Daily Quote:
A chassidic melody fortifies hope and trust, brings joy, and places the entire householdhome and family in a state of light.[Hayom Yom, Tamuz 22]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Pekudei, 4th Portion Exodus 39:33-39:43 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Exodus Chapter 39
33Now they brought the Mishkan to Moses, the tent and all its furnishings its clasps, its planks, its bars, its pillars and its sockets, לגוַיָּבִ֤יאוּ אֶת־הַמִּשְׁכָּן֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה אֶת־הָאֹ֖הֶל וְאֶת־כָּל־כֵּלָ֑יו קְרָסָ֣יו קְרָשָׁ֔יו בְּרִיחָ֖יו (כתיב בריחו)וְעַמֻּדָ֥יו וַֽאֲדָנָֽיו:
Now they brought the Mishkan to Moses, etc.: Because they could not erect it. Since Moses had done no work in the Mishkan, the Holy One, blessed is He, left for him the task of erecting it [the Mishkan], since no human being could erect it [by himself] because of the heaviness of the planks; and no human was strong enough to put them up, but Moses [was able to] put it up. Moses said before the Holy One, blessed is He, “How is it possible for a human being to erect it [the Mishkan]?” He [God] replied, “You work with your hand.” He [Moses] appeared to be erecting it, and it arose by itself. This is [the meaning of] what it says: “the Mishkan was set up” (Exod. 40:17). It was set up by itself. [This is found in] the midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma. -[from Midrash Tanchuma 11] ויביאו את המשכן וגו': שלא היו יכולין להקימו, ולפי שלא עשה משה שום מלאכה במשכן, הניח לו הקדוש ברוך הוא הקמתו, שלא היה יכול להקימו שום אדם מחמת כובד הקרשים, שאין כח באדם לזקפן, ומשה העמידו. אמר משה לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא איך אפשר הקמתו על ידי אדם, אמר לו עסוק אתה בידך נראה כמקימו, והוא נזקף וקם מאליו, וזהו שנאמר (שמות מ יז) הוקם המשכן, הוקם מאליו. מדרש רבי תנחומא:
34the covering of rams' skins dyed red, the covering of tachash skins, and the screening dividing curtain, לדוְאֶת־מִכְסֵ֞ה עוֹרֹ֤ת הָֽאֵילִם֙ הַֽמְאָדָּמִ֔ים וְאֶת־מִכְסֵ֖ה עֹרֹ֣ת הַתְּחָשִׁ֑ים וְאֵ֖ת פָּרֹ֥כֶת הַמָּסָֽךְ:
35the Ark of the Testimony and its poles and the ark cover, להאֶת־אֲר֥וֹן הָֽעֵדֻ֖ת וְאֶת־בַּדָּ֑יו וְאֵ֖ת הַכַּפֹּֽרֶת:
36the table, all its implements and the showbread, לואֶת־הַשֻּׁלְחָן֙ אֶת־כָּל־כֵּלָ֔יו וְאֵ֖ת לֶ֥חֶם הַפָּנִֽים:
37the pure menorah, its lamps, the lamps to be set in order and all its implements, and the oil for the lighting, לזאֶת־הַמְּנֹרָ֨ה הַטְּהֹרָ֜ה אֶת־נֵֽרֹתֶ֗יהָ נֵרֹ֛ת הַמַּֽעֲרָכָ֖ה וְאֶת־כָּל־כֵּלֶ֑יהָ וְאֵ֖ת שֶׁ֥מֶן הַמָּאֽוֹר:
38the golden altar, the anointing oil and the incense, and the screen of the entrance to the tent, לחוְאֵת֙ מִזְבַּ֣ח הַזָּהָ֔ב וְאֵת֙ שֶׁ֣מֶן הַמִּשְׁחָ֔ה וְאֵ֖ת קְטֹ֣רֶת הַסַּמִּ֑ים וְאֵ֕ת מָסַ֖ךְ פֶּ֥תַח הָאֹֽהֶל:
39the copper altar and its copper grating, its poles and all its implements, the washstand and its base, לטאֵ֣ת | מִזְבַּ֣ח הַנְּח֗שֶׁת וְאֶת־מִכְבַּ֤ר הַנְּח֨שֶׁת֙ אֲשֶׁר־ל֔וֹ אֶת־בַּדָּ֖יו וְאֶת־כָּל־כֵּלָ֑יו אֶת־הַכִּיֹּ֖ר וְאֶת־כַּנּֽוֹ:
40the hangings of the courtyard, its pillars and its sockets, and the screen for the gate of the courtyard, its ropes and its pegs, and all the implements for the service of the Mishkan, of the Tent of Meeting, מאֵת֩ קַלְעֵ֨י הֶֽחָצֵ֜ר אֶת־עַמֻּדֶ֣יהָ וְאֶת־אֲדָנֶ֗יהָ וְאֶת־הַמָּסָךְ֙ לְשַׁ֣עַר הֶֽחָצֵ֔ר אֶת־מֵֽיתָרָ֖יו וִיתֵֽדֹתֶ֑יהָ וְאֵ֗ת כָּל־כְּלֵ֛י עֲבֹדַ֥ת הַמִּשְׁכָּ֖ן לְאֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד:
41the meshwork garments for the service in the Holy, the holy garments for Aaron the Kohen [Gadol] and his sons' garments for serving [as kohanim]. מאאֶת־בִּגְדֵ֥י הַשְּׂרָ֖ד לְשָׁרֵ֣ת בַּקֹּ֑דֶשׁ אֶת־בִּגְדֵ֤י הַקֹּ֨דֶשׁ֙ לְאַֽהֲרֹ֣ן הַכֹּהֵ֔ן וְאֶת־בִּגְדֵ֥י בָנָ֖יו לְכַהֵֽן:
42In accordance with all that the Lord had commanded Moses, so did the children of Israel do all the work. מבכְּכֹ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֥ה יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶת־משֶׁ֑ה כֵּ֤ן עָשׂוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֵ֖ת כָּל־הָֽעֲבֹדָֽה:
43Moses saw the entire work, and lo! they had done it-as the Lord had commanded, so had they done. So Moses blessed them. מגוַיַּ֨רְא משֶׁ֜ה אֶת־כָּל־הַמְּלָאכָ֗ה וְהִנֵּה֙ עָשׂ֣וּ אֹתָ֔הּ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה יְהֹוָ֖ה כֵּ֣ן עָשׂ֑וּ וַיְבָ֥רֶךְ אֹתָ֖ם משֶֽׁה:
So Moses blessed them: He said to them, “May it be His will that the Shechinah should rest in the work of your hands. And may the pleasantness of the Lord our God be upon us…” (Ps. 90:17), and this is one of the eleven psalms in “A prayer of Moses” (Ps. 90:1). -[from Num. Rabbah 12:9] ויברך אותם משה: אמר להם יהי רצון שתשרה שכינה במעשה ידיכם, (תהלים צ יז) ויהי נועם ה' אלהינו עלינו ומעשה ידינו וגו', והוא אחד מאחד עשר מזמורים שבתפלה למשה:
--------------------
David composed this psalm against his slanderers, especially the chief conspirator Doeg. Anyone confronted by slanderers should recite this psalm.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. Rescue me from the evil man, protect me from the man of violence,
3. who devise evil schemes in their heart; every day they gather for wars.
4. They sharpen their tongues like a serpent; the spider's venom is forever under their lips.
5. Guard me, Lord, from the hands of the wicked, protect me from the man of violence-those who plot to cause my steps to slip.
6. Arrogant ones have hidden a snare for me, and ropes; they spread a net by my path, they set traps for me continually.
7. I said to the Lord, "You are my God!" Listen, O Lord, to the voice of my pleas.
8. God, my Lord, the strength of my deliverance, You sheltered my head on the day of armed battle.
9. Grant not, O Lord, the desires of the wicked; fulfill not his scheme, make it unattainable forever.
10. As for the head of my besiegers, let the deceit of their own lips bury them.
11. Let burning coals fall upon them; let it cast them down into the fire, into deep pits, never to rise again.
12. Let not the slanderous man be established in the land; let the evil of the man of violence trap him until he is overthrown.
13. I know that the Lord will execute judgement for the poor, justice for the needy.
14. Indeed, the righteous will extol Your Name; the upright will dwell in Your presence.
Chapter 141
This psalm teaches an important lesson: One should pray for Divine assistance that his mouth not speak that which is not in his heart. The gatekeeper only allows the gate to be opened for a purpose; let it be the same with one's lips.
1. A psalm by David. O Lord, I have called You, hasten to me; listen to my voice when I call to You.
2. Let my prayer be set forth as incense before You, the raising of my hands as an afternoon offering.
3. O Lord, place a guard for my mouth, keep watch over the door of my lips.
4. Do not incline my heart to a bad thing-to perform deeds in wickedness, with men, doers of evil; let me not partake of their delicacies.
5. Let the righteous one strike me with kindness and let him rebuke me; like the finest oil, let my head not refuse it. For as long [as I live], my prayer is [to preserve me] from their harm.
6. For their judges have slipped because of their [hearts of] rock, though they heard my words and they were pleasant.
7. As one who chops and splinters [wood] on the ground, so have our bones been scattered to the mouth of the grave.
8. For to You, God, my Lord, are my eyes; in You I take shelter; do not pour out my soul.
9. Protect me from the hands of the snare they laid for me, and from the traps of the evildoers.
10. Let the wicked fall into their own nets together, until I pass over.
Chapter 142
David composed this psalm while hiding from Saul in a cave, at which time he had cut off the corner of Saul's garment (to prove that he was able to kill him but did not wish to do so). He declared, "Where can I turn, and where can I run? All I have is to cry out to You!"
1. A maskil1 by David, when he was in the cave, a prayer.
2. With my voice I will cry out to the Lord; with my voice I will call to the Lord in supplication.
3. I will pour out my plea before Him; I will declare my distress in His presence.
4. When my spirit is faint within me, You know my path. In the way in which I walk, they have hidden a snare for me.
5. Look to my right and see, there is none that will know me; every escape is lost to me. No man cares for my soul.
6. I cried out to You, O Lord; I said, "You are my refuge, my portion in the land of the living.”
7. Listen to my song of prayer, for I have been brought very low. Deliver me from my pursuers, for they are too mighty for me.
8. Release my soul from confinement, so that it may acknowledge Your Name. Because of me, the righteous will crown [You] when You will deal graciously with me.
FOOTNOTES
1.A psalm intended to enlighten and impart knowledge(Metzudot).
Chapter 143
1. A psalm by David. O Lord, hear my prayer, lend Your ear to my supplications. With Your faithfulness answer me, and with Your righteousness.
2. Do not enter into judgment with Your servant, for no living being would be vindicated before You.
3. For the enemy has pursued my soul; he has crushed my life to the ground; he has set me down in dark places, like those who are eternally dead.
4. Then my spirit became faint within me; my heart was dismayed within me.
5. I remembered the days of old; I meditated on all Your deeds; I spoke of Your handiwork.
6. I spread out my hands to You; like a languishing land my soul yearns after You, Selah.
7. Answer me soon, O Lord, my spirit is spent; hide not Your face from me, lest I become like those who descend into the pit.
8. Let me hear Your kindness in the morning, for have I trusted in You. Let me know the way in which I should walk, for to You I have lifted my soul.
9. Deliver me from my enemies, O Lord. I have concealed [my troubles from all, save] You.
10. Teach me to do Your will, for You are my God. Let Your good spirit lead me in an even path.
11. For the sake of Your Name, O Lord, give me life; in Your righteousness, take my soul out of distress.
12. And in Your kindness, cut off my enemies and obliterate all those who oppress my soul, for I am Your servant.
Chapter 144
After triumphing in all his wars, David composed this psalm in praise of God.
1. By David. Blessed be the Lord, my Rock, Who trains my hands for battle and my fingers for war.
2. My source of kindness and my fortress, my high tower and my rescuer, my shield, in Whom I take refuge; it is He Who makes my people submit to me.
3. O Lord, what is man that You have recognized him; the son of a mortal, that You are mindful of him?
4. Man is like a breath; his days are like a passing shadow.
5. O Lord, incline Your heavens and descend; touch the mountains and they will become vapor.
6. Flash one bolt of lightning and You will scatter them; send out Your arrows and You will confound them.
7. Stretch forth Your hands from on high, rescue me and deliver me out of many waters, from the hand of strangers,
8. whose mouth speaks deceit and whose right hand is a right hand of falsehood.
9. God, I will sing a new song to You, I will play to You upon a harp of ten strings.
10. He who gives victory to kings, He will rescue David, His servant, from the evil sword.
11. Rescue me and deliver me from the hand of strangers, whose mouth speaks deceit and whose right hand is a right hand of falsehood.
12. For our sons are like plants, brought up to manliness in their youth; our daughters are like cornerstones, fashioned after the fashion of a palace.
13. Our storehouses are full, overflowing with all manner of food; our sheep increase by the thousands, growing by the tens of thousands in our open fields.
14. Our leaders bear the heaviest burden; there is none who break through, nor is there bad report, nor outcry in our streets.
15. Happy is the nation for whom this is so. Happy is that nation whose God is the Lord.
• Wednesday, Adar I 29, 5776 · March 9, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, Chapter 33
In ch. 31, the Alter Rebbe discussed various means of arousing joy to counteract the sadness brought on by contemplation of one’s spiritual failings. Ch. 33 resumes this discussion.
עוד זאת תהיה שמחת הנפש האמיתית, ובפרט כשרואה בנפשו בעתים מזומנים שצריך לזככה ולהאירה בשמחת לבב
Yet another means of leading one’s soul to true joy, especially at those specific times when one finds it necessary to purify his soul and illuminate it with a gladness of heart:
אזי יעמיק מחשבתו ויצייר בשכלו ובינתו ענין יחודו יתברך האמיתי
Let him then think deeply and picture in his intellect and understanding the subject of G‑d’s true unity.
True unity means not only that there is but one G‑d, one Creator, but that furthermore, G‑d is the only existing being — nothing truly exists outside of Him, as will be explained further.
איך הוא ממלא כל עלמין עליונים ותחתונים
Let him consider how He permeates all worlds, both upper and lower.
Just as the soul pervades the body, thereby animating it, so does G‑d permeate all the worlds. This indwelling refers to the divine life-force which adapts itself to each individual creation’s capacity to receive it, and for this reason the Alter Rebbe distinguishes here between the “upper worlds” and “lower worlds”: in the “upper (more spiritual) worlds” the revelation of this life-force is greater, since their capacity is greater.
ואפילו מלא כל הארץ הלזו הוא כבודו יתברך
Let him further consider how even this world is filled with His glory —
This refers to the divine life-force which “encompasses” all worlds, and which animates them as if “from above,” without adapting itself to the particular nature of each created being, so that even this physical world is “filled with His glory”1 —
וכולא קמיה כלא חשיב ממש
and how everything is of no reality whatever in His presence.
והוא לבדו הוא בעליונים ותחתונים ממש כמו שהיה לבדו קודם ששת ימי בראשית, וגם במקום הזה שנברא בו עולם הזה, השמים והארץ וכל צבאם, היה הוא לבדו ממלא המקום הזה
He is One alone in the upper and lower realms, just as He was alone prior to the six days of Creation,when nothing existed apart from G‑d; so too now, when all the worlds have come into being, He is still One alone since all of creation is naught before Him, as will be explained further. Even in the very place where this world — the heaven, the earth and all their host — was created, He alone then filled this space.
וגם עתה כן הוא לבדו בלי שום שינוי כלל, מפני שכל הנבראים בטלים אצלו במציאות ממש
The same is true now; He is One alone, without any change whatever. For in relation to Him, the very existence of all created beings is utterly nullified — so that from His perspective, as it were, everything remains just as it was prior to creation.
The Alter Rebbe here introduces an analogy which traces the early evolution of an idea or a desire from the moment that it first occurs in one’s mind and heart. At that stage the idea or desire is formless, not yet having the shape or form of words. It is pure desire, pure idea. The desire of an English-speaking person, for example, feels no different from that of a Hebrew speaker.
It is only when it reaches the stage of applied, or practical thought, that the idea or desire takes on the form of what are called “letters of thought,” which may later be expressed in speech.
Now, the “letters” of thought and speech are, of course, seminally contained in the original idea or desire — it is only that at that point their existence is completely nullified; it is as though these “letters” were non-existent; only the idea or desire is felt.
Stated in the terms which the Alter Rebbe employs, the idea and desire are described as part of the “ten soul-powers,” of which three (ChaBaD) belong to the intellect, and seven (the middot) comprise one’s emotional range. These ten faculties are the “source and root” of thought and speech, for one thinks and speaks of that which he understands or feels. These faculties are called the “substance and essence of the soul,” in comparison with thought and speech which are merely the soul’s “garments,” i.e., its modes of external expression.
To relate the analogy to the point under discussion: Every created being derives its existence and life from Divine “speech”, i.e., the “letters” of G‑d’s command that created it. Since nothing is “outside” G‑d, this creative “speech” and the beings created thereby are contained within G‑d, in the same way as the words one speaks were previously contained within the desire of the heart. All of creation is therefore nullified before G‑d, just as the “letters” of speech are nullified within the idea or desire which is their source, where only the desire is felt, not the “letters.”
In the Alter Rebbe’s words:
כביטול אותיות הדבור והמחשבה במקורן ושרשן, הוא מהות הנפש ועצמותה, שהן עשר בחינותיה, חכמה בינה ודעת וכו׳
[All created beings are nullified before G‑d] just as the letters of speech and thought are nullified within their source and root, i.e., the soul’s substance and essence, meaning its ten faculties — Chochmah, Binah, Daat... and the middot,
שאין בהם בחינת אותיות עדיין קודם שמתלבשות בלבוש המחשבה (כמו שנתבאר בפרק כ׳ וכא באריכות, עיין שם)
in which there are no letters as yet, prior to their being clothed in the garment of thought (as has been explained at length in chs. 20 and 21).
וכמו שכתוב גם כן במקום אחר משל גשמי לזה, מענין ביטול זיו ואור השמש במקורו, הוא גוף כדור השמש שברקיע
Elsewhere, this idea is further illustrated by an analogy from a physical phenomenon — the nullification of the sun’s radiance and light within its source, the celestial orb of the sun.
שגם שם מאיר ומתפשט ודאי זיוו ואורו, וביתר שאת מהתפשטותו והארתו בחלל העולם, אלא ששם הוא בטל במציאות במקורו, וכאילו אינו במציאות כלל
For surely its radiance and light glow and spread forth there too; more strongly, in fact, than they spread forth and glow in the space of the universe. Being close to its source, the light is more intense. But there — within the sun — its very existence is nullified within that of its source; it is as though [the light] were absolutely non-existent. All that is seen within the sun is the sun itself, not the light which is merely a product, an offshoot of the sun.
This will be better understood in terms of the saying,2 “Of what good is a candle in the daylight” Naturally, the candle is no less luminous by day than by night. But because its light is overwhelmed by the far greater brightness of daylight, it no longer fulfills its function of illumination. At this point it ceases to exist as a luminary. The same is true of the sun’s rays as they are within the sun.
וככה ממש דרך משל הוא ביטול העולם ומלואו במציאות לגבי מקורו, שהוא אור אין סוף ברוך הוא, וכמו שכתוב שם באריכות
Exactly so, figuratively speaking, is the very existence of the world and everything in it nullified in relation to its source, which is the light of Ein Sof, as is explained there at length.
This, then, is the true meaning of G‑d’s unity — that He alone exists, and there is nothing besides Him.
והנה כשיעמיק בזה הרבה, ישמח לבו ותגל נפשו אף גילת ורנן בכל לב ונפש ומאד באמונה זו
Now when one contemplates deeply and at length on this matter of G‑d’s true unity, his heart will rejoice with this faith;3 his soul will be gladdened by it to the point of rejoicing and singing with all his heart, soul and might.
כי רבה היא, כי היא קרבת אלקים ממש
For this faith is tremendous — when it fills one’s mind it actually constitutes [an experience of] the closeness of G‑d.
וזה כל האדם ותכלית בריאתו ובריאת כל העולמות עליונים ותחתונים
This in fact is the whole [purpose] of man, and the purpose for which he, and all the worlds, both upper and lower, were created:
להיות לו דירה זו בתחתונים, כמו שכתוב לקמן באריכות
that G‑d should have such a dwelling-place here below, as will be explained further at length4 — how this earthly abode for G‑d is the purpose of all creation.
Man’s faith in the unity of G‑d fulfills this goal. For when G‑d’s unity is revealed in the mind and heart of men, this world becomes an abode for G‑d; He is revealed there just as one reveals himself completely in his own home.
והנה כמה גדולה שמחת הדיוט ושפל אנשים בהתקרבותו למלך בשר ודם המתאכסן ודר אתו עמו בביתו
How great is the joy of a common and lowly person when he is brought close to a king of flesh and blood who furthermore lodges and greater still dwells together with him — not in the king’s palace, but in his (the commoner’s) home.
וקל וחומר לאין קץ, לקרבת ודירת מלך מלכי המלכים, הקדוש ברוך הוא
How much more, infinitely more, [ought one to rejoice] in the nearness of the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, and in His dwelling together with man in this physical world, man’s “home.”
וכדכתיב: כי מי הוא זה אשר ערב לבו לגשת אלי, נאם ה׳
So it is written:5 “‘For who is the man who dares to approach me?’ says G‑d.”
Yet in one’s awareness of G‑d’s unity and through self-nullification before Him, one does come near to G‑d. Furthermore, G‑d thereby dwells with him and within him.
ועל זה תיקנו ליתן שבח והודיה לשמו יתברך בכל בקר, ולומר
For this ability to experience and to be absorbed in G‑d’s unity, it was instituted [by the Sages] that one should render praise and thanks to G‑d’s Name each morning, saying:
אשרינו מה טוב חלקנו וכו׳ ומה יפה ירושתנו
“How fortunate are we! How good is our portion, [how pleasant our lot,] and how beautiful our heritage!”
כלומר: כמו שהאדם שש ושמח בירושה שנפלה לו, הון עתק שלא עמל בו
In other words, just as a person rejoices and is glad when an immense fortune falls into his possession — by inheritance, through no toil of his own,
כן ויותר מכן לאין קץ יש לנו לשמוח על ירושתנו שהנחילונו אבותינו
similarly, and infinitely more so, ought we to rejoice over the inheritance which our forefathers bequeathed to us.
הוא יחוד ה׳ האמיתי, אשר אפילו בארץ מתחת אין עוד מלבדו, וזו היא דירתו בתחתונים
This [inheritance] is the true unity of G‑d — that even here below on earth there is nothing else besides Him alone, and this is His abode amongst the lowly beings of this physical world — when they are pervaded by the awareness of G‑d’s unity and nullify themselves before it.
Our own unaided efforts would never win for us the ability to experience G‑d’s unity; it is our inheritance from our forefathers.
וזהו שאמרו רז״ל: תרי״ג מצות ניתנו לישראל, בא חבקוק והעמידן על אחת, שנאמר: וצדיק באמונתו יחיה
This is [the meaning of] what our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said:6 “Six hundred and thirteen mitzvotwere given to Israel;... came Habakkuk and based them all on a single one - faith as it is written:7 'atzaddik lives by his faith.'"
כלומר: כאלו אינם רק מצוה אחת, היא האמונה לבדה, כי על ידי האמונה לבדה יבא לקיום כל התרי״ג מצות
This means, it is as if they — all the mitzvot — consisted of this one mitzvah of faith alone, for through faith alone one will come to fulfill all the 613 mitzvot.
דהיינו, כשיהיה לבו שש ושמח באמונתו ביחוד ה׳ בתכלית השמחה, כאילו לא היתה עליו רק מצוה זו לבדה, והיא לבדה תכלית בריאתו ובריאת כל העולמות
That is, when his heart will rejoice and be glad with his faith in G‑d’s unity, in perfect joy, as though he were obligated by just this one mitzvah, and it alone were the purpose for which he and all the worlds were created — surely, if there were but one such mitzvah for him to do, he would fulfill it with utmost joy.
הרי בכח וחיות נפשו בשמחה רבה זו תתעלה נפשו למעלה מעלה ”על כל המונעים קיום כל התריג מצות, מבית ומחוץ
Let him thus rejoice in the mitzvah of faith, and by the power and vitality of his soul [generated] from this great joy, his soul will soar far above all obstacles hindering his fulfillment of all the 613 mitzvot; both [obstacles] from within — from one’s animal soul, and from without — arising from one’s environment.
Being thus imbued with the awareness of G‑d’s true unity, he will be able to overcome any obstacle hindering him from carrying out the mitzvot. For how can anything stand in the path of G‑d’s Will — the mitzvot, when there is nothing in the world apart from G‑d
וזהו שאמר: באמונתו יחיה, יחיה דייקא, כתחיית המתים דרך משל, כך תחיה נפשו בשמחה רבה זו
Thus, the expression יחיה (“will live”) in the verse “a tzaddik will live by his faith” is meant in the sense of “will be revived”; as though resurrected from the dead, so will his soul be revived by this great joy.
והיא שמחה כפולה ומכופלת, כי מלבד שמחת הנפש המשכלת בקרבת ה׳, ודירתו אתו עמו
This is a double and redoubled joy. Apart from the soul’s joy upon apprehending how near G‑d is to him, and how He dwells together with him,
עוד זאת ישמח בכפליים בשמחת ה׳ וגודל נחת רוח לפניו יתברך באמונה זו
he will also rejoice doubly in the joy and pleasure which his faith brings to G‑d.
דאתכפיא סטרא אחרא ממש, ואתהפך חשוכא לנהורא
For thereby, through one’s faith in G‑d’s unity, the sitra achra is truly subdued, and darkness is transformed to light —
שהוא חשך הקליפות שבעולם הזה החומרי, המחשיכים ומכסים על אורו יתברך
meaning the darkness of the kelipot of this corporeal world — which obscure and conceal G‑d’s light
עד עת קץ, כמו שכתוב: קץ שם לחשך
until the End of Days, as it is written,8 “He sets an end to darkness.”
דהיינו קץ הימין, שיעביר רוח הטומאה מן הארץ, ונגלה כבוד ה׳, וראו כל בשר יחדיו, וכמו שכתוב לקמן
(The Biblical phrase, “the End of Days,” is written קץ הימין; ; since ימין (Aram.) means "days” and ימין (Heb.) means "right”, the phrase thus intimates that “in the End of Days G‑d will reveal His right hand” — a reference to His attribute of revelation, when He will banish the spirit of impurity from the earth, and9 “G‑d’s glory, the G‑dliness within every created being, will be revealed, and all flesh together will behold [it].” That is to say, not only the mind, but even the very flesh of man will perceive G‑dliness, as will be explained further.10)
This banishment of the sitra achra will take place only at “the End of Days,” during the Messianic era. Until then, however, while the darkness of kelipah still reigns over the earth, one affords G‑d gratification by crushing the sitra achra and transforming its darkness into light, by means of his faith. And man’s realization of this fact intensifies his own joy in his faith.
ובפרט בחוץ לארץ, שאויר ארץ העמים טמא, ומלא קליפות וסטרא אחרא
This is especially so in the diaspora, where the atmosphere is unclean and is filled with kelipot and sitra achra.
ואין שמחה לפניו יתברך כאורה ושמחה ביתרון האור הבא מן החשך דייקא
There is no greater joy for G‑d than the light and joy caused by transforming darkness into light, when the light has the superior quality acquired by coming out of the very darkness.
Thus, when a Jew in the diaspora is pervaded with an awareness of G‑d’s unity, His joy is all the greater. It follows too that the more lowly is one’s spiritual position, the greater the Divine joy when he acquires an awareness of G‑d’s unity.
We have seen so far, then, that one’s faith in G‑d’s unity leads him to a twofold joy: joy in his closeness to G‑d, and joy in the knowledge that his faith brings joy to G‑d.
וזהו שכתוב: ישמח ישראל בעושיו
This is the meaning of the verse,11 “Let Israel rejoice in its Maker” (note the expression: “Maker”, not “Creator” or the like):
פירוש: שכל מי שהוא מזרע ישראל יש לו לשמוח בשמחת ה׳ אשר שש ושמח בדירתו בתחתונים, שהם בחינת עשיה גשמיית ממש
Whoever is of the seed of Israel ought to rejoice in the joy of G‑d, Who is happy and joyous with His abode amongst the creatures of the lower spheres, who are on the level of actual physical Asiyah.
The word translated “in its Maker” (בעושיו) shares a common root with עשיה, the lowest level of creation. With this abode in particular ought Israel rejoice, knowing that G‑d’s joy is especially great when the creations in Asiyah, the very lowest world, become an abode for Him.
וזה שכתוב: בעושיו, לשון רבים
For this reason the plural form —בעשיו — is used.
The literal meaning of the verse is: “Let Israel rejoice in its Makers.” Why the use of a plural expression in reference to G‑d
The Alter Rebbe explains that since G‑d is spoken of here as the “Maker” of the world of Asiyah, the domain of kelipotwhose nature is arrogance and therefore separation and self-centeredness, the Divine creative power is referred to in the plural — for it is fragmented, so to speak. There is a multitude of created beings, each separate from the other, each animated by the Divine creative power; hence, a plurality of “Makers”, so to speak.
But this fault becomes a cause for still greater Divine joy, when these separate beings at the level of Asiyah unite in G‑d’s unity. This unification of creation is another achievement of man’s faith in G‑d’s unity, for this faith subdues the sitra achrawhich causes disunity.
As stated above, it is the earlier darkness which enhances the light that replaces it. Thus, the greater the darkness, the more superior the subsequent light.
In the Alter Rebbe’s words:
שהוא עולם הזה הגשמי, המלא קליפות וסטרא אחרא, שנקרא רשות הרבים וטורי דפרודא
This plural expression — “Makers” — refers to our physical world that is filled with kelipot and sitra achra, which are called “a public domain,” i.e., a domain of multiplicity, and “mountains of separation,” in that they are arrogant and separate from one another.
ואתהפכן לנהורא, ונעשים רשות היחיד ליחודו יתברך, באמונה זו
G‑d’s joy in the fusion of this plurality is aroused when through this faith in G‑d’s unity they (the kelipot) are transformed into light, and they become a “private domain”— i.e., a unified realm — for G‑d’s unity.
——— ● ———
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | This interpretation follows Kitzur Tanya by Rabbi M.M. Schneerson of Lubavitch (author of Tzemach Tzedek). |
| 2. | Chullin 60b; cf. Zohar I, 20a. |
| 3. | The Alter Rebbe introduced the subject of G-d's unity as an idea that can and should be apprehended intellectually (“Let him think deeply... in his intellect and understanding... G-d's true unity...”). Yet here he refers to it as an article of faith. Commenting on this inconsistency, the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory, proposes several suggestions: (1) The analogies of speech or of sunlight are valid only after one accepts, as a matter of faith, the verse, “By the word of G-d the heavens were made.” (2) Furthermore, although the Alter Rebbe provides here the means of understanding the concept intellectually, in fact recognition of G-d as the only existing being is a matter of implicit, inherent faith in every Jew, as the Alter Rebbe points out further (e.g., mid. ch. 42). (3) It may also be suggested that the matter of G-d's unity indeed transcends intellect, and thus belongs to the realm of faith. One cannot actually understandhow G-d is a unity, and unique. The intellectual approach provided, serves only to lead one to a rational conclusion that he is indeed a unity, and unique. |
| 4. | Ch. 36. |
| 5. | Cf. Yirmeyahu 30:21. |
| 6. | Makkot 24a. |
| 7. | Chavakuk 2:4. |
| 8. | Iyov 28:3. |
| 9. | Yeshayahu 40:5. |
| 10. | End of ch. 36. |
| 11. | Tehillim 149:2. |
---------------------
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Wednesday, Adar I 29, 5776 · March 9, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 95
The Nullification of Vows
We are commanded to practice the Torah-mandated procedure in the event that a vow is to be annulled.
(This commandment is somewhat based on the verse [Numbers 30:3] "he shall not profane his word," from which the Sages deduce that the one who enacted the vow may not profane his own word, but others – such as a sage or rabbinical court – may do so. Nevertheless, the Talmud says that the "annulment of vows flies in the air, with no [explicit biblical] support...")
The Torah explicitly tells us that a husband and father can nullify vows, and tradition teaches that a sage, too, has the power to do so.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Wednesday, Adar I 29, 5776 · March 9, 2016Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 95
The Nullification of Vows
We are commanded to practice the Torah-mandated procedure in the event that a vow is to be annulled.
(This commandment is somewhat based on the verse [Numbers 30:3] "he shall not profane his word," from which the Sages deduce that the one who enacted the vow may not profane his own word, but others – such as a sage or rabbinical court – may do so. Nevertheless, the Talmud says that the "annulment of vows flies in the air, with no [explicit biblical] support...")
The Torah explicitly tells us that a husband and father can nullify vows, and tradition teaches that a sage, too, has the power to do so.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
The Nullification of Vows
Positive Commandment 95
Translated by Berel Bell
The 95th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding the annulment of vows.
This does not mean that there is a commandment to annul vows, but rather that there are certain laws to be followed when doing so. You should keep this principle in mind whenever a mitzvah is enumerated — it does not necessarily mean that we are commanded to perform a certain action, but rather that a certain case [whenever it comes up,] must be judged according to certain laws.
The annulment of vows done by a father [to his daughter] and a husband [to his wife] is explained in the Torah1 in detail.
Furthermore, we know from the Oral Tradition that a Torah scholar can nullify anyone's vow or oath. This is hinted to in the verse,2 "He must not nullify his word." [The Sages3 explain,] "He may not nullify his word, but others may nullify it for him." The final conclusion is that there is no real source in Scripture [for the Torah scholar's power to annul a vow, and the verse quoted above is only a hint]. As our Sages4 put it, "The laws regarding the annulment of vows [by a Torah scholar] are flying in the air, with nothing to support them" — except in the Oral Tradition.
The details of this mitzvah are found in the tractate devoted to this subject, tractate Nedarim.
FOOTNOTES
1.Num. 30:4-17.
2.Num. 30:3.
3.Berachos 32a; Chagigah 10a.
4.Chagigah ibid.
----------------------------------------------------------
• 1 Chapter: Klei Hamikdash Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 3 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 3
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
The descendants of Levi were singled out for service in the Sanctuary, as [Deuteronomy 10:8] states: "At that time, God separated the tribe of Levi."1 It is a positive commandment2 for the Levites to be free and prepared for the service of the Sanctuary, whether they desire to do so or not,3 as [Numbers 18:23] states: "And the Levite shall perform the service of the tent of meeting." When a Levite accepts all the mitzvot of the Levites with the exception of one matter, he is not accepted unless he accepts them all.
Halacha 2
Their service was to guard the Temple.4 Among [the Levities], there were gate-keepers5 who would open the gates of the Temple and close its doors. And there were singers who would accompany the sacrifices with song each day. [The latter concept is derived from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 18:7]: "And he shall serve in the name of God, his Lord, as all of his Levite brethren." Which service involves [invoking] the name of God? I would say: song.
When were songs recited? At the time all the communal burnt offerings,6 the peace offerings brought on Shavuous,7 and the wine libations8 were brought. Song was not recited over the freewill burnt offerings that the community would bring for "the dessert of the altar,"9 nor on the wine libations that are brought independently.10
Halacha 3
A Levite who is in an acute state of mourning11 is permitted to perform his service and sing.12 There should never be less than twelve Levites13 standing on the duchan14 each day to recite the songs over the sacrifices and the additional offerings. The songs were song vocally without musical instruments, for the fundamental dimension of the song is vocalization. Others would stand on [the duchan] and play melodies with musical instruments: some of them were Levites and some of them were Israelites of distinguished lineage, fit to marry into the priesthood. For only a person of distinguished lineage was allowed to ascend to the duchan.15 The people who play musical instruments are not included in the number of the twelve singers [required].
Halacha 4
On what instruments would they play? On lyres, flutes, harps, trumpets, and a cymbal.16 There should not be less than two lyres, nor more than six. There should not be less than two flutes, nor more than twelve. There should not be less than two trumpets, nor more than one hundred and twenty.17 There should not be more less than nine harps and there is no upper limit. There should only be one cymbal.
Halacha 5
On all the days of the festivals and on the Rashei Chadashim, the priests would sound the trumpets while the sacrifice was being offered and the Levites would recite songs, as [Numbers 10:10] states: "On the day of your celebration, on your festivals, and at the beginning of your months, you shall sound the trumpets."18
Each trumpet was made from a block of silver.19 If it was made from scraps of silver, it is acceptable. If it is made from other metals, it is unacceptable.
The flutes on which they would play would have cane reeds, because they produce a sweet sound. The melody would always be played by a single flute, because it produces a pleasant sound.20
Halacha 6
Twelve days a year, the flute would be sounded before the altar:21 During the slaughter of the first Paschal sacrifice,22 and during the second Paschal sacrifice,23 on the first day of Pesach, on the first day of Shavuot, and on the eight days of Sukkot. [The sounding of] the flute on these occasions24supersedes the Sabbath [prohibitions],25 because it is associated with a sacrifice and the sounding of a flute associated with a sacrifice is an act of Temple service and supersedes the Sabbath prohibitions.
Halacha 7
A Levite may not enter the Temple Courtyard to perform his service until he studied for five years beforehand. [This concept is derived as follows.Numbers 8:24] states: "This is [the edict] with regard to the Levites: From the age of 25..." and [ibid. 4:30] states: "From the age of 30...." How can [this apparent contradiction be resolved]? They study for five years and they do not enter the service until they fully mature and attain manhood [as ibid.:19] states: "Each man to his service."26
Halacha 8
The Torah's statement [Numbers 8:25]: "At the age of 50, he will turn back from the ranks of the workers [of the Sanctuary]," applied only in the era when the Sanctuary was carried from place to place. It is not an [ongoing] mitzvah for future generations.27 For future generations, a Levite is not disqualified because of age or because of physical blemishes,28 only due to a change in voice,29 i.e., if his voice spoils because of his advance age, he is disqualified from serving in the Temple. It appears to me that he is disqualified only from serving as a singer, but he could become one of the doorkeepers.30
Halacha 9
Samuel the Seer and King David divided the Levites into 24 watches.31Each week, a different watch would serve [in the Temple]. The head of the watch would divide all the men of the watch into different "clans." On each day of the week, designated men would serve.32 The heads of the clans would assign the workers on the day that they were designated to work, [allotting each] one appropriate tasks.
All of the Levites are warned [not to participate in] the service of the altar,33 as [ibid. 18:3] states: "But to the holy utensils and to the altar they should not draw close so they do not die." [This prohibition implies] that they should not draw close to the service [of the Sanctuary], but they may touch [the sacred utensils].34
Halacha 10
Just as the Levites were warned not to perform the service of the priests,35so too, the priests are warned not to perform the work of the Levites, as [the above verse] states: "Also they,36 also you [shall not die]."37 Similarly, the Levites themselves were warned that each one should not perform the task incumbent on a colleague.38 Thus a singer should not assist39 a door-keeper, nor a door-keeper a singer, as [ibid. 4:49] states: "Every men, according to his service and his burden."
Halacha 11
When Levites perform the service of the priests or one Levi assisted in a task that is not his, they are liable for death at the hand of heaven, for [ibid. 18:3] states: "shall not die."40 When, by contrast, a priest performs the service of a Levite, he is not liable for death. Instead, he violates merely a negative commandment.41
FOOTNOTES
1.
See also Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 13:12 which states:
Why did the Levites not receive a portion in the inheritance of Eretz Yisraeland in the spoils of war like their brethren? Because they were set aside to serve God and minister unto Him and to instruct people at large in His just paths and righteous judgments, as [Deuteronomy 33:10] states: "They will teach Your judgments to Jacob and Your Torah to Israel." Therefore they were set apart from the ways of the world.
2.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive mitzvah 23) andSefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 394) include this mitzvah in their reckoning of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
3.
The Sifri to the prooftext quoted states that they can be compelled to do so against their will.
4.
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, ch. 8, which describes the guarding of the Temple.
5.
See I Chronicles 9:17-26 which lists the Levites who served this function. The guards would serve as watchmen and not perform any physical work. The gatekeepers performed physical activities, opening the gates, closing them, and locking them.
6.
I.e., the daily offerings and the special offerings brought on Sabbaths, Rashei Chadashim, and holidays.
7.
As a prooftext for this concept, Arachin 11b cites Numbers 10:10: "And you shall sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over peace offerings." The plural term implies offerings that are brought for the entire Jewish people.
8.
Arachin, loc. cit., associates the wine libations with song, stating: "Song is recited only over wine." See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 6:5.
9.
See Hilchot Shekalim 4:9 for a description of these sacrifices.
10.
With this phrase, Rambam is referring to both wine libations brought by individuals and those brought by the community but were not brought on the same day as the sacrifice with which they were associated. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 6:8.
11.
I.e., a close relative died that day (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:9).
12.
In contrast to a priest who may not offer a sacrifice while in such a state (Ibid.:6).
13.
Arachin 13b explains that there were at least twelve musical instruments playing each day. And there was one singer corresponding to every one of these instruments.
14.
The platform of three steps that divided between the Courtyard of the Israelites and the Courtyard of the Priests (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:3).
15.
Indeed, the fact that a person had served on the duchan is a sign of his lineage.
16.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin2:3), the Rambam describes these instruments at length.
17.
Indeed, II Chronicles 5:12 speaks of 120 trumpeters.
18.
The preceding verse speaks of sounding the trumpets as an outcry of distress. This mitzvah is described in Hilchot Ta'aniot, ch. 1. In his Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 59), the Rambam writes that the two soundings of the shofar are considered as a single mitzvah.
19.
Numbers 10:2 speaks of beating out the silver and forming trumpets in that manner.
20.
Our translation follows the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 2:3). Rashi, Arachin 10a, offers a different interpretation, explaining that all melodies were concluded by a long note from a lone flute.
21.
I.e., on these days, the Levites would sing the Hallel and be accompanied by the flutes alone. On the other days of the year, they would be accompanied by the other instruments (ibid.).
22.
On the 14th of Nissan.
23.
I.e., on Pesach Sheni, on the 14th of Iyar. Those who did not bring a sacrifice on the first Pesach had the opportunity to compensate by bringing the sacrifice a month later (Hilchot Korban Pesach,, ch. 5).
24.
This also applies with regard to the sounding of the other musical instruments. A flute is mentioned, because a flute was also sounded in association with the water libation (see Hilchot Lulav 8:13) and the sounding of the flute at that time did not supersede the Sabbath prohibitions (Rashi,Sukkah 50b).
25.
For it is forbidden to sound musical instruments on the Sabbath.
26.
As evident from Chapter 5, Halachah 15, the attainment of manhood mentioned here apparently refers to reaching the age of Bar Mitzvah. Hence the commentaries question the Rambam's statements, for they apparently contradict his statement made previously, that a Levite must be 30 to begin his service. The Radbaz and Rav Yosef Corcus explain that the obligation to be 30 applied only when the Sanctuary was being transported. (Just as the disqualification at age 50 applied only in the era when the Sanctuary was transported [see the following halachah], so too, it is reasonable to postulate that the obligation to be 30 applied only then.) In other eras, all that was necessary was that the Levite study the necessary laws for five years.
27.
See Sefer HaMitzvot,, General Principle 3, which mentions this issue.
28.
As a priest is (see Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, ch. 6).
29.
Chullin 24a states that the Levites on theduchan must sing in a manner that their voices sound like one voice. If the voice of a particular Levite becomes spoiled and he is no longer capable of singing in this manner, he is unfit to perform this service.
30.
Indeed, even in the era when the Sanctuary was transported, an elderly person was disqualified only from carrying it. He could serve as a watchman or a singer even then (Har HaMoriah).
31.
Ta'anit 27a derives this concept from I Chronicles 9:22.
32.
The designation of the clans and thus the determination of who would be serving in the Temple on a particular day was the responsibility of the head of the watch (Kessef Mishneh).
33.
This is part of the prohibition mentioned in the following halachah.
34.
This is derived from the law mentioned inHilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 11:11 that when the table for the Showbread was displayed to the people, they were warned not to touch it lest it become impure. One can infer that there is no difficulty in touching it per se, only in making it impure (Har HaMoriah).
The commentaries have noted thatNumbers 4:15 specifically mentions that the Levites should not touch the sacred utensils and that doing so was punishable by death. It is, however, possible to explain that this stringency only applied during the time the Sanctuary was transported through the desert and not in subsequent generations.
35.
As stated in the previous halachah.
36.
The Levites.
37.
The priests.
38.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative mitzvah 72) andSefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 389) include the prohibition against performing service designated for someone else in their reckoning of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
39.
The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's ruling, because according toArichin 11b, the source for the Rambam's ruling, it would appear that someone who merely renders assistance is not liable for violating a Scriptural commandment.
40.
Implying that the violation of this commandment makes one liable to die.
41.
The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that the priests are also liable for death, noting that this is stated inArichin, loc. cit. The Or Sameach notes that the Sifri Zuta (which the Rambam quotes inSefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., also quoted by theYalkut Shimoni) to the verse rules differently, distinguishing between the priests and the Levites, leaving room for the Rambam's decision.
---------------------
• 3 Chapters: Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 10, Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 11, Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 12
English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Nedarim - Chapter 10
English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download• Nedarim - Chapter 10
Halacha 1
When a person takes a vow or an oath, saying: "I will not taste [food] today," he is forbidden only until nightfall.1 [If he said]: "I will not taste food for one day," he is forbidden [to eat] for a twenty-four hour period after taking his vow. Accordingly, even though he is permitted [to eat] after nightfall, one who takes a vow "not to taste [food] today" should not eat after nightfall until he asks a sage [to retract his vow]. [This is] a decree lest he take an oath another time not to eat for an entire day and eat after nightfall. For people at large do not know the difference between these two situations.
Halacha 2
When one takes a vow, saying: "I will not taste [food] a day," there is an unresolved question.2 [Hence] he is forbidden to [eat] for an entire day, as if he had said "for one day." If he eats after nightfall, he does not receive lashes.3
When one takes a vow, saying: "I will not taste [food] during this week,"4 he is forbidden to eat during the remainder of the week and on the Sabbath, but he is permitted on Sunday.5 [When he says:] "I will not taste [a type of food]6 for one week," he is forbidden to eat [that type of food] for seven full days. If he says "[I will not eat a type of food] a week," there is an unresolved question. [Hence] he is forbidden to [eat that type of food] for seven full days. If he eats after the Sabbath, he does not receive lashes, as we explained.7
Halacha 3
[When one takes a vow, saying:] "I will not drink [wine] during this month," he is forbidden in the remaining days of the month. He is, however, permitted on the day of the following Rosh Chodesh even if the month is lacking.8 [If he took a vow, saying]: "I will not drink [wine] for an entire month," he is forbidden for 30 full days. [If he said]: I will not drink [wine] for a month," he is forbidden for 30 full days because of the unresolved question.9
Halacha 4
[When one takes a vow, saying:] "I will not eat meat this year," even if there is only one day left in the year,10 he is forbidden only that day and is permitted to eat [meat] on Rosh HaShanah. For the beginning of the year with regard to vows is Rosh Chodesh Tishrei.11
[If he says:] "I will not eat [meat] for one year," he is forbidden for a complete year12 from day to day. If it is a leap year,13 he is forbidden in that year and in the extra month. [If he says]: "I will not eat [meat] for a year," he is forbidden for a complete year from day to day, because of the unresolved question as explained.14
Halacha 5
[When one takes a vow, saying:] "I will not drink wine this seven-year cycle," he is forbidden in the remaining years of the seven year cycle and in the Sabbatical year.15 He is not permitted until Rosh HaShanah of the year after the Sabbatical year.
[If he says:] "I will not drink wine for a seven-year cycle," he is forbidden for seven full years from day to day. [If he says: "I will not drink wine] this Jubilee cycle, he is forbidden in the remaining years of the Jubilee cycle and in the fiftieth year itself.16
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply when one says:] "I will not drink wine until Rosh Chodesh Adar: If it was a leap year, but he did not know that it was a leap year when he took the vow, he is forbidden only until Rosh Chodesh Adar I.17If he took the vow until the end of Adar, he is forbidden until the end of Adar II.18 If he did know that it was a leap year, he is forbidden until Rosh ChodeshAdar II.19
Halacha 7
When a person forbids himself from benefiting from a substance until Pesach, whether he said "until before Pesach" or "until Pesach," he is only forbidden until the holiday commences. If he says: "while it is Pesach,"20 he is forbidden until Pesach concludes. If he said: "until the wheat harvest" or "until the grape harvest," or "while it is the grape harvest" or "while it is the wheat harvest," he is forbidden only until that time arrives.21
Halacha 8
This is the general principle: Whenever there is a fixed time22 for a subject mentioned in a vow, he is forbidden only until that time comes. If he words [his vow] "as long as it is," he is forbidden until that time concludes. Whenever a subject does not have a fixed time - like the time of the wheat harvest or the grape harvest23 - whether he said "until" or "while it is," he is forbidden only until that time arrives.24
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
What is implied? If he took a vow in a valley and forbid himself [from benefiting] from a substance until the kayitz and then moved to a mountainous region,29 he should not pay attention to the time whether or not the fig harvest has begun in the place where he is at present. Instead, [he is concerned] with when it begins in the place where he took the vow and that is what he follows.30 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.31
Halacha 11
When a person forbids himself [from benefiting] from a substance until "the rains," he is forbidden until the rainy season which in Eretz Yisrael [begins] on Rosh Chodesh Kislev. When the time of the rainy season arrives, he is released [from his vow] whether it rains or not. If, however, it rained from the seventeenth of MarCheshvan, he is released.32
If he said: "...Until it rains," he is forbidden until it rains, provided it rains from the second phase of the preliminary rainy season.33 In Eretz Yisrael and in the places close to it, this is from the twenty-third of MarCheshvan onward. If he explicitly said: "...until the rains cease," he is forbidden until the conclusion of Pesach in Eretz Yisrael and in the places like it.34
Halacha 12
When a person has his wife bound by a vow in MarCheshvan, telling her: "You may not benefit from me from now until Pesach if you go to your father's house from now until Sukkot," she is forbidden to benefit from him immediately. [This is] a decree for perhaps she will go.35 If she went before Pesach and derived benefit from him before Pesach, he is liable for lashes.36
If Pesach passed, even though the stipulation has expired,37 it is forbidden for him to treat the vow casually and allow her to go [to her father's home] and derive benefit from him.38 Instead, he should treat her as if it is forbidden until Sukkot as he vowed. [This applies] even though he made the vow dependent on a time that has already passed. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. If she went [to her father's home] after Pesach, she is not forbidden to benefit from him.39
Halacha 13
If he told her: "You may not benefit from me from now until Sukkot if you go to your father's house from now until Pesach," she is forbidden to benefit from him immediately.40 If she went [to her father's home] before Pesach and he gave her benefit, he is subject to lashes. She remains forbidden to him until Sukkot.41 After Pesach arrives, she is permitted to go to her father's house.42
FOOTNOTES
1.
For that is the end of the day in halachic terms.
2.
Nedarim 60a discusses this issue without reaching a conclusion.
3.
I.e., for lashes are not given when there is a doubt.
4.
The Rambam uses the Hebrew termShabbat, which literally means "Sabbath." Nevertheless, his intent (and that of his source, Nedarim 60a) is obviously a week and not the holy day itself.
When stating this law, the Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 220:3) uses the term shavuafor "week," rather than Shabbat. The Turei Zahav 220:2 states that the Shulchan Aruch's ruling applies when the person taking the vow speaks in lashon hakodesh, "the holy tongue." If, however, he would speak in Yiddish and say di voch, "this week," the Sabbath is not included, because the term voch implies ordinary, weekdays that are different in nature than the holy Sabbath.
5.
Even if a week has not passed since the vow was taken. The Radbaz states that the vow takes effect only when it is made during the week. If, however, it is made on the Sabbath, it takes effect only on the Sabbath itself, for the week has already concluded.
6.
We are forced to say that he is referring only to one type of food. For if a person takes a vow that he will not eat at all for an entire week, the vow does not take effect, for it is impossible that he will fulfill it. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 1:7.
7.
In the first clause of this halachah.
8.
A month which is lacking is a month of 29 days [as opposed to a month of 30 days; see Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh, chs. 1-3, which discusses the principles determining when a month is given only 29 days and when it is given 30].
The commentaries question why the Rambam (based on Nedarim 60b) speaks of the month being lacking. Seemingly, it is quite obvious that if there are only 29 days in a month, one would be permitted on Rosh Chodesh in the next month. The new month has already begun. A point that has to be made is that even if there are 30 days in a month, one is permitted to partake of wine on the thirtieth day. Since it is Rosh Chodesh of the coming month, the vow has concluded even though the date is the thirtieth of the previous month.
The Radbaz explains that this in fact is the Rambam's intent, even though his wording is somewhat difficult to explain in that manner. This interpretation is reflected in the wording of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 220:4). The Or Sameach offers a different interpretation, stating that when a month has only 29 days, sometimes the conjunction of the sun and the moon does not take place until the first day of the new month. Even so, since it is already Rosh Chodesh, the vow is concluded.
9.
As explained in the previous halachah.
10.
I.e., he made the vow on the twenty-ninth of Elul.
11.
Although Rosh Chodesh Nisan is considered the beginning of the year in certain contexts, this does not apply with regard to vows.
12.
I.e., a full year on the Jewish calendar.
13.
And a month is added. See Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh, ch. 4.
14.
In Halachah 2.
15.
Like the Sabbath is the conclusion of the week, the Sabbatical year is the conclusion of the seven year cycle (Radbaz).
16.
For the Jubilee year is considered as the conclusion of the 50 year cycle.
17.
For his intent was Adar that follows Shvat.
18.
For his intent was to remain forbidden for the entire time referred to as Adar. This applies whether he knew that it was a leap year or not (Radbaz).
19.
There is a difference of opinion among the Sages (Nedarim 63a) which of the two months Adar is considered as Adar and which is the additional month. There are other authorities who follow a different version of the passage in Nedarim and maintain that he is always forbidden only until the beginning of Adar I.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 220:8) mentions the Rambam's view as a minority opinion. The commentaries note that in other places in the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 43:28, Rama, Even HaEzer 126:7), the Rambam's view is not cited at all.
20.
We have translated the expression to fit the meaning given it by the Rambam.
21.
The rationale for this ruling is explained in the following halachah.
22.
Like Pesach which lasts for seven days (eight in the Diaspora) as prescribed by the Torah.
23.
There is no fixed time for the harvest's conclusion, for that depends on how plentiful it will be.
24.
For we do not assume that he took a vow of undetermined length.
25.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim8:3), the Rambam defines this as referring to the period from the end of Tammuz until the end of Elul when figs ripen and are ready for harvesting.
26.
The wheat harvest is several weeks after the barley harvest. Since wheat is the more important crop, it is given prominence (Kessef Mishneh).
27.
The figs and grapes would be laid out upon the mats to dry in the sun.
28.
As the Rambam explains in the following halachah.
29.
A mountainous region is cooler in the summer than a valley and the figs there will ripen later.
30.
For that was his intent when he took the vow. It does not matter if this leads to a more lenient ruling or a more stringent one [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 220:13).
31.
E.g., if he took a vow until the katzir in a place where the primary crop is barley, he is forbidden until the beginning of the barley harvest (ibid.:14).
32.
The seventeenth of MarCheshvan begins the first phase of the rainy season. Although it is really an extension of the summer and not the beginning of the winter (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah,Pe'ah 7:5), rain at that time is not considered a chance occurrence and the vow is released. See Hilchot Ta'aniot 3:1-2 andHilchot Matanot Aniyim 1:11 which also discuss these times for rain.
33.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam interprets the term reviah as referring to the time when rain descends, explaining that it is similar to the term used for impregnating a woman, because in both cases, the potential for life is granted.
34.
For that is when the rains cease there. In the Diaspora, different laws apply with regard to all these expressions according to the local conditions.
35.
And thus retroactively, she will be forbidden to derive benefit from the time the vow was taken. Had she been allowed to derive benefit, after she broke the vow, it would be a transgression.
36.
For he allowed her to benefit from his property, thus committing a transgression. The woman is not liable for lashes (Radbaz). Others (Rashba, Rosh, Nedarim 57b) differ with the Rambam and maintain that the woman is liable for lashes.
37.
For she did not benefit from him until Pesach.
38.
The Merkevat HaMishneh explains that he should continue to withhold benefit from her, for that is the only way that he can insure that she will keep the vow. The Ra'avad and others differ with the Rambam concerning the need for this safeguard and their view is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 220:22).
39.
For the time for the stipulation has passed.
40.
As above.
41.
I.e., even if he was subjected to lashes for one transgression.
42.
Because the term of the vow was completed. This applies even if she broke the vow and went before Pesach (Radbaz).
Nedarim - Chapter 11
Halacha 1
[The following rules apply with regard to] a male minor who is twelve years and one day old1 and a female minor who is eleven years and one day old who took an oath or a vow, whether a vow forbidding something to them or a vow consecrating an article. We investigate them and ask them [questions]. If they know for Whose sake they took the vow2 or for Whose sake they consecrated [the article] or took the oath, their vows and their consecration are binding.3 If they do not know, their vows and their statements are of no consequence.
It is necessary to make an investigation throughout the entire twelfth year of a female minor and the entire thirteenth year of a male minor.4
Halacha 2
What is implied? A minor took a vow or consecrated [property] at the beginning of the year, they were questioned, it was discovered that they knew [for Whose sake the vow was taken], and the vow was maintained. If they took another vow, even at the end of this year, they must be questioned again [for the vow] to be maintained. We do not say: "Since they were knowledgeable at the beginning of the year, they no longer have to be questioned. Instead, we question them throughout the entire year.5
Halacha 3
Before this time, even when they say: "We know for Whose sake we took the vow or for Whose sake we consecrated it," their vows and their consecration are of no consequence. After this time [passes] and a male is thirteen years and one day and a female is twelve years and one day,6 even though they say: "We do not know for Whose sake we took the vow or for Whose sake we consecrated it,"7their vows and their consecration are binding even if they did not manifest physical signs of maturity.8 This is the time when vows [take effect] which is mentioned in all sources.9
Halacha 4
Since they reached the age of majority, their vows are binding even if they did not manifest physical signs of majority and [thus] are not considered as adults with regard to all matters. This concept is of Scriptural origin:10 that when a person close to the age of adulthood utters a vow, his consecration [of articles] and his vows are binding. Nevertheless, although the vows of these individuals are binding, if they desecrate their vows or take oaths and substitute for them, they are not punishable by lashes until they reach the age of majority and manifest signs of physical maturity.11
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
When does the above statement - that the vows taken by a female twelve years and one day old are binding - apply? When she is neither in her father's domain14 or her husband's domain. If, however, she is in her father's domain, even if she comes of age and she is a maiden,15 her father may nullify16 all17of the vows and oaths she takes on the day he hears of them, as [Numbers 30:6] states: "All of her vows and prohibitions18... [shall not stand...] because her father withheld her."
Halacha 7
Until when may her father nullify [her vows]? Until she fully comes of age.19Once she fully comes of age, he may not nullify her [vows].20 Instead, all of her vows and oaths are like those of a widow or a divorcee, as [implied byNumbers 30:10]: "Everything that she forbade upon her soul [shall remain upon her]."
Halacha 8
When may a husband nullify his wife's vows and oaths? From the time she enters the chupah.21 He may continue to nullify her vows forever until he divorces her, with the bill of divorce reaching her hand.22
If there was an unresolved doubt concerning her divorce,23 he should not nullify her vows. If he gives her a bill of divorce conditionally24or one that takes effect at a later time,25 he should not nullify [her vows] in the interim.26Similarly, [when a woman] has heard that her husband died and remarried, but [in truth] her husband was alive27 or other similar situations [prevail],28neither her first husband, nor her second husband should nullify her vows.29 If she was forbidden [to her husband] by a negative commandment30and needless to say, if she is forbidden only by a positive commandment,31and her husband nullified her vows, her vows are nullified.32
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
If (the erus) dies, she returns to her father's domain. Any vow she takes37may be nullified by her father as was her status before consecration.38 If her father died after she was consecrated and she took a vow after his death, hererus cannot nullify it. For an erus cannot nullify his wife's vows [alone] until she enters the chupah.39
Halacha 11
[The following rules apply when] a consecrated maiden takes a vow, her father heard her vow, but not her erus,40 she was divorced that day and then consecrated by another person41 that day.42 Even if [she was divorced and consecrated] 100 times [that day], her father and her last erus may nullify the vows she took before her first erus. [The rationale is that] she never departed into her own domain for one moment,43 for throughout the entire time, she is in her father's domain, for she is still a maiden.
Halacha 12
When, by contrast, a married woman took a vow and her husband did not nullify it, he divorced her that day, and remarried her that day, he cannot nullify her vows,44 for she departed into her independent domain after she took her vow.45Although she took her vow in his domain and she is now in his domain, since she departed into her own domain in the interim, her vows are binding.
Halacha 13
[The following rule applies when] a consecrated maiden took a vow that was not heard by either her father or her erus,46 she was divorced, and then consecrated to someone else.47 Even several days after [she took the vow], when her father and her last erus hear about the vow that she took while consecrated to her first erus, they may nullify it, since her first erus did not hear it.
Halacha 14
Halacha 15
Halacha 16
If her father heard [that she took a vow], but the erus did not and the erus died that day or the erus also heard [about her vow] and nullified it or remained silent53 and then died that day, she returns to her father's domain and her father may nullify [her vows].54
If the erus heard [about her vow] and maintained it and died that day, or remained silent and died the following day,55 her father cannot nullify her vow.
Halacha 17
If the erus, divorced her after hearing [of her vow], there is an unresolved question whether the divorce is considered as silence and her father may nullify her vow together with a second erus who consecrates her that day.56Or perhaps the divorce is like her first erus maintaining her vow, in which instance, the vow is maintained.57
Halacha 18
When the father heard the vow and nullified it and then died and then the erusheard [of the vow] or even if the erus heard of the vow before the death of the father,58 she is not transferred [entirely] to the domain of her erus. He cannot ever nullify the vow after the father's death, for an erus can nullify a vow only together [with the father].
Halacha 19
If the erus heard [the vow], nullified it, and died and then the father heard or the father heard and nullified it and the erus died before he heard it, the father cannot nullify these vows that were in the jurisdiction of the first erus except together with a second erus to whom she is consecrated that day,59 as we explained.60
Halacha 20
If a woman took a vow, her father nullified it alone, and her husband did not hear [of the vow] until he brought her into his domain,61 he cannot nullify [her vow]. For a husband cannot nullify a vow taken by the woman he consecrated after he marries her.62 Instead, [this must be done] before she enters his domain, when he nullifies it together with her father. For this reason,63 it was the practice of Torah Sages to tell their daughters before they left their domain:64 "All the vows which you took while in my household are nullified."
Halacha 21
Halacha 22
If the father went with the agents of the husband68 or the father's agents went with the agents of the husband, her vows must still be nullified by her father and her husband jointly.69 If her father transferred her to the agents of her husband or her father's agents transferred her to her husband's agents, her father can no longer nullify her vows.70 Nor may the husband nullify them. For the husband cannot nullify vows that were taken before [he married her], as we explained.71
Halacha 23
Halacha 24
When a yevamah who is a maiden had been [merely] consecrated to [her deceased husband] and her father is alive, the yevam and her father do not nullify her vows together. Instead, her father alone is the one who nullifies any vow that she takes.76 Even if the yevam stated his intent to marry her, she is not considered as a consecrated maiden, for a statement of intent does not [establish] a complete [marriage bond between] a yevamah [and her yevam], as we explained.77
Halacha 25
Halacha 26
When a consecrated maiden takes a vow, but neither her father or her husband heard of her vows until she came of age80 or until she became like an orphan in her father's lifetime,81 her vows are binding; they cannot be nullified by her erus.82 [The rationale is that] she departed from her father's domain and he [and her erus] must nullify her vows together and she has not entered her husband's domain.83
FOOTNOTES
1.
As explained by the commentaries, in this context, we follow the principle: "A portion of a day is considered as an entire day." Thus, directly after his twelfth birthday, as soon as a male child enters into his thirteenth year of life, these laws apply to him. Similar concepts apply with regard to a female minor.
2.
For a vow must be taken for God's sake, asNumbers 30:3 states: "When a man will take a vow to God."
3.
This is a unique concept that Niddah 45b derives from the exegesis of Leviticus 27:2. Although throughout Jewish law, until a male attains the age of thirteen and a female, the age of twelve, their actions are of no consequence according to Scriptural Law, an exception is made in this instance because of the above verse, as stated in Halachah 4.
4.
As explained in the following halachah.
5.
The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that Niddah, loc. cit., the source for this halachah, does not lead to such a conclusion. He suggests that perhaps the Rambam had a different version of that text. Yayin Malchut states that this resolution is reflected in the revised version of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 5:6). In his initial explanation of the mishnah, he appeared to follow the same text as the popular version of the Talmud, but later in life, he revised that interpretation, accepting a different version of the text. The Rambam's rationale is that since we are speaking about a minor, it is possible that his level of understanding will fluctuate.
6.
I.e., their thirteenth and twelfth birthdays arrive as stated in note 1.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah5:6), the Rambam writes that the Torah made the age for which women become responsible for their vows less than the age men become responsible, generally, a woman's lifetime is less than that of a man.
7.
If they manifested signs that they are mentally or emotionally incapable, this law does not apply. If, however, they are merely somewhat slow and do not understand the concept of vows, their vows are of consequence, because they have already reached the age when one becomes responsible for his or her actions.
8.
I.e., two pubic hairs as stated in Hilchot Ishut2:1.
9.
There are others who maintain that the expression "the time when vows [take effect]" refers to a minor who understands the meaning of his vows as stated in Halachah 1. The Rambam prefers his interpretation, because it is dependent ontime, the child's age, while the first interpretation is dependent on the child's knowledge (Yayim Malchut).
10.
This is the subject of debate among theRishonim, for some do not accept the Rambam's view.
11.
For until the latter age, they are still minors, and minors are not liable for punishment for transgressions that they perform.
12.
For violating the prohibition against benefiting from consecrated property (Hilchot Meilah1:3).
13.
In the previous halachah. Since the child's consecration is valid, the article has the status of a consecrated article according to Scriptural Law and a person who misappropriates it is liable.
14.
I.e., her father died. Alternatively, she was married as a minor and then she was divorced or widowed (see Halachah 25). Otherwise, she remains in his domain until the age of twelve and a half, as stated in the following halachah.
15.
I.e., from the age of twelve until the age of twelve and a half.
16.
See Chapter 13, Halachah 2, which describes how the father nullifies his daughter's vow.
17.
As the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:1) states, this applies even to vows taken dependent on the consent of others which cannot be repealed by a sage.
18.
The HaEmek HaShaalah interprets this term as referring to oaths.
19.
I.e., reaches the age of twelve and a half after manifesting physical signs of maturity (Hilchot Ishut 2:2).
20.
Numbers 30:17 gives him this privilege "during her maidenhood," i.e., and not beyond that time period (Kessef Mishneh).
21.
I.e, from the beginning of the second sage of the marriage relationship known as nissuin. At that time, he takes her into a private room and from that time onward, the couple live as man and wife (Hilchot Ishut 10:1). During the first stage of the marriage relationship (erusin), when the erus has merely consecrated his wife, he does not have the right to nullify her vows alone (see Halachah 9). (In the present era, it is customary to perform both these stages of marriage directly after each other.)
22.
Implied is that if he sends the bill of divorce to her via an agent, he may nullify her vows until the bill of divorce enters her possession (Siftei Cohen 234:6, Turei Zahav 234:1).
23.
I.e., he had a bill of divorce given to her and our Rabbis could not resolve if the manner in which the bill of divorce was given or written is effective. See Hilchot Gerushin 5:13 for an example.
The rationale for this law is that our Sages understood that the reason the Torah gave a husband the right to nullify his wife's vows was so that she would not become unattractive to him (Yevamot 90b). In this instance, he is not concerned that she becomes unattractive (Radbaz).
24.
See Hilchot Gerushin 8:1.
25.
He tells her: "Here is your bill of divorce, but it does not take effect for 30 days" (ibid.9:1).
26.
I.e., in the days before the vow takes effect. The Siftei Cohen 234:8 states that even after the fact, the nullification does not take effect.
27.
See Hilchot Gerushin 10:5 which describes this situation at length.
28.
E.g., a woman who went through a divorce and then remarried, but then it was discovered that her divorce was invalid (ibid.:7). In both this and the previous instance, both husbands are required to divorce the woman.
29.
The rationale for this and the previous laws is that our Sages understood that the reason the Torah gave a husband the right to nullify his wife's vows was so that she would not become unattractive to him. In this instance, since he is obligated to divorce her, it is desirable that she become unattractive to him (Yevamot, loc. cit.).
30.
I.e., a negative commandment that is not punishable by execution, death at the hand of heaven, or karet. See Hilchot Ishut 1:7.
31.
E.g., marriages like that of a non-virgin to a High Priest, which are not prohibited by a negative commandment. Instead, the prohibition is understood, because there is a positive commandment instructing the opposite. See ibid.:8.
32.
Although these marriages are forbidden, since they are still binding, the husband has this privilege.
33.
I.e., a girl between the ages of twelve and twelve and a half.
34.
The term erus means "the man who consecrated her." The Rambam does not use this term, but instead, the term baalmeaning "husband." We, however, have used the term erus, because the term baalusually implies that nisuin, the second stage of marriage, has already taken place.
35.
Numbers 30:17 states: "These are the statutes... between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter in her youth." Nedarim 68a interprets the verse as referring to one woman, implying that the nullification of her vows is performed by her father and her erus together. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 9:9), the Rambam writes that from the Biblical text, it might appear that both the father and the erus have the right to nullify her vows independently. Hence, it is necessary to clarify that this is not so.
36.
Nedarim 68a states that since one of the two has already nullified the vow, it is weak and its violation is not punishable by lashes.
37.
Even the vows she took previously while consecrated [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah234:11)]. This applies even if she has ayevam (Halachah 24).
38.
As stated in Halachah 6.
39.
Before nissuin, an erus can nullify his wife's vows only together with her father and that is impossible in this instance. See also Halachah 16.
40.
For if her first erus heard her vow and did not nullify it, her father can no longer nullify it together with her second erus. See Halachah 17.
41.
Or consecrated again by her first erus[Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:13)].
42.
It is necessary that the divorce(s) and the consecration(s) take place on the same day the father heard of and nullified the vow. For if not, the woman's last erus will not have the right to nullify the vow, as indicated by Chapter 12, Halachah 17.
43.
In contrast to the laws applying to a married woman, as stated in the following halachah.
44.
Nor may her father nullify her vows, for once she marries, her father no longer has the right to nullify her vows.
45.
Once a woman becomes independent for even one moment, her future husband cannot nullify the vows she took previously.
46.
If, however, either her erus or her father heard her vow when it was taken, it cannot be nullified at a later date.
47.
Since she remains partially in her father's domain, the divorce does not effect the right of her father and her present erus to nullify her vows.
48.
The consecration and the nullification of the vow must take place on the day that the father heard of the vow and nullified it (Turei Zahav 234:22).
49.
Since her first erus did not hear of her vow, the fact that he died before nullifying it does not deprive her last erus of that right. The father cannot nullify her vow alone, because it was taken when she was consecrated. Since her father nullified the vow, the right of her erus to nullify the vow is weak and of little substance. Accordingly, the right to nullify it cannot be transferred to the father alone, as in Halachah 16.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:16) quotes the Rambam's view, but also that of the Tur which maintains that the seconderus can never nullify a vow together with the father.
50.
I.e., after the death of her erus.
51.
But not on the following day. The Radbaz explains that this is speaking about a situation when the father heard of the vow on the same day as her first erus, for the nullification must be completed on the same day that he heard of the vow. If, however, her father does not hear about it until the following day and she was consecrated then, he and her new erus may nullify her vow then.
52.
The Turei Zahav 234:13 maintains that the Rambam would also give her father the right to nullify the vow alone, because her firsterus also heard the vow and did not maintain it (see the following halachah). The Rambam mentions her being consecrated by another person only to teach that if, this is indeed the situation, the second erus must also nullify the vow.
53.
Since he did not maintain the vow and died before the day was completed, we say that there was a possibility that he would nullify it. Hence, her father is given the right to nullify it.
54.
Since her erus no longer exists and he did not maintain the vow, the right to nullify is given to her father. In his gloss to Halachah 19, the Radbaz explains the apparent contradiction between these two halachot by stating that this halachah refers to an instance where the father did not nullify the vow before the erus died. Accordingly, the right of the erus to nullify the vow is not weakened. Hence it can be transferred to the father. Halachah 19 refers to a situation where the father nullified the vow and weakens it, as explained above.
55.
Since he did not nullify it on the day that he heard it, he cannot nullify again. It is considered as if he maintained it. Once he maintained it, her father cannot nullify it.
56.
I.e., combining Halachah 15 which states that the father and the second erus can nullify the vow and Halachah 16 which states that silence is equivalent to nullification. If she does not become consecrated again, the father can nullify the vow alone (Turei Zahav, loc. cit.).
57.
And cannot be nullified afterwards.
58.
But did not nullify it then.
59.
If, however, he nullifies on a later date it is unacceptable, for the father must nullify the vow on the day he became aware of it.
60.
Halachah 15. In his gloss to this halachah, the Radbaz explains the apparent contradiction between this halachah and Halachah 16 by stating that Halachah 16 refers to an instance where the father did not nullify the vow before the erus died. Accordingly, the right of the erus to nullify the vow is not weakened. Hence it can be transferred to the father. This halachah refers to a situation where the father nullified the vow and weakens it. Hence it cannot be transferred as explained in the notes to Halachah 15. This understanding is reflected in the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:16).
61.
I.e., completed the second stage of the marriage, nissuin.
62.
See Halachah 8.
63.
I.e., to enable all the vows concerning which he did not hear to be nullified.
64.
I.e., before their marriage.
65.
An erus may also nullify the vows that a woman took before he consecrated her (together with her father). We assume, however, that her father already nullified those vows (Siftei Cohen 234:21; Turei Zahav 234:11).
66.
This also applies to her father. The husband and the father must, however, be capable of hearing. If they are deaf, they cannot nullify a vow (Chapter 12, Halachah 13).
67.
Thus if both the father and the husband made these statements, the vows are nullified. In some manuscript copies of theMishneh Torah, these two halachot are combined as one.
68.
Who were sent to bring her to her husband's home.
69.
As long as her father is accompanying her, he is not considered to have transferred her to her husband's domain and hence, still has the right to nullify her vows.
70.
I.e., even if the husband dies [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:12)].
71.
See Halachah 20.
72.
I.e., we are speaking about a widow whose husband dies childless who must be married by her deceased husband's brother. See Deuteronomy, ch. 25.
73.
Which is similar to consecration, but not entirely analogous to consecration (seeHilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah 2:1).
74.
And thus there is no question that she is designated for him.
75.
At which point their marriage is consummated and she becomes his wife. Until then, even if he has stated his intent, according to Scriptural Law, she is not his wife and he cannot nullify her vows.
76.
As stated in Halachah 10.
77.
Which is similar to consecration, but not entirely analogous to consecration (seeHilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah 2:1).
78.
I.e., she has already completed nissuin, the second stage of the marriage bond.
79.
I.e., although from the standpoint of age, her father would still have the right to nullify her vows, since she married, she is given full independence. Hence, he no longer has this right.
80.
As stated in Halachah 7, once she comes of age, her father no longer has any authority over her.
81.
I.e., she was divorced or widowed after marriage, as stated in the previous halachah.
82.
I.e., in the first situation, the man who consecrated her before she came of age. In the second situation, it refers to a second husband who consecrated her after she was divorced or widowed.
83.
This occurs only after nissuin. Moreover, even after she enters her husband's domain, he cannot nullify her vows that were taken beforehand, as stated in Halachah 20.
Nedarim - Chapter 12
Halacha 1
A father [has the right to] nullify any1 vows and oaths [taken by his daughter only] on the day he hears of them,2 as [Numbers 30:6] states: "[But if her father withheld her on the day that he heard,] all of her vows and prohibitions3... [shall not stand]."
Halacha 2
What is the difference between [the laws governing] vows that involve personal aggravation and those that affect the marriage relationship. With regard to vows that involve personal aggravation, his nullification has bearing for himself and for others.8 With regard to those involving the marriage relationship, his nullification has bearing for himself but not for others.9
Halacha 3
What is implied? She took a vow not to eat meat. He may nullify it and she will be permitted to eat meat if she is married to any other person forever. If she forbade marital intimacy with any man, he may nullify the vow with regard to himself10 and she may engage in intimacy with him. If, however, he dies or divorces her, she is forbidden to engage in intimacy with all other men. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 4
Whether the aggravation is of a minor nature or a major nature, for a short time or for a long time, the husband has the right to nullify all [such] vows.
Halacha 5
What is implied? She took a vow or an oath "not to bathe today," "not drink wine today," or "not to eat honey today,"11 he may nullify the vows. [This also applies if] she vowed "not to put on eye paint today" or "not to wear colored woven garments today."12 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. Even if she took a vow [not to partake of] an unpleasant food13 or a type of food that she had never eaten,14 [her husband] may nullify it.
Halacha 6
When she took a vow not to partake of two loaves of bread and not partaking of one would cause her aggravation, but not partaking of the other would not cause her aggravation,15 her husband may nullify the one that would cause her aggravation and may not nullify the one that would not cause her aggravation.16
Halacha 7
When a woman takes a vow not to eat figs from her native country, [her husband] may nullify her vow, because this is a matter that affects the marriage relationship.17 For it is a major problem for him to undertake the difficulty of bringing her [figs] from another place. Therefore, if he dies, divorces her, or another person brings her figs from her native country, they are forbidden to her. For [a husband's] nullification [of a vow that] affects the marriage relationship does not have bearing for others.18
Halacha 8
Similarly, if she took an oath not to benefit from people at large, even though her husband is not included in the vow,19 he has the right to nullify it, because it affects the marriage relationship.20 Otherwise, he will have to give her food only from his own resources. Similarly, he may nullify [the vow] if she [takes a vow], forbidding her from benefiting from an entire nation,21 e.g., all the Jews or all the Ishmaelites.
Halacha 9
When a woman tells her husband: "Pleasure from intimacy with me is forbidden to you," he need not nullify the vow.22 To what can the matter be compared? To one who forbids the owner of fruit from benefiting from his own fruit.23 Similarly, if he tells her: "Pleasure from intimacy with me is forbidden to you," his statements are of no consequence, because he is obligated to provide her with her sustenance, clothing, and intimacy, as we explained inHilchot Ishut.24
If, however, she told him: "Pleasure from intimacy with you is forbidden to me," he must nullify the vow.25 If he does not nullify it, it is forbidden for him to engage in relations with her, because we may not force a person to partake of food that is forbidden to him.
Halacha 10
If she said: "May my hands be sanctified to the One who made them," or she took a vow that he would not benefit from the labor of her hands,26 he is not forbidden to benefit from the labor of her hands, because her hands are on lien to him.27 Although [our Sages] declared:28 "Emancipation,29[the prohibition against] chametz,30and consecration31sever a lien," our Sages reinforced a husband's lien [on his wife's work and her earnings], preventing her from severing it, because it is of Rabbinic origin.32 He must, however, nullify the vow, lest he divorce her and then he be forbidden to remarry her.33
Halacha 11
If she took an oath or a vow that neither the father of her husband, his brothers, or any of his other relatives will benefit from her, he cannot nullify the vow.34 Similarly, he may not nullify her vow if she vows not to bring his animal35 water,36 straw for his cattle,37 or the like. [The rationale is that these vows] do not aggravate the soul, nor do they affect the marriage relationship, [since] they are not of the tasks that she is obligated to perform.38
Halacha 12
A husband and a father may nullify vows that have not taken effect and have not yet caused prohibitions for her.39 What is implied? She said, for example: "Wine will be forbidden to me if I go to this-and-this place."40 Even though she has not yet gone there and [thus the wine] is not yet forbidden, the vow may be nullified. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
Neither a father, nor a husband who is intellectually or emotionally unstable may nullify a vow. A minor cannot establish a marriage bond;45 accordingly, he may not nullify a vow. A husband may nullify the vows of two of his wives simultaneously. Similarly, a father may nullify the vows of two of his daughters simultaneously.46
Halacha 15
The nullification of vows may be carried out throughout the entire day.47 [The right does not continue] for 24 hours.
What is implied? If she took a vow at the beginning of Sunday night, the vow may be nullified throughout that night and the entire day Monday.48 When she took a vow at the conclusion of the day, directly before nightfall. If he49 nullified the vow before nightfall, it is nullified. If he did not nullify it until after nightfall, he may not nullify it any longer.50
Halacha 16
What is meant by the Torah's words [Numbers 30:15]: "from one day to the next"?51 They teach that if she takes a vow at night, he may nullify it during the night. And he may nullify it throughout the following day, as we explained.52
If she took a vow and waited several days and only then, her father or her husband heard of it, he may nullify it on the day he heard of it. It is as if she took the vow on the day that he heard of it, as [implied by ibid.:6]: "On the day he heard of it," [i.e.,] and not only the day she took the vow.
Halacha 17
When a consecrated maiden took a vow and her father heard of it and nullified it and after several days her erus heard of it and nullified it on the day he heard of it, it is not nullified, as [implied by ibid.:6-8]: "If her father prevented her on the day that he heard of it.... If she was married to a man with vows incumbent upon her.... If her husband heard of it. On the day, he heard of it...." From this we infer: Since her father nullified it and her erus heard of it, he must nullify it on the day the father heard of it. Similarly, if her erus heard [of the vow] and nullified it and after several days, the father heard of it and nullified it on the day he heard of it, it is not nullified.53
How do we know that the verse is speaking about a consecrated maiden? Because further on, the passage [ibid.:11-12] states: "If she vows in her husband's home...54 her husband heard her and remained silent." We can infer that the husband spoken about previously is an erus., as we explained.
Halacha 18
When a father or a husband hears of a vow and remains silent in order to cause the woman aggravation,55 if the day passes without him nullifying or revoking [her vows], they are binding even if he did not have the intent of accepting them.
If she took a vow and her father or her husband nullified it, but without knowing of the nullification, she willfully violated her vow or oath, she is not liable. Although she had the intent of transgressing, since she committed a permitted act,56 she is exempt. Concerning this, [ibid.:6] states: "God will forgive her, although her father prevented her." She is given stripes for rebellious conduct,57 because she had the intent to transgress.
Halacha 19
Halacha 20
If a father or a husband heard of [a woman's] vow, but remained silent, because he did not know that a father or a husband has a right to nullify her vows or he knew that he had a right to nullify her vow, but did not know that such a vow required nullification, when he learns of this, he may nullify [the vow]. The time when he gains this knowledge is equivalent to the time of the vow or the time he heard of it and he may nullify it for that entire day.
Halacha 21
[When a nullification is made in error,] one must return and nullify it again. [For example,] his wife took a vow and he thought that she was his daughter, and he nullified it with the intent that she was his daughter. She took a nazirite vow and he thought that she had vowed [to offer] a sacrifice and he nullified it with the intent that she had vowed [to offer] a sacrifice. She forbade herself to partake of figs and he thought she said grapes and nullified with the intent that she had forbade grapes. [In all such instances,] he must nullify the vow again when he learns of the vow and the identity of the woman taking the vow for the sake of this woman and this vow. [This can be inferred from ibid.:5]: "Her father did not prevent her"; [this indicates that he must have in mind] the woman taking the vow herself. "And her father heard her vow,"61 i.e., until he knows the vow that she took. He may nullify the vow throughout the entire day that he discovers this information.62
FOOTNOTES
1.
I.e., he may nullify all vows, not merely those that a husband may nullify.
Rabbenu Asher and other Rishonim differ and maintain that the Sifri states that the father's rights are the same as the husband's. In a response attributed to the Rambam, he explains that although this view is stated in the Sifri, it is not mentioned anywhere else in the Talmud and the simple meaning of the Biblical passage does not lead to such an inference. This leads to the conclusion that the statement of the Sifri is a minority opinion. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:58) mentions both views without stating which one should be followed.
2.
I.e., not necessarily on the day the vow was taken, but on the day he first heard of it.
3.
The Emek HaShaalah interprets this term as referring to oaths.
4.
I.e., after nissuin, the second stage of the marriage relationship.
5.
For Numbers 30:14 specifically mentions a husband's authority involving vows of this type. Vows that involve personal aggravation refer to vows that involve accepting a prohibition of a particular type of satisfaction.
6.
Literally, those "between him and her."
7.
Such conduct could arouse a husband's displeasure, for he will not be happy that his wife does not appear attractive.
The Shulchan Aruch (234:59) mentions other views which consider these vows as ones that involve personal aggravation as well as the Rambam's view that these are matters that affect the husband-wife relationship.
8.
I.e., even if he divorces her, the vow is nullified.
9.
The nullification applies only when they are married.
10.
See Halachah 9 with regard to clarification when this vow must be nullified and when it need not be nullified. The Siftei Cohen234:83 quotes views that maintain that since the vow takes effect with regard to other men, it would also take effect with regard to him if he did not nullify it.
11.
These are considered vows that involve personal aggravation.
12.
These are considered vows affecting the marriage relationship.
13.
Our translation follows the gloss of theKessef Mishneh. The Chatam Sofer explains that since it is forbidden to eat unpleasant foods on Yom Kippur - when fasting is described as aggravating one's soul - even unpleasant foods are included in this category.
The Turei Zahav 234:51, however, translates the term as "harmful foods," arguing that if the woman considered the food unpleasant and had no desire for it, it would not be considered as "aggravation" for her to be prevented from partaking of it.
14.
Since she never partook of this food, there is room to say that no aggravation would be caused by prohibiting it. Hence it is necessary to emphasize that it is forbidden.
15.
The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rabbenu Asher's commentary to Nedarim 82b which explains that this refers to a situation where one loaf is made of fine flour and is attractive and one is made of coarse flour and is not. She will suffer aggravation from not eating the first, but not from not eating the second.
There is a slight difficulty with this explanation, because the previous halachah stated that a husband may nullify even a vow involving unpleasant food. It can be explained, however, that since her husband makes it possible for her to partake of the loaf of fine bread, she will have no aggravation over not partaking over the coarse bread. When, however, she is not able to partake of the unpleasant food, she has no similar alternative.
Alternatively, Rabbenu Asher explains that she is hungry and will be satisfied by eating one loaf. Hence, not eating that loaf will give her aggravation. Not eating the second one will not.
16.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that when a sage absolves a vow, if he nullifies a portion of the vow, the entire vow is nullified (Chapter 4, Halachah 11). This principle does not, however, hold true with regard to a vow nullified by a husband.
17.
I.e., it is not a matter of aggravation, because she may eat figs. Nevertheless, obtaining the figs places a difficulty upon her husband. Although it also mentions the Rambam's view, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:60) appears to follow the view of other Rishonim who maintain that this is also considered a vow involving aggravation.
18.
As stated in Halachah 2.
19.
I.e., this point is obvious. Even if she does not say so explicitly, she may benefit from him without him having to nullify the vow.
20.
The Mishnah (Nedarim 11:3) quotes Rabbi Yossi who rules that one may not nullify such a vow. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that this is a minority view.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:64) quotes the Rambam's view, but also that of other Rishonim who maintain that such a vow is considered one which involves personal aggravation.
21.
Our translation is based on the Kessef Mishneh who states that the wording of the original is inexact.
22.
I.e., even if he does not nullify the vow, it does not take effect.
23.
See Chapter 5, Halachah 3. By agreeing to marriage, a woman gives her husband rights to marital intimacy that cannot be withheld.
24.
Hilchot Ishut 12:2, based on Exodus 21:10.
25.
Since the vow does not forbid anything to the man, it will take effect unless he nullifies it. See also parallels in Hilchot Ishut 14:7 and Chapter 1, Halachah 30, above.
Based on Chapter 3, Halachah 10, it must be concluded that we are referring to an instance where she said "Your body is forbidden to me," for satisfaction is not a tangible matter (Rashba, as quoted by Turei Zahav 234:57; Siftei Cohen 234:81). Tosafotmaintains that even if he does not say "Your body...," we consider it as if he did. This intent is reflected in the wording chosen by the Shulchan Aruch.
26.
I.e., in both cases, she is consecrating the future products of her labor to the Temple treasury. She must, however, be careful to phrase the vow in a manner that she is not consecrating an entity that does not exist. For then the vow would not be effective [Nedarim 85a; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 234:71)]. See also Hilchot Arachin 6:28.
27.
I.e., one of the rights given to a husband is the right to benefit from his wife's labor (Hilchot Ishut, loc. cit.).
28.
Ketubot 59b; Nedarim 86b.
29.
Of a servant. If a servant was designated as security for a debt and was then freed by his master, he is a free man and is not in any way subjugated to the person who had the lien (Hilchot Malveh ULoveh 18:6).
30.
If a Jew designated leavened products (chametz) as security for a loan to a gentile, when the prohibition against benefiting fromchametz takes effect, the lien is no longer effective and the chametz reverts to the ownership of the Jew and he is obligated to destroy it.
31.
If an ox was designated as security for a loan and then its owner, the borrower, consecrated it, the lien is severed and the lender must collect the debt from another source. See also Hilchot Arachin 7:5.
32.
As in several other instances, our Sages reinforced their decrees, giving them more power than Scriptural Law (see Chapter 3, Halachah 9 for another example). The rationale is that if Rabbinic Law was not given this additional measure of strength, people might treat it lightly.
33.
For her vow would take effect after the divorce and then, he would not be able to remarry her because he would then be forbidden to benefit from her work, including her performance of household tasks, thus creating an impossible situation.
See Turei Zahav 234:63 who explains why we mention this concern in this instance and not in others where it would seemingly apply.
34.
For, as reflected by Hilchot Ishut 21:3, she is not under any obligation to perform work on behalf of these people.
35.
I.e., the animal he rides upon.
36.
As Hilchot Ishut 21:5 states, she is obligated to provide straw for his riding animal. She is not, however, obligated to provide water for it, for it is necessary to draw water from a spring or river and that is compromising to a woman's modesty (Kessef Mishneh). As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Ishut, loc. cit., the Rambam's ruling is based the version of Ketubot 61b cited by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi. The standard published text of the Talmud follows a different understanding.
37.
She is obligated to provide straw for the animal he rides upon, for that is an expression of consideration for her husband's person. She has no such obligation with regard to his cattle, for those animals are necessary only for work and that is solely her husband's concern.
38.
I.e., were she obligated to perform these tasks, her vow not to perform them would not take effect.
39.
A sage, by contrast, may only absolve an oath or a vow after it takes effect (Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:14).
40.
The Rambam's ruling is cited by theShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:28). TheKessef Mishneh and the Rama quote the ruling of Rabbenu Yerucham who maintains that this principle applies only with regard to vows that have not taken effect because the time when they are due to take effect has not come. If, however, they are dependent on a deed, they cannot be nullified until they take effect. See the comments of the Siftei Cohen 234:45 which discusses this issue.
41.
This applies even if he is not both deaf and dumb [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah234:25)].
42.
For Numbers 30:5 speak of her father hearing. Implied is that if he cannot hear, he cannot nullify the vow (Sifri to the verse).
43.
Chapter 11, Halachah 21. This also applies with regard to her father, as indicated by Halachah 20 of that chapter.
44.
Rabbenu Asher [quoted by Rama (Yoreh De'ah 234:25)] differs and maintains that it is necessary for him to hear the vow.
45.
See Hilchot Ishut 4:7; 11:6.
46.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:29) quotes the Rambam's ruling, but mentions that there are other Rishonim who differ regarding this issue.
47.
I.e., until nightfall, as the Rambam continues to explain.
48.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:29) quotes the Rambam's ruling, but mentions that there are other Rishonim who differ regarding this issue.
49.
I.e., neither a husband, nor a father.
50.
For the day on which he heard the vow has passed.
51.
Which seemingly implies a 24 hour period.
52.
In the previous halachah.
53.
I.e., according to the Rambam, regardless of who hears about the vow and nullifies it first, the father and the husband must both nullify it on the same day. The Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 234:5) quotes the Rambam's view, but also that of the Ramban and Rabbenu Asher who maintain that the father and the husband do not have to nullify the vow on the same day. As long as each one nullifies it on the day he hears of it, it is nullified. The Siftei Cohen 234:13 quotes the opinion of the Bayit Chadash who rules that we should be stringent and follow the Rambam's decision.
54.
I.e., this obviously applies after nissuin, when the woman is living in her husband's home.
55.
I.e., he intended to nullify her vow afterwards, but desired that she think that the vow is binding so that she will take the matter more seriously.
56.
I.e., since the vow was nullified, there is no prohibition involved in the action.
57.
A punishment instituted by the Rabbis.
58.
If she transgressed willfully.
59.
If she transgressed inadvertently.
60.
In contrast to the repeal of a vow by a sage, when a father or a husband nullify a vow, they do not nullify it retroactively, only from the time of their actions onward. See the notes to Chapter 13, Halachah 2.
61.
Significantly, the Sifri derives the same concept from a different verse.
62.
For the day he discovers new information concerning the vow is equivalent to the day he hears of it.
---------------------
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• "Today's Day"
Wednesday, Adar I 29, 5776 · 09 March 2016
Shabbat 29 Adar I, Parshat Shekalim 5703
Haftora: Vayichrot Y'hoyada...Add the first and last verses of the haftora for Machar Chodesh. Bless Rosh Chodesh Adar Sheini; say the entire Tehillim in the early morning. Day of farbrengen.
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayakheil, Shvi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 140-144.
Tanya: Ch. 33. This, also (p. 147)...of this faith. (p. 153).
In responding to l'chayim there are two versions:
(a.) L'chayim tovim ul'shalom, "for good life, and for peace." The reason for this blessing is that the first time drinking wine is mentioned in the Torah, there were undesirable results. "Noach began etc."1 also, the Tree of Knowledge was a grapevine.2Therefore we extend the blessing that this wine be for a good life.
(b.) The Maggid of Mezritch used to respond l'chayim velivracha. Once at a farbrengen, the Alter Rebbe responded l'chayim velivracha. After the farbrengen Chassidim discussed this expression, which they heard then for the first time. One chassid proposed: Since "When wine enters, the secret comes out,"3 which in avoda signifies that the emotions are revealed, we need a b'racha for this; the expression is l'chayim velivracha, and "livracha" may be read, leiv racha, a sensitive heart.
The Tzemach Tzedek commented: Such an interpretation could be proposed only by a chassid who has davened and labored in avoda for thirty years.
FOOTNOTES
1. Also translated as "Noach corrupted himself" or profaned himself" or "degraded himself." Bereishit 9:20.
2. See Tikunei Zohar, Tikun 24.
3. Eiruvin 65a.
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• "Today's Day"
Wednesday, Adar I 29, 5776 · 09 March 2016
Shabbat 29 Adar I, Parshat Shekalim 5703
Haftora: Vayichrot Y'hoyada...Add the first and last verses of the haftora for Machar Chodesh. Bless Rosh Chodesh Adar Sheini; say the entire Tehillim in the early morning. Day of farbrengen.
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayakheil, Shvi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 140-144.
Tanya: Ch. 33. This, also (p. 147)...of this faith. (p. 153).
In responding to l'chayim there are two versions:
(a.) L'chayim tovim ul'shalom, "for good life, and for peace." The reason for this blessing is that the first time drinking wine is mentioned in the Torah, there were undesirable results. "Noach began etc."1 also, the Tree of Knowledge was a grapevine.2Therefore we extend the blessing that this wine be for a good life.
(b.) The Maggid of Mezritch used to respond l'chayim velivracha. Once at a farbrengen, the Alter Rebbe responded l'chayim velivracha. After the farbrengen Chassidim discussed this expression, which they heard then for the first time. One chassid proposed: Since "When wine enters, the secret comes out,"3 which in avoda signifies that the emotions are revealed, we need a b'racha for this; the expression is l'chayim velivracha, and "livracha" may be read, leiv racha, a sensitive heart.
The Tzemach Tzedek commented: Such an interpretation could be proposed only by a chassid who has davened and labored in avoda for thirty years.
FOOTNOTES
1. Also translated as "Noach corrupted himself" or profaned himself" or "degraded himself." Bereishit 9:20.
2. See Tikunei Zohar, Tikun 24.
3. Eiruvin 65a.
---------------------• Daily Thought:
Unnatural Desires
We were born with natural desires, all meant for good and healthy purposes. They just need to be channeled in the right direction.
But we human beings have a knack for creating desires that fight against our own nature. Desires that are destructive to ourselves, our society and our environment.
Such desires can’t be rechanneled. But if you have the power to create them, you also have the power to wipe them out and start again from what G‑d gave you.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment