
This term refers to people who set out on extended journeys, not on short jaunts.
46.
For they do not remain on an ocean journey forever and ultimately, return home.
47.
Even though they cannot see the sun.
48.
For this term is generally used to refer to men, even if they do not have dark hair.
49.
For they are referred to as being "covered-haired" (Rabbeinu Nissim).
50.
For they are referred to as being "uncovered-haired" (ibid.).
51.
This term refers to the people brought by the Assyrians to settle in Samaria after they exiled the Ten Tribes. At first, they converted and observed the rudiments of Judaism. Afterwards, however, they became like gentiles entirely.
52.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim3:8), the Rambam explains that the Samaritans despise Jerusalem and make their pilgrimages to Mount Gerizim instead. The Merkevat HaMishnah explains that since the Samaritans are converts, they do not have a right to a portion in Eretz Yisrael. Hence they are not obligated to ascend to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage festivals (seeHilchot Ma'aser Sheni 11:15).
53.
Although the Jews are also of Noah's descendants, they are not popularly referred to with that term.
54.
Although actually, both of these nations descended from Abraham, Yishmael being Abraham's son and Esau, Isaac's.
55.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 217:40) states that this includes converts.
56.
Thus excluding Yishmael and his descendants.
57.
Thus excluding Esau and his descendants. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim3:11), the Rambam adds another point. In the covenant God made with Abraham bein habetarim, he was told that his descendants would be "strangers in a foreign land" and only Jacob's descendants - not those of Esau or Yishmael - were subjected to this decree.
58.
This includes both gentiles who circumcise themselves for health reasons and those - like the Arabs - who circumcise themselves for religious reasons. The rationale is that the majority of gentiles and uncircumcised and the person made his statements with the intent of referring to the majority. See the Commentary of Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura to Nedarim, loc. cit.
59.
For when the term Israelite is used, it refers to the entire Jewish people as a collective. As Yoma 66a states: "Are not the priests part of Your nation Israel?"
60.
Even though in the Torah, the priests are identified as Levites at times (Deuteronomy 17:9, et al), we follow the wording used by people at large (Radbaz).
61.
Although Yevamot 62b states that grandchildren are considered as children, that is not the meaning employed by people at large (Radbaz).
---------------------
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• "Today's Day"
Tuesday, Adar I 28, 5776 · 08 March 2016
Friday 28 Adar I 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayakheil, Shishi.
Tehillim: 135-139.
Tanya: Even with regard (p. 147)...of ch. 16). (p. 147).
In the sh'ma before retiring (p. 118): On Shabbat and Festivals we do not say Ribono shel olam or lam'natzei'ach (p. 122). But we do say them on other days that tachanun is not said. After the three paragraphs of sh'ma (p. 120), add the word"emet." Ya'alzu is said once. Hinei and y'varech'cha are said three times. In tikun chatzot do not saylam'natzei'ach...b'vo on days tachanun is omitted.
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• "Today's Day"
Tuesday, Adar I 28, 5776 · 08 March 2016
Friday 28 Adar I 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayakheil, Shishi.
Tehillim: 135-139.
Tanya: Even with regard (p. 147)...of ch. 16). (p. 147).
In the sh'ma before retiring (p. 118): On Shabbat and Festivals we do not say Ribono shel olam or lam'natzei'ach (p. 122). But we do say them on other days that tachanun is not said. After the three paragraphs of sh'ma (p. 120), add the word"emet." Ya'alzu is said once. Hinei and y'varech'cha are said three times. In tikun chatzot do not saylam'natzei'ach...b'vo on days tachanun is omitted.
---------------------• Daily Thought;
Healthy Contributions
A team, a society, a world is healthy when each member says, “If I don’t add in my two bits, the whole system will fail.”
Not just any two bits, but the two bits that belong to you alone.
No one is here just because everyone else is here. No system can function from the top down alone.
Because each of us—and everything that was created—has a spark of the Divine. So that each of us is all of us.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment