CHABAD - TODAY IN JUDAISM: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - Today is: Tuesday, 19 Adar II, 5776 · March 29, 2016
Today in Jewish History:
• Israel Secures Ein Gedi (1949)
Following the War of Independence, Israel needed to secure its borders against the hostile Arab nations which surrounded it. Ein Gedi, on the western shore of the Dead Sea, was secured on Sunday, March 20, 1949.
Link:
War of Independence
Daily Quote:
Fundamental to our faith is the belief that every event in a person's life is by Divine Providence. So expressions such as "If only I had...," "If only I hadn't..." smack of heresy[Rabbi Sholom DovBer of Lubavitch (1860-1920)]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Parshat Shemini, 3rd Portion (Leviticus 9:24-10:11) with Rashi
• Leviticus Chapter 9
24And fire went forth from before the Lord and consumed the burnt offering and the fats upon the altar, and all the people saw, sang praises, and fell upon their faces. כדוַתֵּ֤צֵא אֵשׁ֙ מִלִּפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה וַתֹּ֨אכַל֙ עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ אֶת־הָֽעֹלָ֖ה וְאֶת־הַֽחֲלָבִ֑ים וַיַּ֤רְא כָּל־הָעָם֙ וַיָּרֹ֔נּוּ וַיִּפְּל֖וּ עַל־פְּנֵיהֶֽם:
and sang praises: Heb. ויַָּרֹנּוּ, as Targum [Onkelos] renders it [namely, “and they praised” God]. וירנו: כתרגומו:
Leviticus Chapter 10
1And Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, each took his pan, put fire in them, and placed incense upon it, and they brought before the Lord foreign fire, which He had not commanded them. אוַיִּקְח֣וּ בְנֵי־אַֽ֠הֲרֹ֠ן נָדָ֨ב וַֽאֲבִיה֜וּא אִ֣ישׁ מַחְתָּת֗וֹ וַיִּתְּנ֤וּ בָהֵן֙ אֵ֔שׁ וַיָּשִׂ֥ימוּ עָלֶ֖יהָ קְטֹ֑רֶת וַיַּקְרִ֜יבוּ לִפְנֵ֤י יְהֹוָה֙ אֵ֣שׁ זָרָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֧ר לֹ֦א צִוָּ֖ה אֹתָֽם:
2And fire went forth from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. בוַתֵּ֥צֵא אֵ֛שׁ מִלִּפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה וַתֹּ֣אכַל אוֹתָ֑ם וַיָּמֻ֖תוּ לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:
And fire went forth: Rabbi Eliezer says: Aaron’s sons died only because they rendered halachic decisions in the presence of Moses, their teacher. Rabbi Ishmael says: [They died because] they had entered the sanctuary after having drunk wine. The proof is that after their death, [Scripture] admonished the survivors that they may not enter the sanctuary after having drunk wine. This is analogous to a king who had a faithful attendant. [When he found him standing at tavern entrances, he severed his head in silence and appointed another attendant in his place. We would not know why he put the first to death, but for his enjoining the second thus, “You must not enter the doorway of taverns,” from which we know that for such a reason he had put the first one to death. Thus [it is said], “And fire went forth from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.” But we would not know why they [Nadab and Abihu] died, but for His commanding Aaron, “Do not drink wine that will lead to intoxication.” We know from this that they died precisely on account of the wine. For this reason Scripture showed love to Aaron by directing the divine utterance to him alone, thus, “Do not drink wine that will lead to intoxication,”] as recounted in Vayikra Rabbah (12:1). ותצא אש: רבי אליעזר אומר לא מתו בני אהרן אלא על ידי שהורו הלכה בפני משה רבן. רבי ישמעאל אומר שתויי יין נכנסו למקדש, תדע שאחר מיתתן הזהיר הנותרים שלא יכנסו שתויי יין למקדש. משל למלך, שהיה לו בן בית וכו', כדאיתא בויקרא רבה:
3Then Moses said to Aaron, "This is what the Lord spoke, [when He said], 'I will be sanctified through those near to Me, and before all the people I will be glorified.' " And Aaron was silent. גוַיֹּ֨אמֶר משֶׁ֜ה אֶל־אַֽהֲרֹ֗ן ה֩וּא אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֨ר יְהֹוָ֤ה | לֵאמֹר֙ בִּקְרֹבַ֣י אֶקָּדֵ֔שׁ וְעַל־פְּנֵ֥י כָל־הָעָ֖ם אֶכָּבֵ֑ד וַיִּדֹּ֖ם אַֽהֲרֹֽן:
This is what the Lord spoke: But when did He speak? [It was when He said], “And I will meet with the children of Israel, and it will be sanctified through My glory (בִּכְבוֹדִי) ” (Exod. 29:43). Do not read בִּכְבוֹדִי, “through My glory,” but בִּמְכֻבָּדַי, “through My honorable ones.” Moses said to Aaron, “Aaron, my brother! I knew that this House was to be sanctified through the beloved ones of the Omnipresent, but I thought it would be either through me or through you. Now I see that they [Nadab and Abihu] were greater than I or you!”- [Vayikra Rabbah 12:2] הוא אשר דבר וגו': היכן דבר ונועדתי שמה לבני ישראל ונקדש בכבודי (שמות כט מג). אל תקרי בכבודי אלא במכובדי. אמר לו משה לאהרן אהרן אחי יודע הייתי שיתקדש הבית במיודעיו של מקום והייתי סבור או בי או בך, עכשיו רואה אני שהם גדולים ממני וממך:
And Aaron was silent: [and did not complain. Consequently,] he was rewarded for his silence. And what reward did he receive? That God addressed him exclusively in the [ensuing] passage regarding those who drink wine [as verse 8 says, “And the Lord spoke to Aaron, saying…”]. — [Vayikra Rabbah 12:2] וידם אהרן: קבל שכר על שתיקתו. ומה שכר קבל, שנתייחד עמו הדיבור, שנאמרה לו לבדו פרשת שתויי יין:
with those near to Me: [I.e.,] My chosen ones. בקרבי: בבחירי:
and before all the people I will be glorified: When the Holy One, blessed is He, exacts judgment upon the righteous, He becomes feared, exalted, and praised. Now, if this is so concerning the righteous, how much more is it so concerning the wicked! Similarly, the verse says “You are awesome, O God, from Your sanctuaries (מִמִּקְדָּשֶׁי) ” (Ps. 68:36). Do not read מִמִּקְדָּשֶׁי “from Your sanctuaries,” but מִמְּקֻדָּשֶׁי, “because of Your sanctified ones.” - [Zev. 115b] ועל פני כל העם אכבד: כשהקב"ה עושה דין בצדיקים מתיירא ומתעלה ומתקלס, אם כן באלו, כל שכן ברשעים, וכן הוא אומר (תהלים סח לו) נורא א-להים ממקדשיך, אל תקרא ממקדשיך אלא ממקודשיך:
4And Moses summoned Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Aaron's uncle Uzziel, and said to them, "Draw near; carry your kinsmen from within the Sanctuary, to the outside of the camp. דוַיִּקְרָ֣א משֶׁ֗ה אֶל־מִֽישָׁאֵל֙ וְאֶ֣ל אֶלְצָפָ֔ן בְּנֵ֥י עֻזִּיאֵ֖ל דֹּ֣ד אַֽהֲרֹ֑ן וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֗ם קִ֠רְב֞וּ שְׂא֤וּ אֶת־אֲחֵיכֶם֙ מֵאֵ֣ת פְּנֵֽי־הַקֹּ֔דֶשׁ אֶל־מִח֖וּץ לַמַּֽחֲנֶֽה:
Aaron’s uncle: Uzziel was Amram’s brother, as it says, “And the sons of Kohath were [Amram…and Uzziel], etc.” (Exod. 6:18). דד אהרן: עזיאל אחי עמרם היה, שנאמר (שמות ו יח) ובני קהת וגו':
carry your kinsmen [from within the Sanctuary], etc.: As a person would say to his fellow [when someone had died at a wedding feast], “Remove the deceased from before the bride so as not to disturb the joyous occasion.” [Here, too, Mishael and Elzaphan were to remove the dead “from inside the sanctuary,” so as not to disturb the serenity of the investitures of the Sanctuary.] שאו את אחיכם וגו': כאדם האומר לחבירו העבר את המת מלפני הכלה, שלא לערבב את השמחה:
5So they approached and carried them with their tunics to the outside of the camp, as Moses had spoken. הוַיִּקְרְב֗וּ וַיִּשָּׂאֻם֙ בְּכֻתֳּנֹתָ֔ם אֶל־מִח֖וּץ לַמַּֽחֲנֶ֑ה כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֖ר דִּבֶּ֥ר משֶֽׁה:
with their tunics: [i.e., with the tunics] of the dead ones [the tunics of Nadab and Abihu, not Mishael and Elzaphan, for the latter were Levites and did not wear the tunics of the kohanim]. This teaches us that their garments had not been burnt, but [only] their souls. Two thread-like [sparks] of fire entered their nostrils [thereby destroying their souls along with all their internal organs, but leaving their external body structures intact. See Be’er Basadeh]. — [Torath Kohanim 10:25] בכתנתם: של מתים מלמד שלא נשרפו בגדיהם אלא נשמתם כמין שני חוטין של אש נכנסו לתוך חוטמיהם:
6And Moses said to Aaron and to Eleazar and to Ithamar, his sons, "Do not leave your heads unshorn, and do not rend your garments, so that you shall not die, and lest He be angry with the entire community, but your brothers, the entire house of Israel, shall bewail the conflagration that the Lord has burned. ווַיֹּ֣אמֶר משֶׁ֣ה אֶל־אַֽהֲרֹ֡ן וּלְאֶלְעָזָר֩ וּלְאִֽיתָמָ֨ר | בָּנָ֜יו רָֽאשֵׁיכֶ֥ם אַל־תִּפְרָ֣עוּ | וּבִגְדֵיכֶ֤ם לֹֽא־תִפְרֹ֨מוּ֙ וְלֹ֣א תָמֻ֔תוּ וְעַ֥ל כָּל־הָֽעֵדָ֖ה יִקְצֹ֑ף וַֽאֲחֵיכֶם֙ כָּל־בֵּ֣ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל יִבְכּוּ֙ אֶת־הַשְּׂרֵפָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֖ר שָׂרַ֥ף יְהֹוָֽה:
Do not leave [your heads] unshorn: [I.e.,] do not let your hair grow long. — [Torath Kohanim 10:25] [Had Moses not commanded them, they would have let their hair grow long as a sign of mourning. We learn] from here that a mourner is forbidden to cut his hair (Moed Katan 14b). “But you shall not disturb the happiness of the Omnipresent [at the investitures of the Mishkan].” אל תפרעו: אל תגדלו שער. מכאן שאבל אסור בתספורת, אבל אתם אל תערבבו שמחתו של מקום:
so that you shall not die: But if you do so [and leave your heads unshorn and rend your garments], you will die. — [Torath Kohanim 10:31] ולא תמתו: הא אם תעשו כן תמותו:
But your brothers, the entire house of Israel, [shall bewail]: From here [we learn] that when [Torah] scholars are afflicted, all of Israel is obligated to mourn for them. ואחיכם כל בית ישראל: מכאן שצרתן של תלמידי חכמים מוטלת על הכל להתאבל בה:
7And do not go out of the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, lest you die, because the Lord's anointing oil is upon you." And they did according to Moses' order. זוּמִפֶּ֩תַח֩ אֹ֨הֶל מוֹעֵ֜ד לֹ֤א תֵֽצְאוּ֙ פֶּן־תָּמֻ֔תוּ כִּי־שֶׁ֛מֶן מִשְׁחַ֥ת יְהֹוָ֖ה עֲלֵיכֶ֑ם וַיַּֽעֲשׂ֖וּ כִּדְבַ֥ר משֶֽׁה:
8And the Lord spoke to Aaron, saying, חוַיְדַבֵּ֣ר יְהֹוָ֔ה אֶל־אַֽהֲרֹ֖ן לֵאמֹֽר:
9Do not drink wine that will lead to intoxication, neither you nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting, so that you shall not die. [This is] an eternal statute for your generations, טיַ֣יִן וְשֵׁכָ֞ר אַל־תֵּ֣שְׁתְּ | אַתָּ֣ה | וּבָנֶ֣יךָ אִתָּ֗ךְ בְּבֹֽאֲכֶ֛ם אֶל־אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵ֖ד וְלֹ֣א תָמֻ֑תוּ חֻקַּ֥ת עוֹלָ֖ם לְדֹרֹֽתֵיכֶֽם:
wine that will lead to intoxication: Heb. יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר. [שֵׁכָר does not mean other strong drink,] but wine in a manner that leads to intoxication" [namely, sufficient wine to cause intoxication, undiluted, and drunk without interruption]. — [Torath Kohanim 10:35] יין ושכר: יין דרך שכרותו:
when you go into the Tent of Meeting: We know only [that a kohen is forbidden] to enter the Heichal [after drinking wine]. How do we know that [this prohibition applies also to] approaching the altar [which is outside the Heichal]? [The answer is:] Here [in our verse] it speaks of “entering the Tent of Meeting.” Regarding washing the hands and feet [at the washstand-see Exod. 30:1721], “entering the Tent of Meeting” is [also] mentioned (verse 20). [Now, concerning washing, approaching the altar is regarded as similar to entering the Tent of Meeting insofar as both require washing the hands and feet, as it says, “When they enter the Tent of Meeting, they shall wash with water… or when they approach the altar to serve” (Exod. 30:20). Hence,] just as there [in the case of washing], Scripture made approaching the altar the same as entering the Tent of Meeting, here too, it made approaching the altar the same as entering the Tent of Meeting [insofar as both are equally prohibited when the kohen has drunk wine]. — [Torath Kohanim 10:37] בבאכם אל אהל מועד: אין לי אלא בבואם להיכל, בגשתם למזבח מנין, נאמר כאן ביאת אהל מועד, ונאמר בקידוש ידים ורגלים ביאת אהל מועד, מה להלן עשה גישת מזבח כביאת אהל מועד, אף כאן עשה גישת מזבח כביאת אהל מועד:
10to distinguish between holy and profane and between unclean and clean, יוּֽלֲהַבְדִּ֔יל בֵּ֥ין הַקֹּ֖דֶשׁ וּבֵ֣ין הַחֹ֑ל וּבֵ֥ין הַטָּמֵ֖א וּבֵ֥ין הַטָּהֽוֹר:
to distinguish: [I.e.,] so that you can distinguish between a holy service and one that has been profaned. Thus you have learned that if one performed a particular service [after having drunk wine], it is invalid. — [Torath Kohanim 10:39] ולהבדיל: כדי שתבדילו בין עבודה קדושה למחוללת, הא למדת שאם עבד, עבודתו פסולה:
11and to instruct the children of Israel regarding all the statutes which the Lord has spoken to them through Moses. יאוּלְהוֹרֹ֖ת אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל אֵ֚ת כָּל־הַ֣חֻקִּ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֨ר דִּבֶּ֧ר יְהֹוָ֛ה אֲלֵיהֶ֖ם בְּיַד־משֶֽׁה:
and to instruct: [This] teaches that an intoxicated person is prohibited to render halachic decisions. One might think that he incurs the death penalty [like the intoxicated kohen who performs the sacrificial service (see verse 9)]. Scripture [therefore] says, “[neither] you nor your sons with you…so that you shall not die” (verse 9). [This implies that only intoxicated] kohanim in their service incur the death penalty, whereas [intoxicated] sages who render halachic decisions do not incur the death penalty. — [Torath Kohanim 10:38] ולהורת: למד שאסור שיכור בהוראה. יכול יהא חייב מיתה, תלמוד לומר אתה ובניך אתך ולא תמותו (פסוק ט), כהנים בעבודתם במיתה, ואין חכמים בהוראתם במיתה:
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 90-96
• Chapter 90
David found this prayer in its present form-receiving a tradition attributing it to MosesThe Midrash attributes the next eleven psalms to Moses (Rashi).-and incorporated it into the Tehillim. It speaks of the brevity of human life, and inspires man to repent and avoid pride in this world.
1. A prayer by Moses, the man of God. My Lord, You have been a shelter for us in every generation.
2. Before the mountains came into being, before You created the earth and the world-for ever and ever You are Almighty God.
3. You diminish man until he is crushed, and You say, "Return, you children of man.”
4. Indeed, a thousand years are in Your eyes like yesterday that has passed, like a watch of the night.
5. The stream of their life is as but a slumber; in the morning they are like grass that sprouts anew.
6. In the morning it thrives and sprouts anew; in the evening it withers and dries.
7. For we are consumed by Your anger, and destroyed by Your wrath.
8. You have set our wrongdoings before You, our hidden sins before the light of Your countenance.
9. For all our days have vanished in Your wrath; we cause our years to pass like a fleeting sound.
10. The days of our lives number seventy years, and if in great vigor, eighty years; most of them are but travail and futility, passing quickly and flying away.
11. Who can know the intensity of Your anger? Your wrath is commensurate with one's fear of You.
12. Teach us, then, to reckon our days, that we may acquire a wise heart.
13. Relent, O Lord; how long [will Your anger last]? Have compassion upon Your servants.
14. Satiate us in the morning with Your kindness, then we shall sing and rejoice throughout our days.
15. Give us joy corresponding to the days You afflicted us, the years we have seen adversity.
16. Let Your work be revealed to Your servants, and Your splendor be upon their children.
17. May the pleasantness of the Lord our God be upon us; establish for us the work of our hands; establish the work of our hands.
Chapter 91
This psalm inspires the hearts of the people to seek shelter under the wings of the Divine Presence. It also speaks of the four seasons of the year, and their respective ministering powers, instructing those who safeguard their souls to avoid them.
1. You who dwells in the shelter of the Most High, who abides in the shadow of the Omnipotent:
2. I say of the Lord who is my refuge and my stronghold, my God in whom I trust,
3. that He will save you from the ensnaring trap, from the destructive pestilence.
4. He will cover you with His pinions and you will find refuge under His wings; His truth is a shield and an armor.
5. You will not fear the terror of the night, nor the arrow that flies by day;
6. the pestilence that prowls in the darkness, nor the destruction that ravages at noon.
7. A thousand may fall at your [left] side, and ten thousand at your right, but it shall not reach you.
8. You need only look with your eyes, and you will see the retribution of the wicked.
9. Because you [have said,] "The Lord is my shelter," and you have made the Most High your haven,
10. no evil will befall you, no plague will come near your tent.
11. For He will instruct His angels in your behalf, to guard you in all your ways.
12. They will carry you in their hands, lest you injure your foot upon a rock.
13. You will tread upon the lion and the viper; you will trample upon the young lion and the serpent.
14. Because he desires Me, I will deliver him; I will fortify him, for he knows My Name.
15. When he calls on Me, I will answer him; I am with him in distress. I will deliver him and honor him.
16. I will satiate him with long life, and show him My deliverance.
Chapter 92
Sung every Shabbat by the Levites in the Holy Temple, this psalm speaks of the World to Come, and comforts the hearts of those crushed by suffering.
1. A psalm, a song for the Shabbat day.
2. It is good to praise the Lord, and to sing to Your Name, O Most High;
3. to proclaim Your kindness in the morning, and Your faithfulness in the nights,
4. with a ten-stringed instrument and lyre, to the melody of a harp.
5. For You, Lord, have gladdened me with Your deeds; I sing for joy at the works of Your hand.
6. How great are Your works, O Lord; how very profound Your thoughts!
7. A brutish man cannot know, a fool cannot comprehend this:
8. When the wicked thrive like grass, and all evildoers flourish-it is in order that they may be destroyed forever.
9. But You, Lord, are exalted forever.
10. Indeed, Your enemies, O Lord, indeed Your enemies shall perish; all evildoers shall be scattered.
11. But You have increased my might like that of a wild ox; I am anointed with fresh oil.
12. My eyes have seen [the downfall of] my watchful enemies; my ears have heard [the doom of] the wicked who rise against me.
13. The righteous will flourish like a palm tree, grow tall like a cedar in Lebanon.
14. Planted in the House of the Lord, they shall blossom in the courtyards of our God.
15. They shall be fruitful even in old age; they shall be full of sap and freshness-
16. to declare that the Lord is just; He is my Strength, and there is no injustice in Him.
Chapter 93
This psalm speaks of the Messianic era, when God will don grandeur-allowing no room for man to boast before Him as did Nebuchadnezzar, Pharaoh, and Sennacherib.
1. The Lord is King; He has garbed Himself with grandeur; the Lord has robed Himself, He has girded Himself with strength; He has also established the world firmly that it shall not falter.
2. Your throne stands firm from of old; You have existed forever.
3. The rivers have raised, O Lord, the rivers have raised their voice; the rivers raise their raging waves.
4. More than the sound of many waters, than the mighty breakers of the sea, is the Lord mighty on High.
5. Your testimonies are most trustworthy; Your House will be resplendent in holiness, O Lord, forever.
Chapter 94
An awe-inspiring and wondrous prayer with which every individual can pray for the redemption. It is also an important moral teaching.
1. The Lord is a God of retribution; O God of retribution, reveal Yourself!
2. Judge of the earth, arise; render to the arrogant their recompense.
3. How long shall the wicked, O Lord, how long shall the wicked exult?
4. They continuously speak insolently; all the evildoers act arrogantly.
5. They crush Your people, O Lord, and oppress Your heritage.
6. They kill the widow and the stranger, and murder the orphans.
7. And they say, "The Lord does not see, the God of Jacob does not perceive.”
8. Understand, you senseless among the people; you fools, when will you become wise?
9. Shall He who implants the ear not hear? Shall He who forms the eye not see?
10. Shall He who chastises nations not punish? Shall He who imparts knowledge to man [not know]?
11. The Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are naught.
12. Fortunate is the man whom You chastise, O Lord, and instruct him in Your Torah,
13. bestowing upon him tranquillity in times of adversity, until the pit is dug for the wicked.
14. For the Lord will not abandon His people, nor forsake His heritage.
15. For judgment shall again be consonant with justice, and all the upright in heart will pursue it.
16. Who would rise up for me against the wicked ones; who would stand up for me against the evildoers?
17. Had the Lord not been a help to me, my soul would have soon dwelt in the silence [of the grave].
18. When I thought that my foot was slipping, Your kindness, O Lord, supported me.
19. When my [worrisome] thoughts multiply within me, Your consolation delights my soul.
20. Can one in the seat of evil, one who makes iniquity into law, consort with You?
21. They band together against the life of the righteous, and condemn innocent blood.
22. The Lord has been my stronghold; my God, the strength of my refuge.
23. He will turn their violence against them and destroy them through their own wickedness; the Lord, our God, will destroy them.
Chapter 95
This psalm speaks of the future, when man will say to his fellow, "Come, let us sing and offer praise to God for the miracles He has performed for us!"
1. Come, let us sing to the Lord; let us raise our voices in jubilation to the Rock of our deliverance.
2. Let us approach Him with thanksgiving; let us raise our voices to Him in song.
3. For the Lord is a great God, and a great King over all supernal beings;
4. in His hands are the depths of the earth, and the heights of the mountains are His.
5. Indeed, the sea is His, for He made it; His hands formed the dry land.
6. Come, let us prostrate ourselves and bow down; let us bend the knee before the Lord, our Maker.
7. For He is our God, and we are the people that He tends, the flock under His [guiding] hand-even this very day, if you would but hearken to His voice!
8. Do not harden your heart as at Merivah, as on the day at Massah in the wilderness,
9. where your fathers tested Me; they tried Me, though they had seen My deeds.
10. For forty years I quarreled with that generation; and I said, "They are a people of erring hearts, they do not know My ways.”
11. So I vowed in My anger that they would not enter My resting place.
Chapter 96
The time will yet come when man will say to his fellow: "Come, let us sing to God!"
1. Sing to the Lord a new song; sing to the Lord, all the earth.
2. Sing to the Lord, bless His Name; proclaim His deliverance from day to day.
3. Recount His glory among the nations, His wonders among all the peoples.
4. For the Lord is great and highly praised; He is awesome above all gods.
5. For all the gods of the nations are naught, but the Lord made the heavens.
6. Majesty and splendor are before Him, might and beauty in His Sanctuary.
7. Render to the Lord, O families of nations, render to the Lord honor and might.
8. Render to the Lord honor due to His Name; bring an offering and come to His courtyards.
9. Bow down to the Lord in resplendent holiness; tremble before Him, all the earth.
10. Proclaim among the nations, "The Lord reigns"; indeed, the world is firmly established that it shall not falter; He will judge the peoples with righteousness.
11. The heavens will rejoice, the earth will exult; the sea and its fullness will roar.
12. The fields and everything therein will jubilate; then all the trees of the forest will sing.
13. Before the Lord [they shall rejoice], for He has come, for He has come to judge the earth; He will judge the world with justice, and the nations with His truth. Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 37
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Tuesday, 19 Adar II 5776 · March 29, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 37
וכל ניצוץ לא ירד לעולם הזה
Each spark did not descend into this world to perfect itself but to perfect the body and vital soul — as the Alter Rebbe will soon conclude.
Having touched upon the subject of the soul’s descent, however, he adds a parenthetical comment emphasizing the magnitude of this descent. On entering this world, a soul may perhaps attain the loftiest heights of love and fear of G‑d that are experienced by a perfect tzaddik — but even this cannot compare to the love and fear that it experienced while in the spiritual worlds, before its descent.
אף שהיא ירידה גדולה, ובחינת גלות ממש
Though it is indeed a great descent, a veritable exile for the soul;
כי גם שיהיה צדיק גמור, עובד ה׳ ביראה ואהבה רבה בתענוגים
for even if it become, in this world, a perfect tzaddik, serving G‑d with fear and abundant love of delights,
לא יגיע למעלות דביקותו בה׳ בדחילו ורחימו בטרם ירידתו לעולם הזה החומרי, לא מינה ולא מקצתה
it will not attain to the quality of its attachment to G‑d with fear and love that the soul experienced prior to its descent into this corporeal world, nor even [to] a fraction of [its earlier fear and love].
ואין ערך ודמיון ביניהם כלל, כנודע לכל משכיל, שהגוף אינו יכול לסבול כו׳
In fact, there is no comparison or similarity whatever between them — between the love and fear of G‑d experienced by a soul on earth, and that of the soul above; [for] as is obvious to every intelligent man, the body could not bear etc. a love and fear of such intensity as the soul experienced above, in the spiritual realms.
Having concluded his comment on the formidable nature of the soul’s descent, the Alter Rebbe returns to his original point: The descent of the soul is thus undertaken not for its own sake —
אלא ירידתו לעולם הזה, להתלבש בגוף ונפש החיונית, הוא כדי לתקנם בלבד
but its descent into this world, to be clothed in a body and vital soul, is for the sole purpose of perfecting them;
ולהפרידם מהרע של שלש קליפות הטמאות על ידי שמירת שס״ה לא תעשה וענפיהן
to separate them from the evil of the three impure kelipot, by observing the 365 prohibitions and their “offshoots” i.e., by observing the Biblical and Rabbinic prohibitions,
ולהעלות נפשו החיונית, עם חלקה השייך לה מכללות עולם הזה
and to elevate his vital soul, together with the portion of the world at large that belongs to it,
ולקשרם ולייחדם באור אין סוף ברוך הוא אשר ימשיך בהם על ידי קיומו כל רמ״ח מצות עשה בנפשו החיונית
binding and uniting them with the Ein Sof-light which he draws into them by performing all the 248 positive mitzvot through the agency of the vital soul,
שהיא היא המקיימת כל מצות מעשיות כנ״ל
since [the vital soul] is the one that performs all mitzvot involving action, as explained above, in ch. 36 — that the divine soul can activate the body in performance of the mitzvot only by way of the vital soul.
וכמו שכתוב בעץ חיים, שער כ״ו כי הנשמה עצמה אינה צריכה תיקון כלל כו׳
It is likewise written (in Etz Chayim, Portal 26) that the [divine] soul itself does not need perfecting at all...;
ולא הוצרכה להתלבש בעולם הזה וכו׳ רק להמשיך אור לתקנם כו׳
and there is no need for it to be embodied in this world, in a body and vital soul... except to draw down light to perfect them — the vital soul and the body...
והוא ממש דוגמת סוד גלות השכינה לברר ניצוצין וכו׳
and this parallels exactly1 the mystery of “the exile of the Shechinah,” whose purpose is to refine the sparks of holiness which fell into the kelipot; so too does the divine soul enter into exile within the body and vital soul in order to perfect them, and to extract from them the sparks of holiness which they contain.
The foregoing discussion enables us to understand the particular virtue of mitzvot performed through action:
Creation, and the soul’s descent into the body, were both intended for the purpose of elevating the body and vital soul, and thereby the entire world; moreover, this objective is reached primarily through the mitzvot involving action, inasmuch as these mitzvot are performed by the body and vital soul; these mitzvot are therefore of primary importance.
FOOTNOTES
1.The Rebbe explains how “the mystery of ‘the exile of the Shechinah’” relates to the subject at hand.
On the surface, the soul’s descent into this world, and its concomitant suffering, is truly inexplicable. The soul is an entity which is truly a part of G‑d Above, emanating, as it does, from Supernal Wisdom which is wholly at one with G‑d Himself.
That such a holy being should descend into this world merely to rectify the vitalizing soul and the body whose source is in kelipat nogah, strains the bonds of credulity. For even after the divine soul completely rectifies them — as in the divine service of a consummate tzaddik — the body is still unable to harbor the same love of G‑d which the soul felt prior to its descent. Why, then, did the soul descend into this world
The Alter Rebbe addresses this question, writes the Rebbe, by stating that the soul’s descent parallels exactly the mystery of the exile of the Shechinah, whose purpose is to refine the sparks of holiness which fell into the kelipot. We shall soon learn that the Shechinah is the source of the divine soul. Furthermore, all things found within this world were created from the sparks of holiness, including the body and the vitalizing soul. Hence the parallel. The soul, whose source is the Shechinah, descends into this world to refine the body and vitalizing soul, whose source is the holy sparks. And just as the exile of the Shechinah is deemed a mystery, for its descent defies logic, so, too, is the soul’s descent into the body and vitalizing soul a mystery: it defies mortal reason.
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
• Tuesday, Adar II 19, 5776 · March 29, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 127 (Digest)
The First Tithe
"But the tithes of the Children of Israel which they offer to G‑d as a gift..."—Numbers 18:24.
We are commanded to separate a tenth of our crops and give it to a Levite.
This biblical precept only applies in the Land of Israel.
The 127th mitzvah is that we are commanded to separate ma'aser from produce which grows from the ground.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "[The inheritance I am giving the Levites shall consist of] the ma'aser of the Jewish people which they shall separate."
The verse itself explains that ma'aser is given to the Levites.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Ma'aseros.
This is called ma'aser rishon, and is a Biblical requirement only in Eretz Yisroel.2
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 27:30.
2.By Rabbinic law, ma'aser must be given from some lands which surround Eretz Yisroel. See Hilchos Terumos, 1:1.
• Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 4
• Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
An animal or a fowl that was sodomized,1 which killed a person, which was set aside for pagan worship, or which was worshipped, are all unacceptable [as sacrifices] for the altar.2
Halacha 2
When an animal or a fowl had relations with a person, was sodomized, or killed a person, it should be executed by stoning if [the act was observed] by two witnesses.3 It is forbidden to benefit from their flesh.4 Needless to say, such animals are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar.
With regard to which situations was it said that they are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar? When [the animals] were permitted to ordinary individuals, e.g., there was only one witness [who observed the transgression] and the owner remained silent5 or the owner testified [concerning the transgression] although no witnesses were present.6 If there was one witness who observed the transgression and the owner contradicts him, the animals are permitted, even [as sacrifices] for the altar.
Halacha 3
When sport was made with an animal and it was trained to gore until it killed a person, it is acceptable [as a sacrifice] for the altar, because it is considered as having been compelled against its will.7
An animal is not disqualified because it had relations with a person or because it was sodomized unless the male who sodomized it was nine years old.8Whether it was sodomized by a Jew, a gentile,9 or a servant, since it was sodomized by a human, it is disqualified. If a human was the recipient of sex from an animal, [the animal] is not disqualified unless the female with whom it had relations was three years old10 or the male with whom it had relations was nine years old.11
Halacha 4
When is an animal or a fowl disqualified because it was set aside for pagan worship?12 When the priests perform a deed with it, e.g., they shear it or work with it for the sake of pagan worship. With words alone, by contrast, it is not considered as set aside for pagan worship, for an entity cannot be consecrated to a false deity.13
Halacha 5
An animal that had relations with a person or that was sodomized becomes forbidden [as a sacrifice] for the altar whether it belongs to the person with whom it shared relations or it belongs to a colleague14 and regardless of whether those relations were carried out under compulsion or voluntarily, whether they were willful or inadvertent, or whether they were performed before [the animal was] consecrated or afterwards.15
When, by contrast, an animal is set aside for pagan worship, it becomes disqualified if it belonged to the person who set it aside and he set it aside for pagan worship before he consecrated it as a sacrifice. If, however, one set aside an animal belonging to a colleague16 or [even] his own animal after he consecrated it as a sacrifice,17it is permitted [to be offered as a sacrifice].18[The rationale is that] a person cannot set aside an entity that does not belong to him [for pagan worship].19
Halacha 6
[When an animal] has been worshipped as a false deity, it is forbidden [as a sacrifice] whether one served his own animal or one belonging to a colleague,20 whether he acted under compulsion or voluntarily, willfullly or inadvertently, whether he did so before the animal was consecrated or afterwards. [In the latter instance,] it should be left to pasture until it becomes permanently blemished and then it should be redeemed, as we stated.21
When an animal is worshipped, it and everything upon it22 are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar. For it is forbidden to benefit from all coverings of entities worshipped as false deities.23 If, however, [an animal has merely been] set aside for pagan worship, it is forbidden, but the entities on it are permitted [as sacrifices for the altar].24
Halacha 7
When a person bows down to a mountain, although he may benefit from it,25its stones are forbidden to [be used as part of] the altar.26 Similarly, when one bows down to a flowing stream in his land,27 its water is invalid28 for use as a libation.29
[Even though] an asherah30 has been nullified,31 one should not bring logs from it for the arrangement of wood on the altar.32 Similarly, when one bows down to an animal, just as it is disqualified [as a sacrifice] for the altar, its wool is disqualified for use in the priestly garments,33 its horns are disqualified for use as trumpets,34 its thighs are disqualified for use as flutes,35 and its intestines as strands [for the lyres].36 Everything is unacceptable.37
Halacha 8
Anything that is connected with the name of a false deity should not be employed in the service of the Sanctuary even though it is permitted to benefit from it.38
What is meant by a present given to a harlot?39 When one tells a harlot, "This entity is given to you as your wages."40 This applies to a gentile harlot, a maidservant, a Jewish woman who is forbidden to the man41 as an ervah42or by a negative commandment.43 If, however, a woman is unmarried, the present given to her may be used [as a sacrifice] even if the man is a priest.44Similarly, if a person's wife is a niddah,45 a present given to her may be used [as a sacrifice] even though she is an ervah.46
Halacha 9
If a man married one of the women forbidden to him because of a negative commandment,47 whatever he gives her for the sake of intimate relations is considered as "the present [of a harlot]"48 and is forbidden [to be offered as a sacrifice]. A present given [by a male to] a male [for the purpose of intimacy] is forbidden [as a sacrifice].49 If a woman gives a present to a male for the purpose of intimacy, [it is not considered] "a present [of a harlot]" and is permitted [as a sacrifice].50
Halacha 10
When a person tells a colleague: "Here is an article for you. In return for it, have your [Canaanite] maidservant spend the night with my Jewish bondsman," it is considered "a present [of a harlot]."51 [The above applies] provided [the Jewish bondsman] does not have a wife and children. If, however, he does have a wife and children, he is permitted [to engage in intimacy] with a Canaanite maidservant, as will be explained.52 This also applies if one tells a harlot:53 "Here is an article for you. In return for it, engage in relations with so-and-so who is Jewish." [The present is considered as] "a present [of a harlot]."
Halacha 11
If a person made an agreement to give a harlot one lamb and [instead,] he gave her many - even if he gave her 1000 - they are considered as "presents [to a harlot]"54 and are all forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar.
If he gave her a present and did not engage in relations with her, but told her: "Let this be in your possession until I engage in relations with you," it becomes forbidden [as a sacrifice] when he engages in relations with her.55 If she had it sacrificed before he engaged in relations with her, it is acceptable56 and if she was obligated to bring a sacrifice, she has discharged her obligation, provided when he gave it to he told her: "When you accept my [proposition], you acquire it from the present time."57 If he did not tell her so, [it is not acceptable] because she cannot bring an article that does not belong to her58 as a sacrifice.
Halacha 12
If she took the initiative and consecrated it [for a sacrifice] before he entered relations with her and afterwards, he engaged in relations with her [before it was sacrificed], there is an unresolved doubt59 whether it is considered "the present [of a harlot"] - because he engaged in relations with her before it was sacrificed - or whether it is not considered as such, since she consecrated it before relations.60 Hence, it should not be sacrificed,61 but if it is sacrificed, it is acceptable.62
Halacha 13
If he engaged in relations with her, but did not give her anything, and then afterwards - even many years afterwards - he gave it to her, it is considered "the present [of a harlot"].
When does the above apply?63 With regard to a gentile woman64 whom he told: "Engage in relations with me in exchange for this lamb," for she does not have to draw it into her domain [to acquire it]65 or with regard to a Jewish woman when the lamb was left in her courtyard and he told her: "If I do not give you money on this day, [the lamb] is yours."66 If, however, he told her : "Engage in relations with me in exchange for this lamb" without any further explanation and then engaged in relations and sent her the lamb afterwards, it is permissible [to be sacrificed; it is not considered] "the present [of a harlot]."
Halacha 14
Only the actual physical substance of [the article given] is forbidden as "the present [of a harlot]" or "the exchange [for a dog]." Therefore [these prohibitions] apply only to articles that are [in essence] fit to be sacrificed on the altar, e.g., a kosher animal, turtle doves, small doves, wine, oil, and fine flour. If he gave her money67 and she bought a sacrifice with it, it is acceptable.
Halacha 15
If he gave her grain and she had it made into fine flour; [he gave her] olives and she had oil made from them; [he gave her] grapes, and she had wine made from them, they are acceptable, because their form has changed.68
If he gave her a consecrated animal as her present, it does not become forbidden to the altar.69 Even if he designated her as one of those to eat from his Paschal sacrifice70 or his festive offering71 as a present, the consecrated animals are not disqualified, for the Temple already acquired them at the time they were consecrated.72 Similarly, if he gave her an entity that did not belong to him, he did not disqualify it, for a person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to be forbidden unless the owner despairs of its recovery.73
If, however, he gave her doves, even though they are consecrated, they can be considered as "a present to a harlot." This concept was conveyed as part of the Oral Tradition.74
Halacha 16
What is meant by "an exchange for a dog"?75 A person tells a colleague: "Take this lamb in exchange for this dog." Similarly, if he exchanged a dog for several animals or fowl, they are all forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar.
Halacha 17
When two partners divided [their goods], one took ten lambs and one took nine lambs and a dog, [the lambs] that are with the dog are permitted [as sacrifices], but [there are restrictions with regard to] the ten given in exchange for them. If the value of one of them is equivalent to the value of the dog or greater, it should be set aside and it [alone] is considered as "the exchange [for a dog]." The remainder are permitted [as sacrifices]. If the value of each of them is less than the value of the dog, they are all forbidden.76
Halacha 18
If [the entity given in] exchange [for the dog] underwent a change, for example, he exchanged a dog for wheat and ground it into flour, it is permitted.77
The present [given] to a dog78 and an exchange given for a harlot79are permitted. "A present to a harlot" and "the exchange for a dog" are permitted to be given to the Temple, for they undergo a change.80 The actual substance of a present [to a harlot] should not be used as beaten metal for the Temple, as [implied by Deuteronomy 23:19]: "For every vow," [which is interpreted81] as including sheet metal.
FOOTNOTES
1.
The Rambam does not mention an animal that had relations with a person, for that is not possible with regard to a fowl.
2.
The Rambam mentioned this concept in the previous chapter. In this chapter, he outlines the details of these restrictions. The point of this halachah is that the restrictions apply to a fowl as well as to an animal.
3.
See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 1:16; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 10:1.
4.
Even if slaughtered according to Jewish Law (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 4:22; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 11:9).
5.
In matters of financial law, the testimony of one witness is of consequence only that it can require an oath to be taken.
6.
Similarly, the testimony of a person regarding his own property is of no consequence.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 8:1), the Rambam mentions two other instances where this law applies: the animal was consecrated before being brought to court or the forbidden sexual act was performed by a gentile.
7.
See Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 6:5 which explains that such an animal is not executed, because Exodus 21:28 requires such a punishment: "When an ox gores...," i.e., that it does so on its own initiative, and not when it was prompted to gore.
See the gloss of the Radbaz to Chapter 3, Halachah 5, where he states that such an animal should be forbidden to the altar under all circumstances just like a sodomized animal is.
8.
For relations with a male are not significant until that age (Hilchot Ishut 11:3; Hilchot Yibbum VeChalitzah 1:16; et al).
9.
See Hilchot Melachim 9:5-6 which states that although a gentile is liable to be executed for engaging in sexual relations with an animal, the animal itself is not executed. Nevertheless, involvement in the transgression disqualifies it as a sacrifice.
10.
See Hilchot Na'arah Betulah 1:8, et al, where it is explained that until a girl is three years old, sexual relations with her are not significant.
11.
The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam on the latter point, noting that the ages the Rambam mentions are relevant with regard to the punishment of execution by stoning. Nevertheless, he argues that since the animal is disqualified from being offered as a sacrifice, because it becomes offensive to offer it after it engaged in forbidden relations, that concept would seemingly apply regardless of the age of the human with whom it engaged in those relations. Moreover, since the animal derived pleasure, the sexual activity should be considered significant. The Kessef Mishnehjustifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that what is significant here is the halachic definition of sexual relations, not the pleasure the animal experiences. Since halachicly, the act is not considered as sex, the animal is not forbidden.
12.
The Radbaz explains that this is speaking about both an animal which is itself going to be worshipped, and also an animal that will be used for the service of a pagan deity.
13.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that if one designated an animal as a false deity, that is sufficient to cause the animal to become repugnant and forbidden as a sacrifice, even if a deed is not performed. The Radbaz brings support for the Ra'avad's ruling from Isaiah 30:22 which when speaking about making the covering of idol's impure uses the expression: "Tell it: 'Be gone,'" implying that "telling it," i.e., speaking is sufficient to cause an article to be considered as an idol.
The difference between the Rambam's view and that of the Ra'avad results from a variation in the text of Temurah 29a. According to the Rambam, the passage is speaking about an animal dedicated to the service of a false deity, while according to the Ra'avad, it refers to an animal intended to be worshiped as a false deity. (The standard printed text supports the Rambam's version, although Rashi mentions the other version as well.). The Radbaz explains that according to the Rambam an animal is forbidden as a sacrifice only when it is forbidden to benefit from it. As the Rambam states in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim8:1, whether an animal is designated to be worshipped or as a sacrifice to a false deity, it does not become forbidden until a deed is performed. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the prohibition against benefiting from the animal is different from the prohibition against offering the animal as a sacrifice. More stringent rules apply in the latter context.
14.
The Radbaz states that in an instance where two witnesses did not observe the transgression (as stated in Halachah 2), the person who engaged in relations with the animal is not at all liable to its owner financially, for he is not prohibited against benefiting from the animal.
15.
In contrast to an animal which kills which is not disqualified if it was goaded into killing (see Halachah 3), an animal that engaged in relations with a human is disqualified in all instances. Since the act causes it to be considered loathsome, the circumstances under which the act was performed are of no consequence.
16.
This applies even (as stated in the previous halachah), he performed a deed indicating that the animal was set aside for pagan worship (Radbaz).
17.
For once he consecrated it as a sacrifice, it is as if it no longer belongs to him.
18.
Since a transgression has not been performed with it as of yet, it is not considered as loathsome (Radbaz).
19.
As the Rambam states in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim (and in many other sources) a person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to become forbidden.
20.
The Ra'avad quotes Avodah Zarah 54a which states that the above restriction applies only when one performs a deed with the article he worshipped. From the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1, it is apparent that he maintains that the principle that a person cannot cause property that does not belong to him to be forbidden to be used applies even if he actually worships the article as a false deity and even when he performs a deed. The Rambam here is speaking about causing the article to be forbidden as a sacrifice to the altar and for that, a deed is not necessary.
21.
Chapter 3, Halachah 10. Since the animal was consecrated, it cannot be used for ordinary purposes until it is redeemed and it cannot be redeemed until it is blemished.
22.
Any garments or ornaments used to adorn the false deity. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Teumrah 6:1), the Rambam explains the reason for this restriction is that the ornaments were worshipped together with the false deity.
23.
See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:7.
24.
Since they have not been worshipped, one is permitted to benefit from them and they may even be used as sacrifices [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].
25.
See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1 which states that "Any article that was not touched by human hands or made by man will is permitted to be used even though it was worshipped as a false deity."
26.
Or any other part of the Temple building (Radbaz). As stated in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:16, the altar was made with whole stones, both large and small over which is poured a liquid with lime, pitch, and molten lead. In the above instance, since the stones were taken from a mountain that was worshipped, it is inappropriate for them to be used for the altar.
27.
Implied is that if the water is not his own, it may be used even as a libation even though it was worshipped (Rav Yosef Corcus). The Radbaz notes that no such leniency is granted with regard to the stones mentioned in the previous clauae. He differentiates between the two as follows: The water of a spring is constantly flowing. Thus the water that was worshipped is not the same water that will be used for the libation. The stones of the mountain, by contrast, were worshipped themselves. Hence even though they are not a person's private property, they may not be used for the Temple.
28.
In this instance as well, an ordinary person is permitted to use the water, but it is inappropriate to be used for the altar.
29.
I.e., the water libation offered during the Sukkot holiday. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:6-10.
30.
A tree that is worshipped. See Exodus 34:13; Deuteronomy 7:5, 12:3, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:3; et al.
31.
In Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:8, the Rambam writes that once a gentile nullifies the connection of a worshipped entity to paganism, it is permitted to benefit from it. The subsequent halachot in that chapter describe the process of nullification. Here the Rambam is emphasizing that although it is permitted to benefit from the article afterwards, the fact that it was once worshipped - or served as an accessory to an article worshipped - prevents it from being offered as a sacrifice.
32.
Similarly, the branches of a palm tree that was worshipped should not be used as alulav (Hilchot Lulav 8:1).
33.
See the conclusion of the tractate of Kinnimwhich mentions how a sacrificial animal can be used for these purposes.
There the Mishnah states that the wool is unacceptable for use as techelet. TheKessef Mishneh notes that although in Chapter 3, Halachah 14, the Rambam ruled that even though wheat was worshipped, the flour made from it is not disqualified for use as a meal offering, because it underwent a change. In this and the other instances mentioned below, although the color and the form of the article may have undergone a change, that change does not alter its fundamental nature and it is still disqualified for the altar and its service.
Such wool is also disqualified for use in tzitzitor for any other purpose associated with a mitzvah. See Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 11:8).
34.
I.e., as shofarot that are sounded together with the trumpets (Hilchot Taaniot 1:4).
35.
Among the instruments sounded in the Temple service were flutes (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 3:4-6). Apparently, the thighs of sacrificial animals were hollowed out and converted into such instruments.
36.
Which were also employed in the Temple service (ibid.).
37.
Because it was an integral part of an entity that was worshipped.
38.
This general principle summarizes the concepts mentioned in the previous halachot. The Rambam now goes on to discuss other reasons why animals were forbidden as sacrifices.
39.
Which is forbidden to be used as a sacrifice as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 7.
40.
I.e., in exchange for intimacy.
41.
The Rambam is explaining that here the emphasis is on the halachic meaning of the term zonah ("harlot") and not its popular meaning. The point is not that the present is forbidden because it was given in exchange for intimacy, but that it was given in exchange for intimacy with a woman who meets the halachic definitions of that term. That definition is given in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah18:1: "Based on the Oral Tradition, we learned that the term zonah7 used by the Torah refers to one who is not a nativeborn Jewess (thus excluding a gentile woman or maidservant) [or] a Jewish woman who engaged in relations with a man she was forbidden to marry, violating a prohibition that is universally applicable" (excluding the prohibited relations the Rambam mentions).
42.
Incestuous and adulterous sexual relations for which one is liable for karet (Hilchot Ishut1:5). These forbidden relationships are mentioned in Leviticus, Chapter 18.
43.
The nine forbidden relationships mentioned in Hilchot Isut 1:7.
44.
I.e., although he is engaging in intimacy out of lust and in exchange for payment, the woman is not termed a harlot, as Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:2 states: "Whenever a person has relations with an unmarried woman, even if she is a harlot who wantonly makes herself available to everyone... she is not deemed as a zonah... for she is not forbidden to marry [the people with whom she engaged in relations]."
45.
I.e., she has experienced menstrual bleeding and has not purified herself afterwards.
46.
For such relationships are also punishable by karet (see Hilchot Issurei Biah 4:1). Nevertheless, the fact that a woman is in theniddah state does not prevent the consecration of a woman from taking effect.
47.
The consecration of such a woman is binding and she is considered as his wife (Hilchot Ishut 4:14).
48.
Because he is forbidden to marry her and thus the present meets the criteria mentioned in the previous halachah.
49.
See Temurah 29b.
50.
The Radbaz explains that the Rambam's intent is that although in a strict halachic sense, there is no prohibition against offering such an article as a sacrifice, it is an abomination unto God and should not be offered.
51.
There are two points expressed by this halachah: a) that, as stated above, a Canaanite maidservant is considered as a harlot;
b) that even though the present is not being given by the person engaging in the intimate relations, the present is still forbidden as a sacrifice.
52.
Hilchot Avadim 3:3-4.
53.
I.e., one might think that the law applies only with regard to a bondsman and his master, for the master has authority over the bondsman and has certain responsibilities toward him, but not with regard to two free men who are not associated in this manner (Kessef Mishneh).
54.
And not an ordinary gift (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh). This applies even when he does not explicitly say that he gave them to her because of the relations they shared (Radbaz).
55.
Because it was given to her in exchange for relations. It is not significant whether it was given before the relations or afterwards.
56.
Because they had not engaged in relations yet. We do not say that since it was designated as "a present for a harlot," it is forbidden as a sacrifice (Radbaz).
57.
Thus she was the legal owner at the time it was sacrificed.
58.
If he did not make such a stipulation, he remains the legal owner of the animal. It is in the woman's possession as security, but she is not its owner.
59.
Temurah 29b considers this question and does not reach a conclusion.
60.
And from the time an entity is consecrated, it is considered as having been given to the Temple. Hence, it could be considered as if it already had been sacrificed.
61.
Instead, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.
62.
As evident from Hilchot Temidim UMusafim7:20, this is the ruling whenever there is a question whether an substance offered as a sacrifice is acceptable.
63.
The principle under which this halachah operates is that for a "present to a harlot" to be forbidden as a sacrifice, it must be acquired by the woman at the time of relations even though it does not come into her full possession until afterwards.(Temurah 29a).
64.
I.e., if the gentile woman later desires to offer this animal as a sacrifice, it is not accepted from her. Although we do accept animals brought by gentiles as burnt offerings, the animals must be acceptable.
65.
According to Scriptural Law, an exchange is completed when an exchange is made. Hence, at the time the two engaged in relations, the lamb became the woman's property. Nevertheless, our Sages ordained that movable property is not transferred to the legal domain of the recipient until he acquires it through meshichah, physically drawing it into his possession (Hilchot Mechirah 3:1). Our Sages, however, did not impose this decree with regard to gentiles and transactions with them follow the original guidelines of Scriptural Law (see (Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 1:14). Hence a gentile harlot became the legal owner of the lamb directly after the relations. Hence it is considered as "the present of a harlot." The fact that it was not given to her until years afterwards is not significant.
66.
Because a person's courtyard can acquire an article on his or her behalf when it is placed within (Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah4:8). Hence, while the women is holding the lamb in lieu of the money, it is considered to have entered her possession.
67.
Or other entities.
68.
The finished product is considered as different from the raw material from which it is made.
69.
For a consecrated article is not considered as his personal property. Hence, it is not his to give her (Temurah 30b).
70.
To partake of a Paschal sacrifice, one must designated to partake of it from the outset.
71.
This refers to the festive offering brought on the fourteenth of Nisan to accompany the Paschal sacrifice. See Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:11.
72.
Although the owner retains the right to give others to partake of the offerings, they are not considered as his private property. Instead, he is giving them the right to partake of consecrated property, not his own possessions.
73.
For at that point - since the owner has despaired of its return and it has departed from the possession of the thief - the harlot becomes its legal owner (see Hilchot Geneivah 5:3). Accordingly, it is disqualified as a sacrifice.
74.
I.e., the Rambam understands Temurah 30b as deriving this law from the exegesis of a verse. According to logic, we would apply the principle: A person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to be become forbidden.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam regarding the interpretation of the above passage. He maintains that it is speaking about ordinary doves. Nevertheless, since blemished doves are acceptable as sacrifices (Chapter 3, Halachah 1), one might think that a present to a harlot is also acceptable. Therefore, the Torah must teach us that this is not the case. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh favor the Ra'avad's understanding of the passage.
75.
Which is forbidden for the altar, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 7.
76.
For a certain portion of each one is being given in exchange for the dog.
77.
For the article being offered is not considered as the article exchanged.
78.
I.e., a person sodomized a dog and separated a lamb as a fee.
79.
I.e., a person gave a colleague a lamb in exchange for a maidservant that was a harlot.
80.
I.e., the articles donated to the Temple treasury are sold and the money used for improvements. Thus the distasteful article itself is not becoming part of the Temple.
81.
See Temurah 30a.
• Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day Maaser - Chapter 4, Maaser - Chapter 5, Maaser - Chapter 6
• Maaser - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
The obligation to tithe is not established for tevel1 according to Scriptural Law until one2 brings it3 into his home,4 as [implied by Deuteronomy 26:13]: "I removed the sacred produce from the home." [This applies] provided he brings the produce in through the gate, as [ibid.:12] states: "And you shall eat in your gates." If, however, he brought produce in from the roof or from the yard,5 he is exempt [from the obligation] to separate terumah and tithes.6
Halacha 2
It appears to me7 that lashes are not administered as required by Scriptural Law for eating tevel unless [the obligation to tithe] was established by bringing it into one's home as we explained according to the Oral Tradition.8 If, however, the obligation was established through one of the six ways that we mentioned,9he is given only stripes for rebellious conduct as mandated by Rabbinic Law.
Similarly, a person who partakes of produce which he desires to bring to the market place after the tasks necessary to prepare it have been completed receives only stripes for rebellious conduct, as we explained.10 For a person who completes [the tasks necessary to prepare his produce] for sale is obligated to tithe only according to Rabbinic Law.
Halacha 3
When a house is less than four cubits by four cubits in area, [bringing produce into it] does not establish an obligation.11 Similarly, [bringing produce onto] a roof does not establish an obligation12 even though [bringing it into] the house below would. If, however, the roof was not four cubits by four cubits in area, e.g., the house ascended on a slant, bringing [the produce] there does not absolve it from the obligation to tithe it.13 Instead, [the roof] is considered as part of the domain of the home.
Halacha 4
Leantos,14 guardhouses,15 summer shelters - i.e., four pillars with a roof on top of them without walls,16 and sukkot17 built by workers who dwell in the vineyard and the gardens in the summer,18 even though they dwell in them throughout the summer and [the sukkot] contain mills and chickens do not establish an obligation to tithe. Similarly, the outer sukkot built by potters19 and the sukkot for the holiday [of Sukkot] during that festival do not establish an obligation.20 For none of these are permanent dwellings.
Halacha 5
Leantos and guardhouses establish an obligation to tithe for their owners,21even though they do not create such an obligation for all people.22Similar, [bringing produce into] a school or a house of study23 creates an obligation to tithe for a person who abides there and teaches, because they are comparable to his home.24 They do not create an obligation for others.
Halacha 6
When a synagogue or a house of study25 have a dwelling,26 [bringing produce there] establishes [an obligation to tithe].27 If not, no [such obligation] is established.
[Bringing produce to] stables28 and storehouses in the fields that are built to store produce does not establish an obligation to tithe.29 If [these structures] were also intended as dwellings, an obligation is established.30
Halacha 7
Just as [bringing produce into] a home establishes an obligation to tithe, so too, [bringing produce into] a courtyard establishes such an obligation.31When produce is brought into a courtyard through the gate,32 an obligation is established even though it was not brought into the home.
Halacha 8
[Into] which type of courtyard must [produce be brought] for an obligation [to tithe] to be established? Any one in which utensils are protected within, one in which a person will not be embarrassed to eat there, or one in which were a person to enter, he would be asked: "What are you looking for?"33 The above also applies to a courtyard which has two inhabitants or is owned by two partners when one opens it and enters and then the other comes and enters or leaves and locks it. Since they open it and lock it, [bringing produce into] it establishes an obligation to tithe.34
Halacha 9
A gatehouse to a courtyard, an excedra,35 and a porch are governed by the same laws as a courtyard.36 If [bringing produce into] a courtyard would establish an obligation to tithe, [bringing produce into these] establishes an obligation. If not, an obligation is not established in these instances as well.37
Halacha 10
When there are two courtyards, one inside the other, [bringing produce into] either of them establishes an obligation to tithe.38 When a potter has [two]sukkot one leading to the other, [bringing produce into] the inner sukkahestablishes an obligation to tithe. [Bringing it into] the outer one does not.39[Bringing produce into] a store establishes an obligation like a home does.40
Halacha 11
When a person transports his produce from one place to another, an obligation to tithe is not established even though he brings it into homes and courtyards while on his journey.41 He may snack from it until he reaches his ultimate destination. [These laws] also [apply] when he returns.42
Halacha 12
Traveling salesmen43 who journey through villages and pass from one courtyard to another may snack from their produce44 until they reach the home where they will spend the night.45
Halacha 13
When a person brings figs from a field to partake of them in a courtyard which is exempt from the obligation to tithe,46 but then he forgot and brought them into his home, he is permitted to take them out from the home and snack from them.47 Similarly, if he forget [and after taking them into his home], took them up to the roof,48 he may snack from them on the roof.
If he brought them to partake of them49 on his roof and brought them into a friend's courtyard, an obligation to tithe is established and he should not partake of them until he tithes them.50
Halacha 14
When a courtyard has been plowed, it is considered like a garden51 and one may snack in it. [This applies] provided he plowed the majority [of the courtyard].52 If he sowed the majority of it,53 he may not snack in it.54The same law applies if he planted trees in it.55 If he planted trees in the courtyard to make it attractive,56 since the field has been plowed, he may snack from those trees [without tithing].
Halacha 15
When a fig tree is growing in a courtyard, one may eat57 figs from it one by one while exempt [from tithing]. If he gathers them together, he is obligated to tithe.58
When does the above apply? When he is standing on the ground. If, however, he climbs to the top59 of the fig tree, he may fill his bosom with them and eat them there. For the open space of a courtyard does not create an obligation to tithe.
Halacha 16
[If a fruit tree] was standing in a courtyard and leaning into a garden, one may partake of the tree while standing in the garden in his ordinary manner,60 as if the tree was planted in the garden.61 If [the tree] was planted in a garden and leaning into a courtyard, it is considered as if it was planted in the courtyard and one may only partake of them one at a time.
Halacha 17
When a vine is planted in a courtyard, one should not pick an entire cluster and partake of it. Instead, one should pick the grapes one by one.62 Similarly, with regard to pomegranates, one should not take the entire pomegranate, but instead should divide the pomegranate while it is on the tree and partake of the seeds from it. Similarly, with regard to a watermelon, one should bend it over to the ground and partake of it there.
If one was eating a cluster [of grapes] in a garden and brought it into a courtyard,63one should not continue eating until he tithes even if he departs from the courtyard.64
Halacha 18
When coriander65 is planted in a courtyard,66 one may pick it leaf by leaf and partake of it. If one gathers them together, he is obligated to tithe. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Produce from which the tithes (and/orterumah) have not been separated. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Berachot 7:1), the Rambam interprets this as a composite of the words tav lo, meaning "it is not good."
2.
From Chapter 3, Halachah 7, and Halachah 5, of this chapter, one might surmise that this applies whether the owner of the produce or another person brought it into the owner's home.
3.
From Chapter 3, Halachah 4, it appears that this refers to produce for which all the tasks necessary to prepare it were completed.
4.
Although according to Rabbinic Law, it is sufficient to bring the produce into one's courtyard as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 3, according to Scriptural Law, it must be brought into one's home.
5.
More particularly, the term karfef used by the Rambam, refers to an unprotected yard.
6.
He is, however, liable according to Rabbinic Law, in these instances. In his notes toBerachot 35b, the Meiri writes that even according to Scriptural Law, it is forbidden to do this as an initial preference; the leniency is granted only after the fact.
7.
This expression introduces a deduction for which the Rambam has no definite prior source in the Rabbinic literature. The Kessef Mishneh questions why the Rambam uses this expression when the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aserot 3:1) explicitly states that the obligation established by three of the six situations is Rabbinic in origin. He explains that there is no explicit source for the other three. Hence, this expression is appropriate.
8.
In the previous halachah.
9.
In Chapter 3, Halachah 3.
10.
See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
11.
Since it is so small, it is not fit to serve as a dwelling. Based on Hilchot Mezuzah 6:2, one might assume that tithes are required if the home comprises this area even though it is not square in shape.
12.
For roofs are not considered as dwellings.
13.
I.e., since the roof is small, it is not considered as an independent entity, but instead, is considered as part of the home (Kessef Mishneh).
14.
Shelters made of branches and wood [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 3:7].
15.
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.).
16.
Structures constructed to provide shade from the summer sun.
17.
Booths that do not have permanent roofs.
18.
This is the meaning of the term sukkot Ginosar in the mishnah (loc. cit.). Ginosar (the area around Lake Kinneret) was known for the quality and abundance of its produce. Workers would be hired to pick this produce during the harvest and they would construct semi-permanent structures in which they would dwell over the summer.
19.
Potters would construct sukkot with two rooms. The inner room would be their dwelling, while the outer room would serve as a workshop and storefront. If produce was brought into the inner sukkah, the obligation to tithe is established. See the notes to Halachah 9 with regard to this ruling.
20.
Note the clarification in the following halachah.
21.
I.e., if the owners of these structures bring produce into them, they are obligated to tithe it before partaking of it.
22.
I.e., if a person brings produce into a house belonging to a colleague, he is not obligated to tithe it. On the surface, the question may be raised: Even if a person brings produce into a colleague's home, he is not obligated to tithe it, as stated in Halachah 1. Why then are a leanto and a guardhouse singled out here?
It is possible to explain, however, that if a person makes it a practice of bringing produce into a colleague's home, he becomes obligated to tithe it when he does so. In contrast, even if he makes a practice of bringing produce into his colleague's leanto, an obligation to tithe is not established, because a leanto is not a permanent dwelling.
23.
From the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aserot 3:7), it appears that the term "school" refers to a school where young children are taught Scripture, while the term "house of study" refers to a study center where older students are taught the Oral Law.
24.
Even if he does not have an apartment there, since he is continually there, it is considered as his established abode (Radbaz, gloss to Halachah 6).
25.
In contrast to the house of study mentioned in the previous halachah, this is a house of study for adults where they meet and share ideas (Radbaz).
26.
For the sexton, as was common in certain situations.
27.
Since it contains a dwelling for the sexton, even the portion of the structure that serves as a synagogue or a house of study is considered as part of a dwelling (Radbaz). See also parallel rulings in Hilchot Mezuzah6:6 and Hilchot Shabbat 28:4.
28.
Our translation is based on the gloss of Rabbi Yosef Korcus who cites II Chronicles 9:25.
29.
For until the produce has been brought to a dwelling or the marketplace, it is still considered as being in an intermediate phase of preparation.
30.
In this instance as well, if the structure contains an apartment, e.g., for a guard or the like, bringing produce into any part of the structure establishes an obligation to tithe.
31.
A distinction must, however, be made. The obligation to tithe produce brought into a home is Scriptural in origin and the obligation to tithe produce brought into a courtyard is of Rabbinic origin.
32.
In Halachah 1, the Rambam makes such statements with regard to bringing produce into a home. He deduces that similar concepts apply with regard to bringing it into a courtyard.
33.
All of these signs are indications that the courtyard is regarded as private property and not the public domain.
34.
I.e., although two people share it, and one may carelessly leave it open, since the other locks it, it is regarded as private property. Hence bringing produce into it establishes the obligation to tithe.
35.
A structure common in Greek and Roman times with two or three walls and a roof. (Occasionally, there would be an opening in the roof.)
36.
In and of themselves, these structures are not considered dwellings and bringing produce into them would not create an obligation. Nevertheless, since they lead to and/or are auxiliaries to an area that is considered part of a permanent dwelling, they are considered as part of that dwelling.
The Radbaz notes that in Halachah 4 and in the following halachah, the Rambam states that bringing produce into a potter's outersukkah does not create an obligation, while bringing it into the inner sukkah does. Why don't we, he asks, apply the same principle? Let us say that the outer sukkah is an entrance and/or auxiliary to the inner one. He explains that for the inner sukkah to create an obligation is itself a new development and the obligation is not strong enough to be extended to the outer sukkah.
37.
For as above, in and of themselves, these structures are not considered significant dwellings.
38.
For they are both considered as permanent structures, leading to and auxiliary to the home.
39.
See the notes to Halachah 4 and those to the previous halachah. The commentaries question why the Rambam repeats the same law in such close proximity.
40.
Since a person spends much time in his store, it is considered as equivalent to a home for him.
41.
The Radbaz emphasizes that if the person spends a Sabbath on his journey, the commencement of the Sabbath establishes an obligation to tithe as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 3.
42.
I.e., if he does not transport the produce to his intended destination, but instead, changes his mind in the middle, and returns with it (Kessef Mishneh).
43.
Who sell perfumes to women [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot2:3)].
44.
This is speaking about their own produce or produce which was given to them to partake of (ibid.). If they were intending to sell the produce, there is an immediate obligation to tithe it. It is like bringing it to the marketplace (see Chapter 3, Halachah 2).
45.
Rav Yosef Korcus explains that in this instance - in contrast to the previous halachah - the obligation falls before they reach their ultimate destination. The rationale for the distinction is that since these traveling salesmen do not have an ultimate goal, wherever they spend the night is significant for them.
46.
I.e., one which is not guarded (Halachah 8).
47.
For bringing produce into his home does not establish an obligation to tithe unless the person brings them there intentionally (see Chapter 3, Halachah 5). The person must, however, remove them from the home. He may not partake of them in the home without tithing them.
48.
For bringing produce to a roof does not establish an obligation to tithe (Halachah 3).
49.
This is the version in the standard printed texts of the Mishneh Torah and is also found in authoritative manuscripts and early printings. The version of the Mishneh Torahwhich the Radbaz and Rav Yosef Korcus followed states: "brought them to dry them on the roof."
50.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, explaining that bringing produce into a friend's courtyard does not establish an obligation to tithe unless one does so intentionally, but not when one does so out of forgetfulness. He also cites a version of the Tosefta (Ma'aserot 2:10) which supports his understanding.
Rav Yosef Korcus offers two justifications for the Rambam's ruling. First of all, he states that the phrase "he should not partake of them" could be interpreted as referring to the owner of the courtyard and not to the owner of the produce. Alternatively, he explains that even if it refers to the owner of the produce, since the courtyard he brings it into is part of a permanent dwelling, he should not partake of it until he tithes it. Leniency was given to traveling salesmen (Halachah 13), because they brought the produce into the courtyard with the intent of removing it immediately. In this instance, however, the owner does not necessarily intend to remove it immediately. Why then should he not be obligated to tithe?
In his gloss to Chapter 5, Halachah 8, the Ra'avad notes a seeming contradiction to the Rambam's ruling here. In his gloss to that halachah, the Radbaz explains that the stringency here is to correct a misimpression that might result in the eyes of an observer. The Kessef Mishneh, however, finds the Rambam's rulings difficult to reconcile and suggests that there is a printing error here.
Nevertheless, Rav Yosef Korcus continues, the Rambam's statements appear to be self-contradictory, because in the previous clause it appears that if one brings produce into a home after forgetting, he is not obligated to tithe it, but this clause states that if he brings it into his colleague's courtyard, he is. Seemingly, bringing it into one's own home would be a stronger factor than bringing it into a colleague's courtyard. Among the resolutions he offers is that when a person forgets and brings the produce into his own home, he is certainly acting inadvertently, without intent. If, however, he brings it into his colleague's courtyard, that could be considered as a conscious change of mind.
51.
I.e., it is no longer considered as an extension of the home, but as a separate entity like a field.
52.
For once he has plowed the majority, he will certainly plow the remainder.
53.
But not the entirety of the courtyard.
54.
The rationale is that since he did not sow the entire courtyard, we assume that his sowing is only temporary and soon, he will revert to considering the courtyard as that and not as a field.
55.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam on this point, maintaining that planting trees does not remove land from the category of a courtyard. He explains that the Rambam used an incorrect version of the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aserot 3:10). For the Rambam's version of that passage conflicts with the rulings of Eruvin 23a regarding eruvin. TheKessef Mishneh explains that the obligations of eruvin and tithes are governed by different principles and deductions cannot necessarily be made from one situation to the other.
56.
This indicates that he is not intending to uproot them and return the area to the function of an ordinary courtyard. Hence, it is considered as an orchard and he may snack from the produce before tithing.
57.
In this and in the following halachot, the intent is to snack, not to eat a significant meal.
58.
For he is then considered to have completed the work associated with harvesting figs and they are in a courtyard. Compare to Chapter 5, Halachah 3.
59.
I.e., any place above three handbreadts off the ground (Radbaz).
60.
I.e., he can collect them instead of eating from them one by one.
61.
In other instances (see Ma'aserot 3:10), the foliage of the tree is considered as being in the same domain as its trunk. In this instance, however, the ruling depends on the domain in which the produce is collected.
62.
Following the same logic stated in Halachah 15.
63.
This applies to an instance where one intentionally brought the produce into the courtyard. If one did so unintentionally, there is no obligation to tithe as stated in Halachah 13.
64.
I.e., once the produce has entered the courtyard, the obligation to tithe is irrevocably established.
65.
Our translation is taken from Rav Kappach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 3:10).
66.
One in which the majority was sown as stated in Halachah 14.
Maaser - Chapter 5
Halacha 1
When a person purchases detached produce to partake of it, he is obligated to tithe it according to Rabbinic decree as we explained.1
When is the obligation [to tithe] established? When [the purchaser] pays [for the produce], even if he has not drawn it [into his domain].2 If [a potential purchaser] was selecting and setting aside, selecting and setting aside, even if he did so the entire day and even if he made up his mind to purchase the produce,3 he is not obligated to tithe it. If he is a God-fearing person, from the time he made up his mind, he should tithe it.4 Afterwards, if he desires to return it to the seller, he may return it.5
Halacha 2
When a person purchases produce that is attached to the ground or purchases detached produce6 to send to a colleague, [an obligation to tithe] is not established and he may snack from them.7
Halacha 3
When a person tells a colleague: "Here is an isar8 and give me five figs for it," he may eat them one by one and he is exempt [from the obligation to tithe]. If [the seller] gathers them together, he is obligated to tithe them.
[If he says:] "Here is an isar for 20 figs that I will select,"9 he may select them one by one and eat them.10 "...For a cluster of grapes that I will select," he may pick them individually from the tree and partake of them. "...For a pomegranate that I will select," he may remove the seeds while on the tree and partake of them. "...For a watermelon that I will select," he may bend it over to the ground and partake of it.
If he cut off the figs and gathered them together or cut off the cluster of grapes or the watermelon, he is obligated to tithe, because he purchased the produce in its detached state.11 If, however, he told him: "Here is an isar for these 20 figs," "...for these two12 clusters of grapes," "...for these two pomegranates," or "...for these two watermelons," he may harvest the produce in an ordinary manner and snack on it," for the obligation to tithe was not established, for he purchased the produce while it was attached.13
Halacha 4
When a person exchanges [produce]14 with a colleague and each have the intent of eating, an obligation has been established to tithe both lots of produce, for they have been purchased while detached.15 [If they are exchanged while attached, with] each one having to reap the others crops, an obligation has not been established for either of them, for a sale does not establish an obligation [to tithe] unless the work associated with its preparation is completed as we explained.16
If one purchased produce to eat17 in an exchange and the other purchased produce to reap in the same exchange, the one who purchased produce to eat is obligated to tithe, while the obligation to tithe has not been established for the one who purchased produce to reap.
Halacha 5
When a person tells a colleague: "Go out and gather 20 figs of mine for yourself18 and I will fill my gut with your produce," both are exempt.19 This is not considered as an exchange that is comparable to a sale.20 If he gathers [the produce] together and partakes of it, he is liable.21 [Giving produce as] a present does not establish an obligation to tithe as a sale does.22
Halacha 6
When a common person23 is passing through the marketplace and saying: "Take figs,"24 one may partake of them25 and one is exempt [from the obligation to tithe], for a present does not establish such an obligation.26
[Different rules apply when the recipients] brings the produce home. If the majority of the people [who harvest] bring their produce home [before taking it to the marketplace], one must certainly separate the tithes.27 If most of the people take the produce directly to the market place, he should only make the separations28 as one does for demai,29 for perhaps he tithed it and then brought it to the marketplace.
If [the common person] said: "Take them and bring them to your homes,"30when one takes them home, he must tithe them as one tithes demai.31 If [the common person] gave him a large amount of produce - even if he told him: "Take it and eat it,"32 - it is as if he told him, "Take it and bring it home."33 He may not partake of it until he makes the separations as one does for demai.34Similarly, if he gave him produce that is not usually eaten uncooked or the recipient was a person of stature who would not ordinarily eat in the marketplace, he should make the separations as one does for demai.
Halacha 7
If there were two [prospective recipients] and [the common person] said to one: "Take it and partake of it [here in the marketplace]," and he told the other: "Take it and bring it home," the first may partake of it and be exempt [from the obligation to tithe],35 while the second is obligated if he eats.36
Halacha 8
Similarly,37 if there were people sitting at the gate [of a courtyard] or in a store and [the common person] told them: "Take [this produce] and partake of it," they may partake of it38 and are exempt [from the obligation to tithe].39 The owner of the gate or the owner of the store may not partake of it until he makes the separations as one does for demai. For it is as if [the common person] told these people: "Take it and bring it home," for [these places] are considered like their homes.40 As we already explained,41 having produce pass through a house that is not one's own does not establish [an obligation to tithe].42
Halacha 9
[The following rules apply when one] hires workers to perform work with him concerning produce, whether produce that has been detached or that which is attached. Since [the workers] have the right to partake of the produce with which they are working according to Scriptural Law,43 they may partake of it and are exempt from tithing.44
[Different rules apply if the employer] agreed to a condition that allowed them to partake of produce to which the Torah did not entitle them, e.g., the worker stipulated that his son could partake of the produce with him, his son could partake of the produce as payment of his wages, or that he would be able to [continue] partaking of the produce which was harvested after the work [involved in its preparation] was completed, he is forbidden to partake of the produce until he tithes it. [The rationale is that] since he is partaking of the produce because of the condition, he is like a purchaser.45
Halacha 10
If [an employer] hired [a worker] to hoe around olive trees46 and the worker stipulated that he could partake of the olives, he may eat them one by one from the tree and he is exempt [from the obligation to tithe].47 If he gathers them together, he is obligated.48
Halacha 11
If one hired [a worker] to hoe around onions49 and he stipulated that he could partake of the green onions,50 he can cut off leaf by leaf and partake of them [without tithing], if he gathered them together, he is obligated.51
If a worker52 stipulated that he could eat a litra53 of olives, he may eat them one by one [without having to tithe them]. If he gathered them together, he is obligated to tithe. [The rationale is that] since he is eating a fixed measure, he is considered as a purchaser and [in such an instance,] if the produce is gathered together, his obligation to tithe is established. If he did not make a stipulation and instead, was eating as authorized by Torah Law, he may gather together and eat as much as he desires,54 provided he does not dip them in salt. If he dips them in salt,55 he is permitted [to eat them] one by one [without tithing].56 [To eat them] two by two is forbidden, for the obligation to tithe is established by dipping them in salt.57
Halacha 12
When a worker was performing work with lower quality figs,58 he should not partake59 of higher quality figs.60 If he was performing work with higher quality figs, he should not partake of lower quality figs unless he tithes them. He is permitted, however, to refrain from eating until he reaches the higher quality figs.
Halacha 13
When a person takes workers out to his field to perform work for him there,61if he is not required to provide them with food, they may partake of the produce of the field62 [when granted permission by the owner],63 and they are exempt from the tithes,64provided the tasks associated with [the preparation of the produce] are not completed.65If, however, he is required to provide them with food, they should not eat [of the produce of the field] even though they have not completed their tasks.66 [The rationale is that] we do not pay a debt from tevel.67 [Even in such a situation, the workers] should partake of the figs one by one. They may not, however, [partake of those] in a basket or in a container or those set aside.68
Halacha 14
When one cooks produce, boils it,69 or pickles it,70 one establishes an obligation to tithe.71 If, however, one smokes produce until it is prepared [to be eaten], there is a doubt [whether there is an obligation to tithe].72
Halacha 15
When a person buries his produce in the ground, in straw, or in fertilizer before preparing them to be eaten,73 the obligation to tithe them is not established.74
Halacha 16
When a person places wine into a cooked dish that is hot75 or he places oil in a pot or a baking dish when they are boiling, he establishes an obligation to tithe. If he mixes wine with hot water, he establishes an obligation to tithe. Needless to say, that if he cooks wine, even in the wine press, it is forbidden to drink from it unless he tithes it.
Halacha 17
When garlic, cress, or mustard seed were crushed in the field and mixed with oil,76 an obligation to tithe was established.77 Similarly, if one squeezes a cluster [of grapes] into a cup, an obligation to tithe was established.78 [If he squeezes it] into a pot,79 an obligation was not established.80
Halacha 18
When a person salts produce in the field, an obligation to tithe is established.81If, however, he dips olives into salt one by one and eats them, he is exempt. A person who opens olives so their fluid82 will flow out, is exempt. A person who removes olives from the storage vat,83 may dip them in salt one by one and eat them. If, however, he salted [several] and served them, he is obligated [to tithe]. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 19
[Even though] a person separates terumah from his produce in a manner that requires him to make a second separation,84 the obligation to tithe is established.85 He should not [even] snack from it until he separates terumah a second time and tithes.
Halacha 20
When the work associated with the preparation of produce has been completed86 and nightfall arrives on Friday, the obligation to tithe takes effect.87One may not partake of them88 even after the Sabbath until they are tithed.
Halacha 21
When children hid figs for the Sabbath and forgot to tithe them, one should not partake of them Saturday night until they are tithed.89
Halacha 22
If there was a fig tree that was designated for one to partake of its produce on the Sabbath90 and one gathered a basket [of these figs], one may not partake of them91until he tithes them. [This stringency was established,] because these figs are designated for the Sabbath and the Sabbath establishes an obligation to tithe.
If a person was eating92 a cluster of grapes and nightfall arrived on Friday, he should not finish eating them on the Sabbath unless he tithes them.93 If he sets them aside until after the Sabbath, he may finish them.94
FOOTNOTES
1.
See Chapter 2, Halachot 1-2 which explain that according to Scriptural Law, one is obligated to tithe produce only when he harvests it for his own personal use. Similarly, one who purchases produce is not liable to tithe it according to Scriptural Law.
As indicated by the following halachah, this applies when the purchaser bought the produce to partake of it. If he purchased it as merchandise, the obligation to tithe does not take effect until one purchases it with the intent of partaking of it.
2.
With regard to the laws of acquisition, according to Scriptural Law, the payment of money brings about a kinyan, the transfer of an object from one person's domain to another. Nevertheless, our Sages decreed that such a transfer should be brought about by drawing the object to be acquired out of the seller's domain (meshichah; see Hilchot Mechirah 3:5). Nevertheless, with regard to the obligation to tithe, they did not alter the Scriptural Law.
3.
For making up his mind does not establish a binding obligation.
4.
For a Torah sage should go beyond the letter of the law and accept financial responsibilities that are not mandated by Torah Law. See Hilchot De'ot, the conclusion of ch. 5.
5.
The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishnehemphasize that he should not return the produce unless the seller agrees. Nevertheless, even if the seller agrees to accept the produce, the purchaser must make restitution from his own produce or funds for the produce that he tithed.
6.
This applies even if the work necessary to prepare it has been completed.
7.
Although our Sages required one who purchases produce to tithe it, they instituted this obligation only when one intended to partake of it himself, just as the Scriptural obligation to tithe applies only for a person who harvests produce to partake of it himself (Siftei Cohen 331:119).
8.
A coin used in the Talmudic era of moderate value.
9.
His wording implies that he acquires them after he selects them and picks them from the tree, for the terms of purchase state that he would "select it," i.e., detach it.
10.
Without tithing.
11.
I.e., though it was attached when he negotiated the deal, the purchase takes effect after he detaches it. Hence, he is obligated to tithe the produce, because a sale is one of the factors that establish such an obligation [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 2:6)].
12.
The Radbaz questions why the Rambam mentions two clusters of figs. The same laws would apply if only one cluster was involved. He explains that since it is not common for people to purchase a large amount of produce while it is still attached to the ground, it is important to emphasize that this law applies even when he purchases a large amount.
13.
And a sale of attached produce does not convey an obligation to tithe.
14.
As stated in Hilchot Mechirah 5:1, an exchange is considered as equivalent to a sale.
15.
Hence it is forbidden even to snack from them.
16.
Chapter 3, Halachah 3.
17.
I.e., detached produce.
18.
I.e., the produce is on the trees and it does not become the other person's until he picks it.
19.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the person who partakes of a particular number of figs is obligated to tithe them. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishnehjustify the Rambam's ruling.
20.
Instead, it is considered as if each person gave the other a present.
21.
For partaking of untithed produce.
22.
There are certain dimensions of Jewish business law in which a present is considered as a sale and others in which it is not (see Hilchot Gezeilah 9:13; Hilchot Mechirah 29:14). The Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aserot 2:1) states that even those authorities who maintain that giving a present should be considered as a sale (seeHilchot Shemitah VeYoval 11:19) agree that this stringency should not be enforced in the present age, because in the present age, the obligation to tithe is of Rabbinic origin. The Rambam mentions this leniency without differentiating between the era when the obligation to tithe was Scriptural and the present age, because he maintains that the entire obligation to tithe produce obtained through purchase is of Rabbinic origin.
23.
Who is not necessarily relied upon with regard to tithes.
24.
As presents [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 2:1)].
25.
As a snack.
26.
For we assume that the produce has not been taken home and thus has not incurred the obligation to be tithed. Hence, one is permitted to snack from it without tithing (ibid.).
27.
Since the common person passed through the marketplace and did not stand there to sell his produce, we assume that he is one of those who brings his produce home. Furthermore, we proceed on the assumption that he has not taken the produce home yet and thus it never incurred the obligation to be tithed. Therefore when the recipients take it home, it incurs that obligation for the first time. Indeed, they must separate not only the tithes, but also terumah.
28.
These separations must be made, for in such a situation, the produce incurs the obligation to be tithed after the work associated with its preparation was completed (see Chapter 3, Halachah 1).
29.
As will be explained in Chapter 9, in the Second Temple period, the common people became somewhat lax with regard to the mitzvah of separating tithes. When they became aware of this situation, the Sages ordained that one should not partake of produce from a common person without tithing it, for perhaps he did not do so. One should not, however, recite a blessing, for it is possible that it was tithed. Similarly in this instance, it is possible that the common person tithed his produce, but it is possible that he did not.
30.
I.e., he is assuring the recipients that they may take the produce home without qualms because it has already been tithed [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].
31.
For we do not accept the common person's word (ibid.).
32.
Which could be interpreted as assurance that the produce had not been taken home by the common person and thus it has not yet been tithed.
33.
Because a large amount of produce will certainly not be eaten in the marketplace. We do not rely on the common person's assurance that he tithed it or that he will tithe it in the future.
34.
For we are unsure of whether or not it was tithed or not. The same concepts apply with regard to the instances mentioned in the later clauses.
35.
As in the first clause of the previous halachah.
36.
As in the later clause. The fact that his statements are self-contradictory is not a matter of concern, for the obligation to tithe is Rabbinic in origin and our Sages established their rules as general guidelines to be applied even if some ramifications are difficult to understand (Aruch HaShulchan).
37.
I.e., here to, the above principles produce seemingly contradictory rulings.
38.
As a snack. They may not eat a significant meal.
39.
Even if it is brought within the gate or the store.
40.
For they are located there on a consistent basis [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 2:2)].
41.
Chapter 4, Halachah 11. As the Ra'avad notes, the Rambam's decision here appears somewhat contradictory to his ruling there. See the notes to that halachah.
42.
And thus, the other people in the store or gate are not obligated to tithe.
43.
See Hilchot Sechirut, ch. 12, based onDeuteronomy 23:25-26, which describes a worker's right to partake of the produce with which he is working.
44.
Because the worker does not acquire the produce that he eats. Instead, he is eating because of the Torah's license. Hence, he is not required to separate tithes (Siftei Cohen331:123).
45.
Who must tithe his produce as stated above.
46.
To remove weeds so that the tree will grow better. In such an instance, he is not entitled to partake of the olives according to Scriptural Law, because his work does not involve the produce itself. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 3:3).
47.
As In Chapter 4, Halachah 15, et al. For in this manner, the work associated with the olives is not completed.
48.
Because collecting even a small number of them would be considered as the completion of a task. He is obligated to tithe, because since he is eating due to the stipulation, it is considered as a purchase.
49.
I.e., to remove small onions and/or weeds from an onion patch so that the large onions would have the opportunity to grow.
50.
I.e., the leaves of the onions. According to Scriptural Law, the worker is not allowed to partake of the onions, because his efforts to do not complete the preparation of this produce (Hilchot Sechirut 12:4). Nevertheless, this owner agreed to allow the worker to partake of the onion leaves.
51.
As explained in the previous halachah.
52.
Who was performing work with the olives that would entitle him to partake of them according to Scriptural Law, e.g., he was harvesting them.
53.
A Talmudic measure equivalent to half a log, 171 cc according to Shiurei Torah, 300 cc according to Chazon Ish.
54.
As stated in Halachah 9.
55.
It must be emphasized that we are speaking about an instance where the employer gives the worker special license to dip the olives in salt. Otherwise, he is forbidden to do so, as apparent from Hilchot Sechirut 12:10 (Rambam LeAm).
56.
See Halachah 18.
57.
As stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 3.
58.
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot2:8).
59.
Without separating tithes.
60.
Because that is not the species of produce with which he is working.
61.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 3:2), the Rambam states that we are not speaking about workers employed to harvest the produce of the field, for they would have a right to partake of this produce according to Scriptural Law. Instead, we are speaking of workers who are plowing or performing other similar tasks.
62.
They may partake of the produce freely, not merely one at a time.
63.
This addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Radbaz.
64.
For a present is not considered like a sale and does not obligate the separation of tithes, as stated in Halachah 5.
65.
As stated at the beginning of Chapter 3. If the tasks were completed, it would be forbidden to partake of a significant meal from this produce.
66.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 9. The Radbaz mentions that the produce must have matured to the extent that it could be obligated to tithed. Otherwise, there would be no prohibition in paying one's debt with it.
67.
And since the owner is required to provide them with food, allowing them to partake of this produce would be equivalent to paying a debt.
68.
For the work associated with this produce is completed and it is forbidden to partake of it unless it is tithed.
69.
I.e., cook without spices.
70.
In brine, the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 4:1).
71.
This obligation is, however, merely Rabbinic in origin.
72.
Our Sages [the Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim6:1)] raise this question and leave it unresolved. See the Radbaz who mentions instances where smoking is considered as cooking and others when it is not.
73.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that when produce was picked before it was ripened, it would be buried in this manner to hasten its ripening and softening process.
74.
Although this activity helps prepare them to be eaten, it is not considered as cooking or pickling (Radbaz; see also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.).
75.
Apparently, this ruling applies even if the cooked food has been removed from the fire and placed in another utensil (a kli sheni). See Radbaz and Chapter 3, Halachah 15.
76.
The Radbaz states that this applies whether the spices were untithed and the oil had been tithed previously or the oil was untithed and the spices had been tithed previously.
77.
If they were not brought home. Crushing these pungent herbs and mixing them with oil is equivalent to cooking them.
78.
Creating a liquid (wine) from the grapes is equivalent to cooking.
79.
Containing other food.
80.
Because the wine was absorbed immediately by the food in the pot and never became a distinct entity. We are speaking about food that is cold. Otherwise, exposing the wine to heat would establish the obligation as stated in the previous halachah (Kessef Mishneh).
81.
As stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 3.
82.
A white fluid that resembles milk in its appearance [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 4:1)].
83.
Where the olives are kept until they become soft and fit to be squeezed for their oil (14ibid.|ERROR:@|13 4:3).
84.
See Hilchot Terumah 5:14,15 which give examples of instances where a person made an improper separation of terumahand hence, was required to separateterumah a second time.
85.
Chapter 3, Halachah 3, states that separating terumah creates an obligation to tithe the remaining produce. In this halachah, the Rambam emphasizes that even if the separation of terumah was defective andterumah had to be separated a second time, the obligation to tithe has still taken effect (Radbaz).
86.
As stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 3, the onset of the Sabbath establishes an obligation to tithe. Nevertheless, this applies only when the tasks associated with the preparation of the produce was completed beforehand (Beitzah 35a).
87.
The rationale is that since the work associated with them has been completed, it is possible to partake of them on the Sabbath. Now eating any food on the Sabbath is significant for it is a dimension of the mitzvah of oneg Shabbat, taking pleasure in the Sabbath. Hence, the obligation to tithe is established (Siftei Cohen331:127).
88.
Even a snack.
89.
For the onset of the Sabbath establishes an obligation to tithe as above.
The Rambam is quoting the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 4:2). The Jerusalem Talmud raises the question: Why is it necessary to state that the children were intending to partake of them on the Sabbath? Even if that was not their intent, the commencement of the Sabbath would have established the obligation to tithe. The Jerusalem Talmud answers that the new insight is that since it was children who hid the produce, it would be permitted to be eaten as a snack on Friday. If, however, adults set aside the produce for use on the Sabbath, it is not permitted to snack from it on Friday. See also Siftei Cohen 331:129.
90.
Its figs were of a high quality and hence, set aside to be used on the Sabbath when one must use produce of the highest quality.
91.
Even during the week (Radbaz).
92.
I.e., snacking. Eating a significant amount establishes an obligation to tithe.
93.
The tithing should be done before the Sabbath, because it is forbidden to tithe on the Sabbath itself (Hilchot Shabbat 23:9).
94.
Since he began partaking of them before the commencement of the Sabbath and places them aside so that he would not partake of them on the Sabbath, their status does not change. He need not tithe them if he partakes of them after the Sabbath (Siftei Cohen 331:130).
Maaser - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
One may rub the surface of figs and grapes [of tevel];1 this does not cause a [significant] loss.2 Whatever is forbidden for non-priests to partake of with regard to terumah, e.g., the seeds or the like,3 may not be eaten from tevel, from the tithes from which terumat ma'aser has not been separated, or from the second tithe and consecrated property that were not redeemed. Whatever non-priests may partake of with regard to terumah is also permitted to be eaten from tevel, from the tithes from which terumat ma'aser has not been separated, and from the second tithe and consecrated property that were not redeemed.
Halacha 2
We4 may not kindle impure tevel ,5 even during the week. Needless to say, this applies on Sabbath.6 [This is implied by Numbers 18:5]: "the watch of Myterumah."7 Just as pure terumah may not be used until after it has been separated, so too, we may not benefit from impure terumah until after it was separated.
Halacha 3
We may not cover tevel with earth,8 nor may we sow it. It is forbidden to sow even produce for which the work associated with their preparation has not been completed9 until it has been tithed.10
When does the above apply? With regard to grains, legumes, and the like.11If, however, one uproots saplings that contain fruit and replants them in another place in his field,12 it is permitted. It is not considered as sowing tevel, for he did not gather the fruit.13
Similarly, when one uproots turnips and radishes and replants them elsewhere, if he intends to add to their bulk, it is permitted.14 If one plants them so that they will produce stalks so that he can take their seed, it is forbidden [to plant them without tithing],15because it is like sowing wheat or barley that istevel.
Halacha 4
[The following laws apply when a person] sows a litra of produce16that was separated as tithes, but terumat ma'aser had not been separated from it. If it increased and it is now 10 litra, [the entire new crop] is required to be tithed.17A tenth18 should be separated for the [original] litra from other produce19according to the appropriate reckoning.20
If one separated [terumah and tithes] from a litra of onions and sowed them, one should not separate the tithes according to the reckoning of the increase, but according to the entire sum of the crop.21
Halacha 5
There is an unresolved doubt regarding the ruling when stalks of produce whose seed does not decompose that reached a third of their growth,22 were [gathered,] their stack was straightened,23 he sowed them, and they increased in size. [One might say that] there is a Rabbinic obligation to tithe them, because they increased in size.24 [But one might say] that there is no obligation25 since the seed which continues to exist and did not decompose was tithed. [The laws governing these species] do not resemble [those that apply to] onions, because it is not common practice to sow onions.26
Halacha 6
[The following laws apply when one] sows tevel, whether a crop whose seed decomposes27 or a crop whose seed does not decompose.28 If it is possible for him to gather it [before it takes root in the ground], we penalize him29 and [require him to] gather it. [If the seed decomposes], should it grow, we do not require him to uproot [the plants].30 [The growths] are considered as ordinary produce.31
If the produce is of a type whose seed does not decompose, even the produce that grows from the growths - indeed, even until the third generation - is forbidden. The fourth generation is permitted. Why are the growths foribidden? Because of the terumat ma'aser and the terumah within them.32These same laws apply when one sows produce separated as the tithes from which terumat ma'aser was not separated.
It is forbidden to sell tevel except when there is a necessity to do so and [then,] only to a Torah scholar.33 It is forbidden to send [presents] of tevel, even from one Torah scholar to another, perhaps one will rely on the other34and thus cause tevel to be eaten.
Halacha 7
[The following rules apply when a person] sells produce35to a colleague, but then remembers that it is tevel and although he afterwards runs to pursue him to make the appropriate separations,36 he cannot find him. If he knows that the produce no longer exists - it was already lost or consumed - he does not have to separate tithes for it.37 If there is a doubt whether it exists or do not exists, he should separate tithes for it from other produce.38
Halacha 8
[The following rule applies when there is a dispute when] a person sells produce to a purchaser.] The seller says: "I sold them with the stipulation that they were tevel."39 The purchaser said: "I purchased tithed produce from you."40 We compel the seller to make the appropriate separations.41 [This is a] penalty imposed upon him for selling tevel.42
Halacha 9
One may not pay a debt from tevel, for this resembles a sale.43
Halacha 10
[The following laws apply when a person's] crops were seized by the king's authorities while they were tevel. If [they were taken] because he owed this amount,44 he must separate the tithes for this produce.45 If they were taken from him by force, he does not have to separate tithes for them.
Halacha 11
When a person purchases tevel from two sources,46 he may separate the tithes from one for the other.47 When a person receives a field from a Jew or from a gentile as part of a sharecropping agreement,48 he should make the division [of the produce] in the presence of the owner of the field and give him his share then, so that he knows that he received tevel.49
[Different rules apply, however, when a person] rents a field from a Jew on the condition that he pay the owner a specific amount of produce. If he pays him with produce from the field he rented, [the renter] must separateterumah.50Afterwards, he gives him the measure he stipulated he would give him and the owner of the field must separate the tithe himself.51 If, however, [the renter] pays the owner from the produce of another field or with another type of produce, [the renter] must first separate the tithes and then pay [the owner].52
Halacha 12
When a person rents a field from a gentile on the condition that he pay him a specific amount of produce, he must tithe the produce before giving it to him. This is a penalty imposed upon him so that he will not rent the field from the gentile.53 In this way, the field will lie fallow [before the gentile]54 and, of necessity, he will sell it to a Jew.55
Similarly, when a person accepts his ancestral field from a gentile as a sharecropper,56 he was penalized and required to tithe the produce before giving the gentile his share of produce after it was tithed. [This measure was instituted] so that a person should not jump at the opportunity to receive it because it was his ancestral field. In this manner, it will remain fallow before the gentile so that he will sell it to a Jew.
Halacha 13
What is meant by a chokar and what is meant by a mekabel?57 A chokarhires the field for a specific amount of produce - these-and-these many se'ah - whether the field produced a lot or a little. A mekabel hires the field for a percentage of its yield, half, a third, or whichever amount they agree on. Asochar is one who rents the land for [a sum of] money.58
Halacha 14
When two people receive a field as sharecroppers together, they inherit the field, or join as partners with regard to it, one may tell the other: "Take the wheat in this-and-this place and I will take the wheat from that-and-that place. You [take] the wine in this-and-this place and I will take the wine from that-and-that place."59 He should not say: "You take the wheat and I will take the barley. You take the wine and I will take the oil," for that constitutes sellingtevel.
Halacha 15
When a priest or a Levite purchased produce from an Israelite after the tasks [associated with their preparation] were completed,60 we expropriate theterumah and tithes from their possession and give them to other priests and Levites. This is a penalty imposed on them so that they will not hurry to the grainheaps and winepresses and purchase tevel to grab the presents of their priestly brethren.61 If, however, they purchase [the produce] before [these] tasks are completed, we do not expropriate [the presents] from their possession.62
Halacha 16
When a priest or Levite sold produce that was detached to an Israelite63before the tasks [associated with their preparation] were completed - and certainly, if they sold the produce while it was attached - the terumah or the tithes belong to [the priest or Levite].64 If they sold it after these tasks were completed, the terumah and the tithes belong to the purchaser.65 He must separate them and may give them to the priest or Levite of his choice.
Halacha 17
When a priest or Levite receive a field from an Israelite under a sharecropping agreement, they should divide the terumah and the tithes, as they divide up the ordinary produce. The Israelite should take his portion and give it to the priest or Levite of his choice. When, however, an Israelite receives a field from a priest or a Levite under a sharecropping agreement, the terumahand/or the tithes belong to the owner of the field.66 The remainder of the presents67 should be divided.
Halacha 18
When a person - whether an Israelite from a priest or Levite or a priest or Levite from an Israelite - receive olives68 to produce oil, they should divide theterumah and the tithes, as they divide up the ordinary produce. [The rationale is that] oil is an important [commodity].69
Halacha 19
When a priest sells a field to an Israelite and tells him: "[I am selling it] on the condition that the tithes from it belong to me forever," they belong to him.70[The rationale is that] saying "on the condition that" is tantamount to setting aside for himself [the portion of the field] where the tithes [grow].71
If the priest [who sold the land] dies, his son is like all other priests.72 If [the priest] told [the purchaser]: "[I am selling it] on the condition that the tithes from it belong to me and my son," [when] he dies, his son73 should take [the tithes]. If he sold it "...on the condition throughout the time it is in your possession," should the purchaser sell it to another person - even if he later buys it back, the priest is no longer entitled to those tithes.
Halacha 20
When an Israelite received a field under a sharecropping agreement from a priest or Levite and stipulated that [the agreement is being made] "on the condition that the tithes are mine74 for four or five years," this is permitted.75"...On the condition that they are mine forever," this is forbidden. [The rationale is that] one priest cannot make another priest.76
Similarly, if a Levite owed money to an Israelite, the Israelite may not collect produce from others and set aside the tithes for himself until he repays his debt.77 For a Levite cannot make his creditor a Levite so that he can collect the tithes from others.78
Halacha 21
When an Israelite inherits tevel that was found in a grainheap whose edges had been straightened79 from his maternal grandfather who was a priest who in turn inherited it from his maternal grandfather who was an Israelite, [the Israelite who was the heir] may separate the tithes and keep them as his own. [The rationale is that] presents which are fit to be separated are considered as if they have already been separated although in actual fact they were not separated.80
Halacha 22
When a person gives his field81 to a gentile or to someone upon whom we cannot rely with regard to the tithes82 in a sharecropping arrangement, he must separate the tithes in lieu of them even though [the produce] had not reached the "phase of tithing" [when the arrangement was made].83
If he entered into such an arrangement with a common person [different rules apply]. If [the arrangement began] before the crops reached the "phase of tithing," he does not have to tithe in lieu of him.84 [If it began] after they reached the "phase of tithing," he must tithe in lieu of him.85
What must he do? He should stand over the grainheap86 and take [the produce that must be separated]. He need not be concerned with what they ate,87 for we are not responsible for their actions.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Produce from which terumah and tithes were not separated. It was common to rub the surface of grapes and figs to smooth them (Kessef Mishneh). The Radbaz states that oil was applied to their surface.
2.
Although this activity causes the produce to spoil slightly faster, this is not significant over the long run. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot1:8).
3.
The Rambam is speaking about aspects of produce, e.g., leaves, peels, seeds, some of which are considered waste products (and hence, permitted to be eaten by non-priests) and some of which are considered as food (and forbidden to them). See Hilchot Terumah 11:10-13 where the Rambam gives many different examples of these categories. Any substance that is considered as food with regard to terumah is also considered as food with regard to the other prohibitions mentioned by the Rambam. Conversely, any substance that is not considered as food with regard toterumah is also not considered as food in the other contexts.
4.
Even priests who are permitted to use impure terumah (Radbaz).
5.
Impure terumah, e.g., oil, may be used as fuel for kindling. The priest might think: "Since I want to use all of this oil as fuel, why should I separate the terumah? Let me kindle it all as tevel." This is not permitted as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
Our translation follows the interpretation of the Radbaz. Others interpret the termmechapin as "cover."
6.
I.e., kindling the Sabbath lights with oil that istevel. This is certainly forbidden, becauseterumah and the tithes may not be separated on the Sabbath.
7.
In the verse, the noun terumah uses a plural form alluding to two types of terumah: pureterumah and impure terumah. See alsoHilchot Terumah 2:14.
8.
To cover seeds that were strewn over the field with earth (Radbaz). It was forbidden to do this until after terumah and the tithes were separated because this resembles sowing tevel.
9.
The obligation to separate terumah and the tithes does not take effect until the work associated with the preparation of the produce has been completed (see Chapter 3, Halachot 8-13). Since the produce has not reached this stage, one might think that there is no prohibition against sowing it.
10.
According to Scriptural Law, there is no prohibition against sowing tevel. The obligation to tithe applies only when one eats. Nevertheless, our Sages (Pe'ah 1:16) imposed this stringency.
11.
For gathering them together to sow them completes the work associated with their preparation [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 1:8)].
12.
The Radbaz states that if he gives the trees to a colleague for the colleague to plant in his field, the fruit must be tithed.
13.
Thus the fruit was never considered as an independent entity from the tree so that the obligation to tithe it could be considered.
14.
For they were not gathered with the intent of reaping produce and thus the obligation to tithe ddid not fall upon them.
15.
For the obligation to tithe was incurred when the produce was harvested originally.
16.
The Ra'avad states that this applies only to crops like onions or the like where a bulb is planted and it increases as it grows. If, however, seeds which do not grow until they decompose are planted, this law does not apply. The Radbaz states that the Rambam would not necessarily accept this limitation.
17.
I.e., not only the new crop but also the old crop which was tithed and then sown, as explained in the subsequent notes.
18.
The percentage to be separated as terumat ma'aser.
19.
Which was reaped in the same year as that produce was reaped, for it is forbidden to separate the terumah [or terumat ma'aser] for produce from one year from produce from a different year (Hilchot Terumot 5:11).
20.
For although it is now considered as part of the new crop, since it still physically exists, there is an obligation to separate terumat ma'aser for it.
21.
Since one sowed the onions themselves and tithes had already been separated from them, there is reason to think that there would be no need to tithe them again. Indeed, it would be undesirable to do so, for it is improper to tithe produce that has already been tithed. Nevertheless, in this instance, there is an obligation to tithe. The rationale is that the new growth of the onions outweighs their initial mass and that initial mass is considered as betal, insignificant and subsumed in the greater whole. This concept is illustrated in other contexts; seeHilchot Terumot 11:22; Hilchot Shemitah4:21, et al.
22.
At which point the obligation to tithe applies.
23.
I.e., this completes the tasks associated with the preparation of the produce and causes the obligation to tithe to be incurred.
24.
And the produce which existed previously is considered as betal to the new produce, as above.
25.
To tithe the original produce. Even this opinion agrees that the new produce which grows must be tithed.
26.
Hence, the laws governing onions cannot provide guidance in this instance (Kessef Mishneh).
27.
E.g., wheat or barley.
28.
Like onions or garlic.
29.
For violating our Sages' decree not to sowtevel.
30.
For the prohibited entity no longer exists.
31.
I.e., it is permitted to partake of them and the required separations must be made.
32.
Compare to Hilchot Terumah 11:21 and notes.
33.
We are translating the term chaveraccording to the Rambam's wording in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 5:8). More specifically, it refers to a person who adheres to the laws of tithing. Torah scholars are mentioned, because we assume that they adhere to those laws (Chapter 9, Halachah 1, Chapter 10, Halachot 1-2).
34.
I.e., since both are known to tithe their produce, it is possible that both will think that the other one tithed, when in fact neither of them did so.
35.
Which both the seller and the purchaser thought had been tithed.
36.
I.e., this is the first step such a person should take.
37.
Once the produce has ceased to exist, there is no way a person can correct his past lapses.
38.
The Ra'avad states that the produce separated must itself be tithed, for it is possible that in fact the original produce had been lost. The Radbaz states that the Rambam would also accept this point.
39.
He says this after the sale, so that the purchaser knows that the produce must be tithed. He must bring witnesses who testify that he is telling the truth, i.e., that the produce is tevel. Otherwise, the seller's word would not be accepted. See also Chapter 12, Halachah 18, and notes.
40.
And thus the seller is required to reimburse him for the tithed produce.
41.
I.e., separating the tithes for the produce that was sold from other produce.
42.
I.e., ordinarily, the ruling would favor the seller, based on the principle: "When a person seeks to expropriate property from a coleague, the burden of proof is upon him." In this instance, however, the seller is penalized, because he violated a Rabbinic prohibition by selling tevel (Radbaz).
43.
For one is receiving a monetary advantage for the tevel.
44.
I.e., the king had levied a tax on all his countrymen equally. Such a tax must be paid, because "the law of the land is your law" (Hilchot Gezeilah 5:12).
45.
Otherwise, he would be paying a debt withtevel.
46.
I.e., both sellers inform the purchaser that they are selling him tevel (Radbaz).
47.
We do not suspect that the two batches of produce are from different years and thus the tithes for one should not be separated from the other (ibid.).
48.
See Halachah 13 for a definition of the Hebrew terms used in this halachah.
49.
The sharecropper does not have to tithe the crop before he gives the owner his share. This is not considered as selling tevel, for the owner's share of the produce never belonged to the sharecropper. Nevertheless, if the division is not made in the presence of the owner, the sharecropper should separate the tithes, lest the owner think the produce he receives has been tithed and transgress by partaking of it without tithing (ibid.). Even if the owner is a gentile, this applies for another Jew may see the Jewish sharecropper bringing produce to the gentile and purchase it from him under the impression that it was tithed (ibid.).
50.
For it is forbidden to take produce from the grainheap in which it is gathered without separating terumah (ibid.).
51.
The renter does not have to separate the tithes, because - as above - this portion of the crop never belonged to him. From the outset, it was designated for the owner.
52.
For in that instance, he is paying the owner with the untithed produce and that is forbidden.
53.
The Radbaz notes that - as indicated by the previous halachah - a penalty was not imposed on a person who enters into a sharecropping agreement with a gentile unless it was his ancestral field. The Radbaz explains the difference between the two situations: When a person rents a field for a specific amount of produce, he usually does so as a last resort and receives only a minimal amount. Therefore, if there are restrictions made against him doing so, he may sell the land. When, by contrast, a person seeks a sharecropper, he is reserving the option to sow it himself. Hence, he is less likely to sell it.
54.
For no one will seek to hire it from him.
55.
This and the measure mentioned in the following clause were part of the safeguards the Sages employed to uphold the Jews' possession of our Holy Land. For in the Roman era, gentiles would frequently seize Jewish property without cause. Rather than have it remain in the gentile's possession, our Sages desired that he be compelled to sell it back to a Jew.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai6:2), the Rambam states that this ruling applies only in Eretz Yisrael, for it is only there that we are careful about land not being sold to a gentile. The Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 331:121), however, quotes this law without making that restriction. It is possible to explain that even in the Diaspora, there is a concept of maintaining the stability of the Jewish community by not giving up Jewish land to gentiles.
56.
I.e., the gentile seized a field which a Jew had inherited from his ancestors. Because of his connection to the field, the Jew desired to till it and promised to give the gentile a share under a sharecropping agreement.
57.
These terms refer to sharecroppers operating under different types of agreements.
58.
See Hilchot Sechirut 8:1-2 which also discusses these distinctions.
59.
I.e., making a division for the sake of convenience [see the standard printed text of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 6:8); Rav Kappach's version differs)].
60.
But before terumah and the tithes were separated. Since the priests or Levites are entitled to the tithes and/or the terumah, they wished to purchase the produce and separate them for themselves. See Chapter 1, Halachah 3.
61.
The Ra'avad accepts the Rambam's ruling, but differs with regard to its motivating rationale. He explains that since the Israelite completed the tasks associated with the preparation of the grain, he has the right to give away the terumah and the tithes and the priest or Levite is not entitled to take that from him. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that the rationale given by the Rambam is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud (Pe'ah 1:6) and thus question the Ra'avad's position.
62.
Since there is a certain amount of difficulty involved in the completion of these tasks, we do not penalize them.
63.
But not to a fellow priest or Levite.
64.
The rationale is that we operate under the presumption that when the priest or Levite sold the produce, he included a stipulation that the terumah and/or the tithes were his. Even though this stipulation was not explicitly made, we assume that it was understood (Rav Yosef Korcus).
Although they sold tevel - and thus it would be appropriate to penalize them - since they made it known that the produce was tevel, no penalty is imposed.
65.
Since the tasks associated with the produce were completed, the obligation to tithe is immediate. Hence, if the priest or Levite desired to retain possession of the terumahand tithes, they would have to make an explicit stipulation.
66.
In this instance as well, since the field belongs to the priest or Levite, it is as if he made a stipulation that the terumah and/or tithes should be given to him.
67.
The second tithe or the tithe given to the poor.
68.
I.e., olives that have already been harvested from the tree (Radbaz).
69.
Hence if the priest or Levite desired that theterumah and/or tithes be left for him, he would have to make an explicit stipulation to that effect. Thus if the olives - or any other produce - have not been harvested, if the land is owned by a priest or Levite, he retains the right to the terumah and/or tithes as above.
70.
Even if the purchaser later sells that field to another person, he cannot override the stipulation that was part of the original sale.
71.
Were his stipulation not to be powerful enough to retain a portion of the land itself, it would not be effective, because it would be tantamount to purchasing an entity that has not come into existence. Such a purchase is not effective (Bava Batra 63a).
The commentaries note an apparent contradiction between the Rambam's ruling here and his ruling in Hilchot Bikkurim 9:11. Although there are explicit Talmudic sources for both rulings, their logic appears contradictory. Among the resolutions offered is that here, the Rambam is speaking about landed property, while in Hilchot Bikkurim, he is speaking about an animal and the principles of ownership are different in these two instances.
72.
I.e., he no longer has any special rights to the terumah or tithes.
73.
His grandson, however, does not have a right to them (Aruch HaShulchan).
74.
I.e., the Israelite's.
75.
The Israelite is stipulating that he retains the right to separate the terumah and the tithes for all of the produce and give them to any priest or Levite he desires. Although as stated above, when the owner of the field is a priest, he can retain the rights to theterumah and the tithes. Nevertheless, as part of his contractual arrangement with the renter, he may give him the right to distribute them (Radbaz).
76.
I.e., a priest cannot give his right to collectterumah to a person who is not a priest. Similarly, a Levite may not make another Levite. Since the renter desires to make the arrangement permanent, it is forbidden, for a person who does not have a right to take theterumah and tithes is taking them.
77.
I.e., the creditor will continue to deduct the value of the tithes from the debt until the debt is paid.
78.
Even though the creditor is taking them for the Levite, since he does not have an inherent right to them, he may not collect them.
79.
I.e., at this stage, the tasks associated with the preparation of the produce were completed and tithes are required to be separated from it.
80.
To summarize the situation: The first testator, the Israelite, had completed the tasks involved with the preparation of his produce, but died before he had the opportunity to separate the terumah and the tithes. The first heir and second testator, the priest, also died before he had the opportunity to make these separations. Nevertheless, since had he in fact separated them, he would have been allowed to keep them as his own, we consider it as if he actually did so. Therefore when the final heir, the Israelite, takes possession of the produce, he must separate the terumah and the tithes to fulfill the mitzvah. He may then, however, keep them as his own property. (He may not, however, partake of the terumah, he must sell it to a priest.)
81.
This halachah is speaking about an instance where the person worded the arrangement with the gentile in such a manner that the gentile does not receive possession of the produce until after it reaches the "phase of tithing." Otherwise, there would be no obligation to separate tithes. See Hilchot Terumah 1:13.
82.
In contrast to the following clause, this phrase does not refer to an ordinary common person, but one who has a reputation for being lax in the observance of this mitzvah (see Ra'avad). For with regard to a common person, we apply certain safeguards lest he not have tithed, but nevertheless, we are not certain that he has not tithed. On the contrary, our presumption is that he did tithe.
83.
This is a penalty, imposed so that a person will not give his field to a person who does not observe the mitzvah of tithing.
84.
Since the majority of the common people tithe (Shabbat 23a), since he has not incurred the responsibility to tithe at all, he was not penalized.
85.
Since the produce reached the "phase of tithing," and there are some common people who do not tithe, our Sages required that this measure be taken.
86.
Before a division of produce is made.
87.
I.e., if they partook of some of the produce while it was forbidden for them to do so.
Hayom Yom:• "Today's Day"
Tuesday, Adar II 19, 5776 · 29 Monday 2016
Friday Adar Sheini 19 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Tzav, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 90-96.
Tanya: And each spark...(p. 173) to...elevating the sparks. (p. 175).
R. Moshe Meisels related: The (Alter) Rebbe taught us that the alef of Chassidus is to use our natural traits and instincts in avoda. The beginning of avoda is to employ the natural characteristics of man's powers, for example the natural dominion of mind over heart.* • Daily Thought:
Angry at the World
Why are you so surprised to find evil and corruption running amok everywhere you look? This world is the coarsest and harshest of all worlds, the ultimate concealment of the Infinite Light. Almost all of it is darkness and emptiness. Only a tiny spark of good is buried deep within to sustain it.
You could spend your lifetime dwelling on the outrages and scandals, the travesties and the ripoffs . . .
—or your could take a moment to search for that spark. You could find it, grasp it, fan its flame. From within its aura, you will see the darkness shining brighter than the heavens.
In that moment of light, the night will never have been.
-------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment