Today in Jewish History:• Sicilian Jews Forced to Wear Jewish Badges (1369)On December 25, 1369 (5129), King Frederick III of Sicily ordered all Jews to wear a badge indicating their heritage. The badge consisted of a piece of red material, not smaller than the largest royal seal; men were required to wear it under the chin, and women on the chest.
Daily Quote:
Fix yourself up first, and then fix up others[Talmud, Bava Kama 107b]
Today's Study:
Daily Quote:
Fix yourself up first, and then fix up others[Talmud, Bava Kama 107b]
Today's Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Parshat Va'eira, 3rd Portion (Exodus 6:29-7:7) with Rashi
• Exodus Chapter 6
29that the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "I am the Lord. Speak to Pharaoh everything that I speak to you." כטוַיְדַבֵּ֧ר יְהֹוָ֛ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹ֖ר אֲנִ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה דַּבֵּ֗ר אֶל־פַּרְעֹה֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרַ֔יִם אֵ֛ת כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲנִ֖י דֹּבֵ֥ר אֵלֶֽיךָ:
that the Lord spoke: This is the very same speech stated above, “Come, speak to Pharaoh, the king of Egypt” (verse 11), but since [Scripture] interrupted the topic in order to trace their [Moses’ and Aaron’s] lineage, it returned to it [the statement, in order] to resume with it. וידבר ה': הוא הדבור עצמו האמור למעלה (פסוק יא) בא דבר אל פרעה מלך מצרים, אלא מתוך שהפסיק הענין כדי ליחסם, חזר הענין עליו להתחיל בו:
I am the Lord: I have the power to send you and [also] to fulfill the words of My mission. אני ה': כדאי אני לשלחך ולקיים דברי שליחותי:
30But Moses said before the Lord, "Behold, I am of closed lips; so how will Pharaoh hearken to me?" לוַיֹּ֥אמֶר משֶׁ֖ה לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה הֵ֤ן אֲנִי֙ עֲרַ֣ל שְׂפָתַ֔יִם וְאֵ֕יךְ יִשְׁמַ֥ע אֵלַ֖י פַּרְעֹֽה:
But Moses said before the Lord: This is the statement [that Moses] stated above: “Behold, the children of Israel did not hearken to me” (verse 12). Scripture repeats it here because it had interrupted the topic [for the reasons given above], and this is customary, similar to a person who says, “Let us return to the earlier [topic].” ויאמר משה לפני ה': היא האמירה שאמר למעלה (פסוק יב) הן בני ישראל לא שמעו אלי, ושנה הכתוב כאן כיון שהפסיק הענין, וכך היא השיטה כאדם האומר נחזור על הראשונות:
Exodus Chapter 7
1The Lord said to Moses, "See! I have made you a lord over Pharaoh, and Aaron, your brother, will be your speaker. אוַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה רְאֵ֛ה נְתַתִּ֥יךָ אֱלֹהִ֖ים לְפַרְעֹ֑ה וְאַֽהֲרֹ֥ן אָחִ֖יךָ יִֽהְיֶ֥ה נְבִיאֶֽךָ:
I have made you a lord over Pharaoh: Heb. אֱלֹהִים, a judge and a chastiser, to chastise him with plagues and torments. — [from Onkelos and Tanchuma, Va’era 9] נתתיך א-להים לפרעה: שופט ורודה לרדותו במכות ויסורין:
will be your speaker: Heb. נְבִיאֶ, as the Targum renders: מְתוּרְגְמָנָ, your interpreter. Every expression of נְבוּאָה (prophecy) denotes a man who publicly announces to the people words of reproof. It is derived from the root of “I create the speech (נִיב) of the lips” (Isa. 57:19); “speaks (יָנוּב) wisdom” (Prov. 10:31); “And he (Samuel) finished prophesying (מֵהִתְנַבוּת) ” (I Sam. 10:13). In Old French this is called predi(je) ir, advocate. — [based on Onkelos] יהיה נביאך: כתרגומו מתורגמנך, וכן כל לשון נבואה אדם המכריז ומשמיע לעם דברי תוכחות, והוא מגזרת (ישעיה נז יט) ניב שפתים, (משלי י לא) ינוב חכמה, ויכל מהתנבות דשמואל (א' י יג). ובלעז קוראין לו פרקייר"א [מליץ ומטיף]:
2You shall speak all that I command you, and Aaron, your brother, shall speak to Pharaoh, that he let the children of Israel out of his land. באַתָּ֣ה תְדַבֵּ֔ר אֵ֖ת כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֲצַוֶּ֑ךָּ וְאַֽהֲרֹ֤ן אָחִ֨יךָ֙ יְדַבֵּ֣ר אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֔ה וְשִׁלַּ֥ח אֶת־בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מֵֽאַרְצֽוֹ:
You shall speak: once every message, as you have heard it from My mouth, and Aaron, your brother, will interpret it and explain it in Pharaoh’s ears. — [from Tanchuma, Va’era 10] אתה תדבר: פעם אחת כל שליחות ושליחות כפי ששמעתו מפי, ואהרן אחיך ימליצנו ויטעימנו באזני פרעה:
3But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and I will increase My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. גוַֽאֲנִ֥י אַקְשֶׁ֖ה אֶת־לֵ֣ב פַּרְעֹ֑ה וְהִרְבֵּיתִ֧י אֶת־אֹֽתֹתַ֛י וְאֶת־מֽוֹפְתַ֖י בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם:
But I will harden: Since he [Pharaoh] behaved wickedly and defied Me, and I know full well that there is no delight among the nations to make a wholehearted attempt to repent, it is better for Me that his heart be hardened, so that [I can] increase My signs and My wonders in him, and you will recognize My mighty deeds, and so is the custom of the Holy One, blessed be He. He brings retribution on the nations so that Israel should hear and fear, as it is said: “I have cut off nations; their towers have become desolate… I said, ‘Surely you will fear Me, you will accept reproof’” (Zeph. 3:6, 7). Nevertheless, in the first five plagues, it does not say, “And the Lord strengthened Pharaoh’s heart,” but “Pharaoh’s heart remained steadfast.” -[from Exod. Rabbah 13:3, 11:6; Tanchuma Buber, Va’era 22; Yeb. 63a] ואני אקשה: מאחר שהרשיע והתריס כנגדי, וגלוי לפני שאין נחת רוח באומות עובדי עבודה זרה לתת לב שלם לשוב, טוב לי שיתקשה לבו למען הרבות בו אותותי ותכירו אתם את גבורותי. וכן מדתו של הקב"ה מביא פורענות על האומות עובדי עבודה זרה כדי שישמעו ישראל וייראו, שנאמר (צפניה ג ו) הכרתי גוים נשמו פנותם וגו', (שם ז) אמרתי אך תיראי אותי תקחי מוסר, ואף על פי כן בחמש מכות הראשונות לא נאמר ויחזק ה' את לב פרעה, אלא ויחזק לב פרעה:
4But Pharaoh will not hearken to you, and I will lay My hand upon the Egyptians, and I will take My legions, My people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt with great judgments. דוְלֹא־יִשְׁמַ֤ע אֲלֵכֶם֙ פַּרְעֹ֔ה וְנָֽתַתִּ֥י אֶת־יָדִ֖י בְּמִצְרָ֑יִם וְהֽוֹצֵאתִ֨י אֶת־צִבְאֹתַ֜י אֶת־עַמִּ֤י בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם בִּשְׁפָטִ֖ים גְּדֹלִֽים:
5And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord when I stretch forth My hand over Egypt, and I will take the children of Israel out of their midst." הוְיָֽדְע֤וּ מִצְרַ֨יִם֙ כִּֽי־אֲנִ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה בִּנְטֹתִ֥י אֶת־יָדִ֖י עַל־מִצְרָ֑יִם וְהֽוֹצֵאתִ֥י אֶת־בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִתּוֹכָֽם:
My hand: A real hand, to strike them. את ידי: יד ממש להכות בהם:
6Moses and Aaron did; as the Lord commanded them, so they did. ווַיַּ֥עַשׂ משֶׁ֖ה וְאַֽהֲרֹ֑ן כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֧ה יְהֹוָ֛ה אֹתָ֖ם כֵּ֥ן עָשֽׂוּ:
7And Moses was eighty years old, and Aaron was eighty three years old when they spoke to Pharaoh. זוּמשֶׁה֙ בֶּן־שְׁמֹנִ֣ים שָׁנָ֔ה וְאַ֣הֲרֹ֔ן בֶּן־שָׁל֥שׁ וּשְׁמֹנִ֖ים שָׁנָ֑ה בְּדַבְּרָ֖ם אֶל־פַּרְעֹֽה:
• Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapter 119, Verses 97-176
• Verses 97-176
97. O how I love Your Torah! All day it is my discussion.
98. Your commandments make me wiser than my enemies, for they are ever with me.
99. From all my teachers I have gained wisdom, for Your testimonies are my discussion.
100. I will be more perceptive than elders, because I have guarded Your precepts.
101. I have restrained my feet from every evil path, that I might keep Your word.
102. I have not turned away from Your judgments, for You have instructed me.
103. How sweet are Your words to my palate, [sweeter] than honey to my mouth!
104. From Your precepts I gain understanding, therefore I hate every path of falsehood.
105. Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
106. I have sworn-and I will fulfill it-to keep Your righteous judgments.
107. I am afflicted to the extreme; grant me life, O Lord, according to Your promise.
108. Accept with favor, O Lord, the offerings of my lips, and teach me Your laws.
109. My soul is in danger always, yet I have not forgotten Your Torah.
110. The wicked laid a snare for me, yet I have not strayed from Your precepts.
111. I have taken Your testimonies as an eternal heritage, for they are the joy of my heart.
112. I have inclined my heart to perform Your statutes, forever, to the last.
113. I despise vain thoughts, but I love Your Torah.
114. You are my refuge and my shield; I place hope in Your promise.
115. Turn away from me, you evildoers, and I will keep the commandments of my God.
116. Support me according to Your promise, and I will live; let me not be shamed because of my hope.
117. Sustain me, and I will be saved, and I will be engrossed in Your statutes always.
118. You trample all who stray from Your statutes, for their ploy is a lie.
119. You have purged all the wicked of the earth like dross, therefore I love Your testimonies.
120. My flesh bristles from fear of You, and I am in awe of Your judgments.
121. I practiced justice and righteousness; leave me not to my oppressors.
122. Guarantee Your servant goodness; let not the wicked exploit me.
123. My eyes long for Your salvation, and for the word of Your righteousness.
124. Treat Your servant according to Your kindness, and teach me Your statutes.
125. I am Your servant; grant me understanding, that I may know Your testimonies.
126. It is time to act for the Lord; they have abrogated Your Torah.
127. Therefore I love Your commandments more than gold, even fine gold.
128. Therefore I affirmed all Your precepts; I have hated every path of falsehood.
129. Your testimonies are wondrous, therefore does my soul guard them.
130. Your opening words illuminate, enlightening the simple.
131. I opened my mouth and swallowed, because I craved Your commandments.
132. Turn to me and favor me, as is [Your] law for those who love Your Name.
133. Set my steps in Your word, and let no iniquity rule over me.
134. Deliver me from the oppression of man, and I will keep Your precepts.
135. Let Your face shine upon Your servant, and teach me Your statutes.
136. My eyes shed streams of water, because they do not keep Your Torah.
137. Righteous are you, O Lord, and Your judgments are upright.
138. You commanded Your testimonies in righteousness and great faithfulness.
139. My zeal consumes me, because my enemies have forgotten Your words.
140. Your word is very pure, and Your servant cherishes it.
141. I am young and despised, yet I do not forget Your precepts.
142. Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your Torah is truth.
143. Trouble and anguish have taken hold of me, yet Your commandments are my delight.
144. Your testimonies are righteous forever; give me understanding, that I may live.
145. I call out with all my heart; answer me, O Lord; I will keep Your statutes.
146. I call out to You; save me, and I will observe Your testimonies.
147. I rose before dawn and cried out; my hope is in Your word.
148. My eyes preceded the night watches, that I may discuss Your word.
149. Hear my voice in keeping with Your kindness; O Lord, grant me life as is Your practice.
150. Those who pursue mischief draw near; they are far from Your Torah.
151. You are near, O Lord, and all Your commandments are truth.
152. From the beginning I discerned from Your testimonies that You had established them forever.
153. Behold my affliction and deliver me, for I have not forgotten Your Torah.
154. Wage my battle and redeem me; grant me life for the sake of Your word.
155. Salvation is far from the wicked, for they seek not Your statutes.
156. Your mercies are great, O Lord; grant me life as is Your practice.
157. My pursuers and my enemies are many, yet I did not turn away from Your testimonies.
158. I saw traitors and I quarreled with them, because they do not keep Your words.
159. Behold how I love Your precepts; grant me life, O Lord, according to Your kindness.
160. The beginning of Your word is truth, and forever are all Your righteous judgements.
161. Princes have pursued me without cause, but it is Your word my heart fears.
162. I rejoice at Your word, like one who finds abundant spoil.
163. I hate falsehood and abhor it, but Your Torah I love.
164. Seven times a day I praise You, because of Your righteous judgments.
165. There is abundant peace for those who love Your Torah, and there is no stumbling for them.
166. I hoped for Your salvation, O Lord, and I performed Your commandments.
167. My soul has kept Your testimonies, and I love them intensely.
168. I have kept Your precepts and Your testimonies, for all my ways are before You
169. Let my prayer approach Your presence, O Lord; grant me understanding according to Your word.
170. Let my supplication come before You; save me according to Your promise.
171. My lips will utter praise, for You have taught me Your statutes.
172. My tongue will echo Your word, for all Your commandments are just.
173. Let Your hand be ready to help me, for I have chosen Your precepts.
174. I long for Your salvation, O Lord, and Your Torah is my delight.
175. Let my soul live, and it will praise You, and let Your judgment help me.
176. I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek out Your servant, for I have not forgotten Your commandments.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 16
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Tuesday, 26 Tevet, 5777 · 24 January 2017
• Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 16
• זה רמזו רבותינו ז״ל
• Rambam - Tuesday, 26 Tevet, 5777 · 24 January 2017
• Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
• Negative Commandment 353 (Digest)
• Provocative Behavior
"No man shall come near to any of his relatives, to uncover [their] nakedness"—Leviticus 18:6.
It is forbidden to derive pleasure from any of the women whom the Torah forbids us from marrying, by kissing, embracing and the like. For such behavior leads to actualizing the forbidden relationship.
• Provocative Behavior
• The 353rd prohibition is that we are forbidden from deriving pleasure from any forbidden partner,1 even without sexual relations, e.g. through kissing, hugging, and the like.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,2 "To a close relative, do not approach to have forbidden sexual relations," as if to say, "do not come close to them in any type of closeness which could lead to sexual relations."
The Sifra says, "The phrase, "Do not approach to have forbidden sexual relations," would seem only to prohibit actual sexual relations. How do we know that one may not have other types of closeness? From the verse,3 'Do not come close to a woman who is tameh from being in nidah.' This only proves that both relations and closeness are forbidden with a woman who is in nidah. How do we know that the same applies to all forbidden partners? From the verse, 'Do not approach to have forbidden sexual relations.' " There it also says, "What is the meaning of the phrase,4 'Those who do5 [these sexual violations] shall be cut off spiritually'? Since it says, 'Do not approach,' one might think that kares is incurred even for other forms of closeness; the verse therefore says 'those who do,' not 'those who come close.' " The Torah repeats its prohibition of these vulgar acts in the verse,6 'Do not follow any of the perverted customs'?
However,7 the two prohibitions,8 "Do not follow the ways of Egypt where you once lived, nor the ways of Canaan...," do not just prohibit the "perverted customs' [and therefore repetitions of the prohibition against acts of closeness], but rather the perversions themselves which are listed in the subsequent verses. These two prohibitions therefore include all forbidden sexual relations; but since the prohibition against following "the ways of Egypt" and "the ways of Canaan" includes all their immoral acts,9 and matters of agriculture, raising animals, and social life, the Torah therefore continued by specifying the specific type of sexual relation referred to — this type, another type, and so on. This is clear from the verse at the end of this section,10 "The people who lived in the land before you did all these disgusting perversions." The Sifra says, "I would think [from the ban on following 'the ways of Egypt,' etc.] that one may not construct buildings or plant vineyards like theirs. The Torah therefore adds,11 'Do not follow [any] of their customs' — the prohibition covers only customs which have been practiced by they and their forefathers." And there it explains, "What did they used to do? A man would marry another man; a woman another woman; and one woman would marry two men."
This all proves that the prohibitions against following "the ways of Egypt" and "the ways of Canaan" are of a general nature, covering all forbidden sexual relations. Afterwards, the particular categories are each mentioned separately.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the Commentary on the Mishneh to the seventh chapter of Sanhedrin, where it is also explained that the punishment is lashes.
It is also important to know that in any case where sexual relations are forbidden upon punishment of kares, a child conceived from that forbidden union is called a mamzer. G‑d has called this child a mamzer, whether the forbidden union was intentional or accidental — with the exception of a child born from a union when the mother was in nidah. Then the child is not called a mamzer, but a ben nidah. This is explained in the fourth chapter of Yevamos.12
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Literally, ervah, or any woman forbidden upon punishment of kares.
2.Lev. 18:6.
3.Ibid. 18:19.
4.Ibid. 18:29.
5.Apparently the Sifra's question is based on the seemingly extra words hanefashos ha'osos. The verse could have said v'nich'rsu ('they shall be cut off'), and it would have obviously referred to the sexual relations discussed in the previous verses. "Those who do" therefore comes to limit this punishment only to actual sexual relations, not to other forms of closeness, which do not incur such a strict punishment.
6.Ibid. 18:30.
7.In the following discussion, the Rambam proves that Lev. 18:3 is unrelated to the prohibition against kissing, etc., but is rather a general prohibition covering forbidden sexual relations. Since it is general in nature, it is not counted among the 613 mitzvos (see Introductory Principle Four].
8.Ibid. 18:3.
9.This term includes immorality in sexual relations, theft, dishonest weights and measures, etc. See Kapach, 5731, note 21.
10.Ibid. 18:27.
11.Ibid. 18:3. This is the conclusion of the verse which speaks of "the ways of Egypt," etc.
12.49b.
• Positive Commandment 149 (Digest)
Inspecting Animals for Kosher Signs
"These are the beasts which you shall eat"—Leviticus 11:2.
We are commanded to inspect wild or domesticated mammals before consuming them, to ascertain whether they possess the kosher signs—i.e. split hooves and cud chewing.
• Positive Commandment 149 (Digest)
• The 149th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding the signs of beheimos and chayos [animals1]. They must chew their cud and have split hooves, and only then may they be eaten. It is a positive commandment that we examine them for these signs.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "These are the animals that you may eat...."
The Sifra says, "The phrase,3 '[Among mammals, any one that has split hooves that are cloven and that brings up its cud —] that one you may eat,' teaches that only that kind may you eat, and you may not eat one which is non-kosher." This means that from the law that it may be eaten if it has these signs, we imply that it may not be eaten if it lacks these signs. And according to the principle already explained,4 a prohibition which is implied from a positive commandment is counted as a positive commandment. Therefore, after the passage quoted above, the Sifra continues, "This teaches us the positive commandment; what is the source of the prohibition? The verse,5 ['these are the ones that you may not eat...:] The camel...' " as explained in the section dealing with the prohibitions.6
This shows that the statement, "That one you may eat," constitutes a positive commandment. The mitzvah, as previously mentioned, is that we are commanded to inspect every beheimah and chaya for these signs; and only then may it be eaten. This law is itself the mitzvah.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractates Bechoros and Chullin.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.The primary difference between these two categories of animals is that chayos have splintered horns or antlers, whereas beheimos do not. Beheimos and chayos are sometimes referred to as "tame" and "domestic" animals.
2.Lev. 11:2.
3.Ibid. 11:3.
4.See P38.
5.Lev. 11:4.
6.See N172.
• Rambam - 1 Chapter: Chovel uMazzik - Chapter Seven
• Chovel uMazzik - Chapter Seven
• Issurei Biah - Chapter Twenty One
• Tuesday, 26 Tevet, 5777 · 24 January 2017
• "Today's Day"
• Sunday, Tevet 26, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Va'eira, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 119, 97 to end.
Tanya: Ch. 14. The rank of (p. 59)...to deny the truth!" (p. 59).
In the b'racha V'lamalshinim (p. 55, "Let thee..." in English), pause slightly between ut'mageir ("crush") and v'tachnia ("and subdue"), in consonance with the kavana1 that t'akeir ut'shabeir ut'mageir ("uproot, break, crush") refer to the three kelipot2 that must be completely eradicated. V'tachnia ("subdue") refers to kelipat noga3 that must be subdued, but can be purified.
Compiled and arranged by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 5703 (1943) from the talks and letters of the sixth Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, of righteous memory.
FOOTNOTES
1."Inner meaning" of the word.
2."Shells of evil." See Tanya, Ch. 6 (end).
3."Shell of brightness."
• Daily Thought:
Acts of Light
G‑d desires to have a presence in this world, and in each mitzvah we do, however it is done, He is there.
G‑d desires that His light shine in this world, and in every word of divine wisdom and every heartfelt prayer, His light shines.
G‑d desires yet more—that He be found here in all His essence, that which can neither be spoken nor kept silent, neither of heaven nor of earth, neither of being nor of not-being—that which transcends all of these and from which all extends.
And that is how He is found in a simple, physical deed that shines brightly with divine light.[Torat Menachem, vol. 34 (Likkutei Sichot, vol. 4), Parshat Korach; Maamar Hasam Ragleinu 5718.]
Chumash: Parshat Va'eira, 3rd Portion (Exodus 6:29-7:7) with Rashi
• Exodus Chapter 6
29that the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "I am the Lord. Speak to Pharaoh everything that I speak to you." כטוַיְדַבֵּ֧ר יְהֹוָ֛ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹ֖ר אֲנִ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה דַּבֵּ֗ר אֶל־פַּרְעֹה֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרַ֔יִם אֵ֛ת כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲנִ֖י דֹּבֵ֥ר אֵלֶֽיךָ:
that the Lord spoke: This is the very same speech stated above, “Come, speak to Pharaoh, the king of Egypt” (verse 11), but since [Scripture] interrupted the topic in order to trace their [Moses’ and Aaron’s] lineage, it returned to it [the statement, in order] to resume with it. וידבר ה': הוא הדבור עצמו האמור למעלה (פסוק יא) בא דבר אל פרעה מלך מצרים, אלא מתוך שהפסיק הענין כדי ליחסם, חזר הענין עליו להתחיל בו:
I am the Lord: I have the power to send you and [also] to fulfill the words of My mission. אני ה': כדאי אני לשלחך ולקיים דברי שליחותי:
30But Moses said before the Lord, "Behold, I am of closed lips; so how will Pharaoh hearken to me?" לוַיֹּ֥אמֶר משֶׁ֖ה לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה הֵ֤ן אֲנִי֙ עֲרַ֣ל שְׂפָתַ֔יִם וְאֵ֕יךְ יִשְׁמַ֥ע אֵלַ֖י פַּרְעֹֽה:
But Moses said before the Lord: This is the statement [that Moses] stated above: “Behold, the children of Israel did not hearken to me” (verse 12). Scripture repeats it here because it had interrupted the topic [for the reasons given above], and this is customary, similar to a person who says, “Let us return to the earlier [topic].” ויאמר משה לפני ה': היא האמירה שאמר למעלה (פסוק יב) הן בני ישראל לא שמעו אלי, ושנה הכתוב כאן כיון שהפסיק הענין, וכך היא השיטה כאדם האומר נחזור על הראשונות:
Exodus Chapter 7
1The Lord said to Moses, "See! I have made you a lord over Pharaoh, and Aaron, your brother, will be your speaker. אוַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה רְאֵ֛ה נְתַתִּ֥יךָ אֱלֹהִ֖ים לְפַרְעֹ֑ה וְאַֽהֲרֹ֥ן אָחִ֖יךָ יִֽהְיֶ֥ה נְבִיאֶֽךָ:
I have made you a lord over Pharaoh: Heb. אֱלֹהִים, a judge and a chastiser, to chastise him with plagues and torments. — [from Onkelos and Tanchuma, Va’era 9] נתתיך א-להים לפרעה: שופט ורודה לרדותו במכות ויסורין:
will be your speaker: Heb. נְבִיאֶ, as the Targum renders: מְתוּרְגְמָנָ, your interpreter. Every expression of נְבוּאָה (prophecy) denotes a man who publicly announces to the people words of reproof. It is derived from the root of “I create the speech (נִיב) of the lips” (Isa. 57:19); “speaks (יָנוּב) wisdom” (Prov. 10:31); “And he (Samuel) finished prophesying (מֵהִתְנַבוּת) ” (I Sam. 10:13). In Old French this is called predi(je) ir, advocate. — [based on Onkelos] יהיה נביאך: כתרגומו מתורגמנך, וכן כל לשון נבואה אדם המכריז ומשמיע לעם דברי תוכחות, והוא מגזרת (ישעיה נז יט) ניב שפתים, (משלי י לא) ינוב חכמה, ויכל מהתנבות דשמואל (א' י יג). ובלעז קוראין לו פרקייר"א [מליץ ומטיף]:
2You shall speak all that I command you, and Aaron, your brother, shall speak to Pharaoh, that he let the children of Israel out of his land. באַתָּ֣ה תְדַבֵּ֔ר אֵ֖ת כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֲצַוֶּ֑ךָּ וְאַֽהֲרֹ֤ן אָחִ֨יךָ֙ יְדַבֵּ֣ר אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֔ה וְשִׁלַּ֥ח אֶת־בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מֵֽאַרְצֽוֹ:
You shall speak: once every message, as you have heard it from My mouth, and Aaron, your brother, will interpret it and explain it in Pharaoh’s ears. — [from Tanchuma, Va’era 10] אתה תדבר: פעם אחת כל שליחות ושליחות כפי ששמעתו מפי, ואהרן אחיך ימליצנו ויטעימנו באזני פרעה:
3But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and I will increase My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. גוַֽאֲנִ֥י אַקְשֶׁ֖ה אֶת־לֵ֣ב פַּרְעֹ֑ה וְהִרְבֵּיתִ֧י אֶת־אֹֽתֹתַ֛י וְאֶת־מֽוֹפְתַ֖י בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם:
But I will harden: Since he [Pharaoh] behaved wickedly and defied Me, and I know full well that there is no delight among the nations to make a wholehearted attempt to repent, it is better for Me that his heart be hardened, so that [I can] increase My signs and My wonders in him, and you will recognize My mighty deeds, and so is the custom of the Holy One, blessed be He. He brings retribution on the nations so that Israel should hear and fear, as it is said: “I have cut off nations; their towers have become desolate… I said, ‘Surely you will fear Me, you will accept reproof’” (Zeph. 3:6, 7). Nevertheless, in the first five plagues, it does not say, “And the Lord strengthened Pharaoh’s heart,” but “Pharaoh’s heart remained steadfast.” -[from Exod. Rabbah 13:3, 11:6; Tanchuma Buber, Va’era 22; Yeb. 63a] ואני אקשה: מאחר שהרשיע והתריס כנגדי, וגלוי לפני שאין נחת רוח באומות עובדי עבודה זרה לתת לב שלם לשוב, טוב לי שיתקשה לבו למען הרבות בו אותותי ותכירו אתם את גבורותי. וכן מדתו של הקב"ה מביא פורענות על האומות עובדי עבודה זרה כדי שישמעו ישראל וייראו, שנאמר (צפניה ג ו) הכרתי גוים נשמו פנותם וגו', (שם ז) אמרתי אך תיראי אותי תקחי מוסר, ואף על פי כן בחמש מכות הראשונות לא נאמר ויחזק ה' את לב פרעה, אלא ויחזק לב פרעה:
4But Pharaoh will not hearken to you, and I will lay My hand upon the Egyptians, and I will take My legions, My people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt with great judgments. דוְלֹא־יִשְׁמַ֤ע אֲלֵכֶם֙ פַּרְעֹ֔ה וְנָֽתַתִּ֥י אֶת־יָדִ֖י בְּמִצְרָ֑יִם וְהֽוֹצֵאתִ֨י אֶת־צִבְאֹתַ֜י אֶת־עַמִּ֤י בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם בִּשְׁפָטִ֖ים גְּדֹלִֽים:
5And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord when I stretch forth My hand over Egypt, and I will take the children of Israel out of their midst." הוְיָֽדְע֤וּ מִצְרַ֨יִם֙ כִּֽי־אֲנִ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה בִּנְטֹתִ֥י אֶת־יָדִ֖י עַל־מִצְרָ֑יִם וְהֽוֹצֵאתִ֥י אֶת־בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִתּוֹכָֽם:
My hand: A real hand, to strike them. את ידי: יד ממש להכות בהם:
6Moses and Aaron did; as the Lord commanded them, so they did. ווַיַּ֥עַשׂ משֶׁ֖ה וְאַֽהֲרֹ֑ן כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֧ה יְהֹוָ֛ה אֹתָ֖ם כֵּ֥ן עָשֽׂוּ:
7And Moses was eighty years old, and Aaron was eighty three years old when they spoke to Pharaoh. זוּמשֶׁה֙ בֶּן־שְׁמֹנִ֣ים שָׁנָ֔ה וְאַ֣הֲרֹ֔ן בֶּן־שָׁל֥שׁ וּשְׁמֹנִ֖ים שָׁנָ֑ה בְּדַבְּרָ֖ם אֶל־פַּרְעֹֽה:
• Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapter 119, Verses 97-176
• Verses 97-176
97. O how I love Your Torah! All day it is my discussion.
98. Your commandments make me wiser than my enemies, for they are ever with me.
99. From all my teachers I have gained wisdom, for Your testimonies are my discussion.
100. I will be more perceptive than elders, because I have guarded Your precepts.
101. I have restrained my feet from every evil path, that I might keep Your word.
102. I have not turned away from Your judgments, for You have instructed me.
103. How sweet are Your words to my palate, [sweeter] than honey to my mouth!
104. From Your precepts I gain understanding, therefore I hate every path of falsehood.
105. Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
106. I have sworn-and I will fulfill it-to keep Your righteous judgments.
107. I am afflicted to the extreme; grant me life, O Lord, according to Your promise.
108. Accept with favor, O Lord, the offerings of my lips, and teach me Your laws.
109. My soul is in danger always, yet I have not forgotten Your Torah.
110. The wicked laid a snare for me, yet I have not strayed from Your precepts.
111. I have taken Your testimonies as an eternal heritage, for they are the joy of my heart.
112. I have inclined my heart to perform Your statutes, forever, to the last.
113. I despise vain thoughts, but I love Your Torah.
114. You are my refuge and my shield; I place hope in Your promise.
115. Turn away from me, you evildoers, and I will keep the commandments of my God.
116. Support me according to Your promise, and I will live; let me not be shamed because of my hope.
117. Sustain me, and I will be saved, and I will be engrossed in Your statutes always.
118. You trample all who stray from Your statutes, for their ploy is a lie.
119. You have purged all the wicked of the earth like dross, therefore I love Your testimonies.
120. My flesh bristles from fear of You, and I am in awe of Your judgments.
121. I practiced justice and righteousness; leave me not to my oppressors.
122. Guarantee Your servant goodness; let not the wicked exploit me.
123. My eyes long for Your salvation, and for the word of Your righteousness.
124. Treat Your servant according to Your kindness, and teach me Your statutes.
125. I am Your servant; grant me understanding, that I may know Your testimonies.
126. It is time to act for the Lord; they have abrogated Your Torah.
127. Therefore I love Your commandments more than gold, even fine gold.
128. Therefore I affirmed all Your precepts; I have hated every path of falsehood.
129. Your testimonies are wondrous, therefore does my soul guard them.
130. Your opening words illuminate, enlightening the simple.
131. I opened my mouth and swallowed, because I craved Your commandments.
132. Turn to me and favor me, as is [Your] law for those who love Your Name.
133. Set my steps in Your word, and let no iniquity rule over me.
134. Deliver me from the oppression of man, and I will keep Your precepts.
135. Let Your face shine upon Your servant, and teach me Your statutes.
136. My eyes shed streams of water, because they do not keep Your Torah.
137. Righteous are you, O Lord, and Your judgments are upright.
138. You commanded Your testimonies in righteousness and great faithfulness.
139. My zeal consumes me, because my enemies have forgotten Your words.
140. Your word is very pure, and Your servant cherishes it.
141. I am young and despised, yet I do not forget Your precepts.
142. Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your Torah is truth.
143. Trouble and anguish have taken hold of me, yet Your commandments are my delight.
144. Your testimonies are righteous forever; give me understanding, that I may live.
145. I call out with all my heart; answer me, O Lord; I will keep Your statutes.
146. I call out to You; save me, and I will observe Your testimonies.
147. I rose before dawn and cried out; my hope is in Your word.
148. My eyes preceded the night watches, that I may discuss Your word.
149. Hear my voice in keeping with Your kindness; O Lord, grant me life as is Your practice.
150. Those who pursue mischief draw near; they are far from Your Torah.
151. You are near, O Lord, and all Your commandments are truth.
152. From the beginning I discerned from Your testimonies that You had established them forever.
153. Behold my affliction and deliver me, for I have not forgotten Your Torah.
154. Wage my battle and redeem me; grant me life for the sake of Your word.
155. Salvation is far from the wicked, for they seek not Your statutes.
156. Your mercies are great, O Lord; grant me life as is Your practice.
157. My pursuers and my enemies are many, yet I did not turn away from Your testimonies.
158. I saw traitors and I quarreled with them, because they do not keep Your words.
159. Behold how I love Your precepts; grant me life, O Lord, according to Your kindness.
160. The beginning of Your word is truth, and forever are all Your righteous judgements.
161. Princes have pursued me without cause, but it is Your word my heart fears.
162. I rejoice at Your word, like one who finds abundant spoil.
163. I hate falsehood and abhor it, but Your Torah I love.
164. Seven times a day I praise You, because of Your righteous judgments.
165. There is abundant peace for those who love Your Torah, and there is no stumbling for them.
166. I hoped for Your salvation, O Lord, and I performed Your commandments.
167. My soul has kept Your testimonies, and I love them intensely.
168. I have kept Your precepts and Your testimonies, for all my ways are before You
169. Let my prayer approach Your presence, O Lord; grant me understanding according to Your word.
170. Let my supplication come before You; save me according to Your promise.
171. My lips will utter praise, for You have taught me Your statutes.
172. My tongue will echo Your word, for all Your commandments are just.
173. Let Your hand be ready to help me, for I have chosen Your precepts.
174. I long for Your salvation, O Lord, and Your Torah is my delight.
175. Let my soul live, and it will praise You, and let Your judgment help me.
176. I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek out Your servant, for I have not forgotten Your commandments.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 16
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Tuesday, 26 Tevet, 5777 · 24 January 2017
• Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 16
• זה רמזו רבותינו ז״ל
Our Sages, of blessed memory, hinted at this principle stated here, that thetevunah-love, too, has the power of elevating one’s Torah and mitzvot
באמרם: מחשבה טובה הקב״ה מצרפה למעשה
when they said:1 “The Holy One, blessed be He, joins a good thought to the deed.”
והוה ליה למימר: מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו עשאה
The simple meaning of the phrase, that when one intends to do a mitzvah,but is prevented from doing so, G‑d ascribes it to him as though he had actually performed it, warrants the expression: “Torah considers him as though he had actually done it.”
Why the oblique expression, “G‑d joins the thought to the deed,” which seems to indicate that the thought was indeed implemented, but that the action is somehow detached from it, and requires that G‑d join the two together?
אלא הענין
The explanation, however, lies in the previously-mentioned principle:
כי דחילו ורחימו שבהתגלות לבו הם המתלבשים במעשה המצות, להחיותם לפרחא לעילא
It is the revealed fear and love of G‑d in the heart that vest themselves in one’s performance of the commandments, giving them vitality to soar on high.
כי הלב הוא גם כן חומרי, כשאר אברים שהם כלי המעשה
For the heart is also corporeal, like the other organs of the body which are the instruments of action.
Therefore, when one feels a palpable love in his heart — which indicates that the revelation in the soul has become “materialized” to the point where it can be experienced as a feeling of love in the corporeal heart — then this soul-revelation, this love, can also be received by and expressed in the other corporeal organs of the body. When it is so received, and when the organs act in accordance with the love in the heart, then this love lends vitality to these actions, for the heart is the source of vitality for all the organs, as the Alter Rebbe goes on to say.
אלא שהוא פנימי וחיות להם
The heart is, however, internal and is the organs‘ source of vitality.
ולכן יכול להתלבש בהם להיות להם גדפין להעלותם
Therefore, because the heart, in its corporeality, is close to the other organs, and also provides their vitality, it can clothe itself in their actions, to be their “wings”, elevating them.
As we see in practice: When one acts out of love, his hands suddenly become animated; for, as stated, when the soul’s revelation reaches the point where it is felt in a revealed love, it has become so materialized that it can be experienced in the other organs of the body, and can therefore animate their actions.
אך הדחילו ורחימו שבתבונות מוחו ותעלומות לבו הנ״ל
However, the above-mentioned fear and love that are in the intelligence of the brain and the recesses of the heart
גבהו דרכיהם למעלה מעלה מבחינת המעשה
are of a far higher order than the level of “action”.
ואי אפשר להם להתלבש בבחינת מעשה המצות, להיות להם בחינת מוחין וחיות, להעלותן לפרחא לעילא
Therefore, they cannot clothe themselves in the performance of the commandments, to become their intellectual power and vitality, to elevate them, so that they may soar on high;
The inability of the love to find expression beyond the mind — which is far more spiritual than the other organs — indicates that the revelation of soul present in the tevunah-love has not become materialized enough to affect the other, more corporeal organs. As we see, when one’s actions are motivated, not by the desire of his heart, but solely by his understanding that he ought to act in a particular manner, then his actions lack vitality. So it is too of the tevunah-love, and tevunah-fear; they are so far removed from the organs, that they are incapable of lending vitality to the actual performance of the mitzvot, and to elevate them thereby.
אם לא שהקב״ה מצרפן ומחברן לבחינת המעשה
if not for the fact that G‑d joins and unites them together with the action,so that they may serve as its “wings”.
והן נקראות בשם מחשבה טובה, כי אינן דחילו ורחימו ממש בהתגלות לבו
They — the tevunah-fear and love — are called “good thought,” for they are not actual fear and love in a revealed state in the heart,
כי אם בתבונת מוחו ותעלומות לבו כנ״ל
but only in the intelligence of the brain and the recesses of the heart, as mentioned above;* since they express themselves in the mind, they are called “good thought.”
This, then, is the allusion contained in the statement, “G‑d joins the good thought to the deed”: G‑d joins the “good thought” — the tevunah-love and fear — to the good deed (that one has actually performed), so that the deed is not separate from the thought, but instead is elevated by it.
In the following note, the Alter Rebbe states that this idea is expressed in the Kabbalah in terms of the Sefirot (the Divine attributes), and from this we may understand its parallel in the human faculties.
הגהה
וכמו שכתוב בזוהר ועץ חיים, דתבונה אותיות ב״ן וב״ת שהן דחילו ורחימו
*NOTE
Thus it is also written in the Zohar and Etz Chayim, that the Hebrew word תבונה(“understanding”) comprises the letters which form the words בן and בת (“son” and “daughter”), which, in terms of human emotions, represent love and fear.
ולפעמים התבונה יורדת להיות מוחין בנוקבא דזעיר אנפין, שהן אותיות התורה והמצות
Sometimes the tevunah descends to become the intelligence in the feminine aspect of the “small image” (i.e., the recipient of the Divine middot, or attributes, which are referred to collectively as the “small image”), which, in the human sphere, refers to the letters of Torah and mitzvot.
The normal order would be that the tevunah descend first to the “small image” (the middot) and thence to the “feminine aspect” (the attribute of Malchut). Sometimes, however, there is a direct flow from Binah to Malchut, bypassing the intervening middot. In terms of one’s service to G‑d this means: The normal procedure should be that the understanding derived from one’s meditation should affect his emotions, arousing a love and fear within him, and these emotions should, in turn, express themselves in one’s actual performance of the commandments. There is, however, an alternative method of affecting one’s actions — through the direct influence of the tevunah.
והמשכיל יבין
The initiated shall understand. I.e., the kabbalistic references contained in the note will be more fully elucidated in the course of further study.
END OF NOTE
The Alter Rebbe now goes on to say that the effect of G‑d’s joining the “good thought” of tevunah to one’s good deeds, is that in this way the mitzvot are able to ascend to the World of Beriah. This is a “world of comprehension,” and all the mitzvot motivated by emotions arising from an understanding of G‑d’s greatness ascend thereto. But even without this act of joining the good thought to the deed, one’s Torah and mitzvot ascend to the (lower) World of Yetzirah, a “world of feeling,” since one’s performance is motivated (at the very least) by the inherent love and fear of G‑d that is hidden in the heart of every Jew.
אך צירוף זה מצרף הקב״ה כדי להעלות מעשה המצות ועסק התורה, הנעשים על ידי מחשבה טובה הנ״ל, עד עולם הבריאה
But G‑d effects this joining of tevunah to action in order to elevate the performance of the commandments and the Torah study — which are carried out through the influence of the “good thought” (viz., the tevunah)mentioned above — into the World of Beriah;
מקום עליית התורה והמצות הנעשים על ידי דחילו ורחימו שכליים, אשר בהתגלות לבו ממש
the World of Beriah being the level to which ascends the performance of Torah and mitzvot when motivated by a fear and love deriving from one’s meditation, and which are truly revealed in one’s heart.
אבל בלאו הכי נמי עולים לעולם היצירה על ידי דחילו ורחימו טבעיים המסותרים בלב כל ישראל בתולדותם, כמו שכתוב לקמן באריכות
However, even without this joining they rise to the World of Yetzirah, by means of the natural fear and love which are latent in the heart of all Jews from birth, as will be later explained at length.2
In summary: Even he who cannot create a conscious, palpable love and fear of G‑d in his heart, can serve G‑d with a perfect service through the tevunah-emotions. Thereby, too, his performance of the Torah and mitzvot will ascend to the same level as that motivated by a revealed love and fear of G‑d.
——— ● ———
• Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
• Negative Commandment 353 (Digest)
• Provocative Behavior
"No man shall come near to any of his relatives, to uncover [their] nakedness"—Leviticus 18:6.
It is forbidden to derive pleasure from any of the women whom the Torah forbids us from marrying, by kissing, embracing and the like. For such behavior leads to actualizing the forbidden relationship.
• Provocative Behavior
• The 353rd prohibition is that we are forbidden from deriving pleasure from any forbidden partner,1 even without sexual relations, e.g. through kissing, hugging, and the like.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,2 "To a close relative, do not approach to have forbidden sexual relations," as if to say, "do not come close to them in any type of closeness which could lead to sexual relations."
The Sifra says, "The phrase, "Do not approach to have forbidden sexual relations," would seem only to prohibit actual sexual relations. How do we know that one may not have other types of closeness? From the verse,3 'Do not come close to a woman who is tameh from being in nidah.' This only proves that both relations and closeness are forbidden with a woman who is in nidah. How do we know that the same applies to all forbidden partners? From the verse, 'Do not approach to have forbidden sexual relations.' " There it also says, "What is the meaning of the phrase,4 'Those who do5 [these sexual violations] shall be cut off spiritually'? Since it says, 'Do not approach,' one might think that kares is incurred even for other forms of closeness; the verse therefore says 'those who do,' not 'those who come close.' " The Torah repeats its prohibition of these vulgar acts in the verse,6 'Do not follow any of the perverted customs'?
However,7 the two prohibitions,8 "Do not follow the ways of Egypt where you once lived, nor the ways of Canaan...," do not just prohibit the "perverted customs' [and therefore repetitions of the prohibition against acts of closeness], but rather the perversions themselves which are listed in the subsequent verses. These two prohibitions therefore include all forbidden sexual relations; but since the prohibition against following "the ways of Egypt" and "the ways of Canaan" includes all their immoral acts,9 and matters of agriculture, raising animals, and social life, the Torah therefore continued by specifying the specific type of sexual relation referred to — this type, another type, and so on. This is clear from the verse at the end of this section,10 "The people who lived in the land before you did all these disgusting perversions." The Sifra says, "I would think [from the ban on following 'the ways of Egypt,' etc.] that one may not construct buildings or plant vineyards like theirs. The Torah therefore adds,11 'Do not follow [any] of their customs' — the prohibition covers only customs which have been practiced by they and their forefathers." And there it explains, "What did they used to do? A man would marry another man; a woman another woman; and one woman would marry two men."
This all proves that the prohibitions against following "the ways of Egypt" and "the ways of Canaan" are of a general nature, covering all forbidden sexual relations. Afterwards, the particular categories are each mentioned separately.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the Commentary on the Mishneh to the seventh chapter of Sanhedrin, where it is also explained that the punishment is lashes.
It is also important to know that in any case where sexual relations are forbidden upon punishment of kares, a child conceived from that forbidden union is called a mamzer. G‑d has called this child a mamzer, whether the forbidden union was intentional or accidental — with the exception of a child born from a union when the mother was in nidah. Then the child is not called a mamzer, but a ben nidah. This is explained in the fourth chapter of Yevamos.12
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Literally, ervah, or any woman forbidden upon punishment of kares.
2.Lev. 18:6.
3.Ibid. 18:19.
4.Ibid. 18:29.
5.Apparently the Sifra's question is based on the seemingly extra words hanefashos ha'osos. The verse could have said v'nich'rsu ('they shall be cut off'), and it would have obviously referred to the sexual relations discussed in the previous verses. "Those who do" therefore comes to limit this punishment only to actual sexual relations, not to other forms of closeness, which do not incur such a strict punishment.
6.Ibid. 18:30.
7.In the following discussion, the Rambam proves that Lev. 18:3 is unrelated to the prohibition against kissing, etc., but is rather a general prohibition covering forbidden sexual relations. Since it is general in nature, it is not counted among the 613 mitzvos (see Introductory Principle Four].
8.Ibid. 18:3.
9.This term includes immorality in sexual relations, theft, dishonest weights and measures, etc. See Kapach, 5731, note 21.
10.Ibid. 18:27.
11.Ibid. 18:3. This is the conclusion of the verse which speaks of "the ways of Egypt," etc.
12.49b.
• Positive Commandment 149 (Digest)
Inspecting Animals for Kosher Signs
"These are the beasts which you shall eat"—Leviticus 11:2.
We are commanded to inspect wild or domesticated mammals before consuming them, to ascertain whether they possess the kosher signs—i.e. split hooves and cud chewing.
• Positive Commandment 149 (Digest)
• The 149th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding the signs of beheimos and chayos [animals1]. They must chew their cud and have split hooves, and only then may they be eaten. It is a positive commandment that we examine them for these signs.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "These are the animals that you may eat...."
The Sifra says, "The phrase,3 '[Among mammals, any one that has split hooves that are cloven and that brings up its cud —] that one you may eat,' teaches that only that kind may you eat, and you may not eat one which is non-kosher." This means that from the law that it may be eaten if it has these signs, we imply that it may not be eaten if it lacks these signs. And according to the principle already explained,4 a prohibition which is implied from a positive commandment is counted as a positive commandment. Therefore, after the passage quoted above, the Sifra continues, "This teaches us the positive commandment; what is the source of the prohibition? The verse,5 ['these are the ones that you may not eat...:] The camel...' " as explained in the section dealing with the prohibitions.6
This shows that the statement, "That one you may eat," constitutes a positive commandment. The mitzvah, as previously mentioned, is that we are commanded to inspect every beheimah and chaya for these signs; and only then may it be eaten. This law is itself the mitzvah.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractates Bechoros and Chullin.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.The primary difference between these two categories of animals is that chayos have splintered horns or antlers, whereas beheimos do not. Beheimos and chayos are sometimes referred to as "tame" and "domestic" animals.
2.Lev. 11:2.
3.Ibid. 11:3.
4.See P38.
5.Lev. 11:4.
6.See N172.
• Rambam - 1 Chapter: Chovel uMazzik - Chapter Seven
• Chovel uMazzik - Chapter Seven
1
When a person causes damage to a colleague's property that is not evident to the eye, he is not liable to make financial restitution according to Scriptural Law. For the object has not changed, nor has its form become altered. Nevertheless, our Sages ruled that he is liable according to Rabbinic Law, for he reduced the value of the article. They required him to pay the amount by which its value was reduced.
א
המזיק ב ממון חבירו היזק שאינו ניכר. הואיל ולא נשתנה הדבר ולא נפסדה צורתו הרי זה [א] פטור מן התשלומין דין תורה. אבל מדברי סופרים אמרו הואיל והפחית דמיהן הרי זה חייב ומשלם מה שהפחית מדמיהן:
2
What is implied? If a person causes food belonging to a colleague to be rendered ritually impure, he mixes produce together with produce that is terumah causing it to be considered dimu'a, he mixes a drop of wine that had been used for the sake of idolatry in a colleague's wine, causing the entire quantity to be forbidden, or the like - the amount of the loss is evaluated, and the person who caused the loss is required to pay the entire damages from the finest property in his possession, as is the law regarding anyone who causes damages.
ב
כיצד הרי שטימא אוכלין טהורים של חבירו או שדמע לו פירות או עירב לו טיפת יין נסך בתוך יינו שהרי אסר עליו הכל וכן כל כיוצא בזה. שמין מה שהפסיד ומשלם נזק שלם מן היפה שבנכסיו כדרך כל המזיקין:
3
This ruling was a penalty prescribed by our Sages so that none of the ravagers will go and render a colleague's produce impure and then excuse himself, saying: "I am not liable."
For this reason, if the person who caused damage that is not noticeable dies, the penalty is not expropriated from his estate. For our Sages enforced this penalty only upon the person who transgressed and caused the damage, but not on his heirs, who did not cause any damage.
Similarly, a person who inadvertently causes damage that is not noticeable, or as a result of forces beyond his control, is not liable, for our Sages imposed this penalty only upon a person who intentionally causes damage.
ג
ודבר [ב] זה קנס הוא שקנסוהו חכמים כדי שלא יהיה כל אחד מן המשחיתים הולך ומטמא טהרותיו של חבירו ואומר פטור אני. לפיכך אם מת זה שהזיק היזק שאינו ניכר אין גובין הנזק מנכסיו שלא קנסו חכמים אלא זה שעבר והזיק אבל היורש שלא עשה כלום לא קנסוהו. וכן המזיק היזק שאינו ניכר בשגגה או באונס פטור שלא קנסו אלא המתכוין להזיק מדעתו:
4
When priests intentionally cause a sacrifice to be rendered piggul, they are obligated to make financial recompense to the person who brought the sacrifice. If they cause such an effect unintentionally, they are not liable.
Similarly, a person who intentionally performs work with a red heifer or with water designated for its ashes is obligated to make financial recompense to its owner. If he does so unintentionally, he is not liable.
ד
הכהנים שפגלו את הזבח במזיד חייבין לשלם. בשוגג פטורין. וכן העושה מלאכה בפרת חטאת ובמי חטאת במזיד חייב לשלם בשוגג פטור:
5
A person who brings a red heifer to the place where a team of cows are threshing, so that it will nurse and thresh, and a person who is carrying water designated for the ashes of the red heifer who diverts his attention from the water is not held liable by an earthly court. He does, however, have a moral and spiritual obligation to make financial recompense.
ה
הכניס פרה למרבק כדי שתינק ותדוש והסיח דעתו ממי חטאת. פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים:
6
When a person pours wine belonging to a colleague as a libation to idol worship, he does not cause the wine to become forbidden. For a Jewish person does not cause property that does not belong to him to become forbidden.
In any of the following situations, the person does cause the wine to be forbidden, and he is therefore liable to make financial recompense:
a) he is a partner with the owner;
b) he is an apostate, who is considered like a gentile;
c) he is given a warning, acknowledges it, and yet disobeys, in which case he is considered an apostate.
How is it possible for such a person to be liable for financial recompense when this act causes him to be liable for capital punishment? Because he becomes obligated to pay for the wine at the time that he lifts it up, while he does not become liable for capital punishment until he actually pours it as a libation.
ו
המנסך יין חבירו לע"ז
7
Whenever a person causes property belonging to a colleague to be damaged - even though he himself is not the one who ultimately causes the damage - since he is the primary cause, he is liable to make financial recompense from the finest property in his possession, like others who cause damage.
What is implied? A person throws a utensil that he owns from a roof onto pillows and blankets, and another person comes and removes the pillows from the ground, causing the utensil to hit the ground and break. The person who removes the pillows is liable to pay the entire sum of the damages, as if he broke the utensil with his own hands. For it was the removal of the pillows and the coverings that caused the utensil to break. The same applies in all analogous situations.
ז
כל הגורם להזיק ממון חבירו [ג] חייב לשלם נזק שלם מן היפה שבנכסיו כשאר המזיקין. אע"פ שאינו הוא המזיק זה הנזק עצמו באחרונה הואיל והוא הגורם הראשון חייב. כיצד ב הזורק כלי שלו מראש הגג על גבי כרים וכסתות ובא אחר וקדם וסלק את הכרים מעל הארץ ונחבט הכלי בארץ ונשבר. [ד] חייב נזק שלם כאילו שברו בידו שסלוק הכרים והכסתות
8
When by contrast a person throws a utensil belonging to a colleague from a roof onto pillows and blankets that belong to the owner of the utensil, and the owner comes and removes the pillows from the ground, the person who threw the utensil is liable to pay for the damages to it. His throwing the utensil is the primary cause for its breaking.
In the above instance, if a person other than the owner of the utensil removes the pillows, both the person who threw the utensil and the one who removed the pillows are liable. For together they both caused the owner's property to be damaged.
ח
הזורק כלי של חבירו מראש הגג על גבי כרים וכסתות של בעל הכלי וקדם בעל הכלי והסיר הכרים
9
Similarly, a person who burns promissory notes belonging to a colleague is liable to pay the entire debt that was mentioned in the promissory notes. Although the promissory notes themselves are not of financial worth, by burning them one causes his colleague a direct financial loss.
When does this apply? Only when the person who burned the note admits that it had been validated in court, that it was for such and such an amount of money and that because it was burned the owner cannot collect the debt. If the person who burned the note does not believe the owner with regard to any of these points,he is required to pay only the value of the paper.
ט
וכן השורף שטרותיו של חבירו [ה] חייב לשלם כל החוב שהיה בשטר. שאע"פ שאין גוף השטר ממון הרי גרם לאבד הממון. ובלבד שיודה לו המזיק ששטר מקויים היה וכך וכך היה כתוב בו ומחמת ששרפו הוא אינו יכול לגבות החוב. אבל אם לא האמינו אינו משלם לו אלא דמי הנייר בלבד:
10
Similarly a person is liable for causing a colleague financial loss in the following situation. Reuven was owed money by Shimon and sold the promissory note recording the debt to Levi. After he sold the note, he waived Shimon's obligation, freeing Shimon of responsibility, as will be explained in its place.
Reuven becomes liable to pay Levi the entire amount mentioned in the promissory note, for he caused him to lose the money that he could have collected with the note. It is as if he destroyed it by fire. Similarly, if one of Reuven's heirs waived the debt, the person who waived the debt must make financial recompense for Levi's loss from the finest property in his possession.
י
וכן ראובן שהיה נושה בשמעון ומכר השטר ללוי וחזר אחר שמכרו ומחלו לשמעון. הרי נפטר שמעון כמו שיתבאר במקומו ונתחייב ראובן לשלם ללוי כל מה [ו] שבשטר. שהרי גרם לו לאבד השטר והרי הוא כמו ששרפו. [ז] וכן אם מחלו יורש ראובן משלם המוחל מן היפה שבנכסיו:
11
Similarly, if a person designates a servant as an apotiki for a loan and then frees the servant, he is liable to pay the creditor, for he nullified his lien and caused him to lose his money. We also compel the creditor to free the servant, so that when he encounters him, he will not tell him: "You are my servant."
Similarly, if a person pushes a colleague and causes a coin belonging to him to fall from his hand and roll until it descends into the sea, he is liable to pay for it. Similarly, if a person blemishes the ear of a cow, he is obligated to make financial recompense, for he has reduced its value.
Similarly, a person who scrapes the surface of dinarim belonging to a colleague and removes their imprint is liable to pay, for he has caused him a loss. The same applies in all analogous situations.
יא
וכן
12
When a person throws a utensil from a roof toward the earth without there being any pillows beneath it to soften its fall, and another person comes and breaks the utensil with a staff while it is in the air before it hits the earth, the person who breaks it is not liable. The rationale is that he broke only a utensil that would certainly have been broken immediately. And so, it is as if he is breaking a broken utensil. He is not considered to be one who caused damages. Similarly, anyone who performs analogous actions is not liable.
יב
הזורק כלי מראש הגג לארץ ולא היה תחתיו כלים. וקדם אחר ושברו במקל כשהוא באויר קודם שיגיע לארץ. הרי זה הראשון [ט] פטור שלא שבר אלא כלי שסופו להשבר מיד בודאי ונמצא כשובר כלי שבור ואין זה כגורם. וכן כל כיוצא בזה פטור:
13
The following rule applies when a person, without the consent of the owner, slaughters an ox that was condemned to be slaughtered because it injures others,or cuts down a tree that was condemned to be cut down because it causes damage to others. He is liable to pay the owner as dictated by the judges, because he prevented him from performing a mitzvah.
If the person who caused the damage claims that the owner told him to slaughter the animal or cut down the tree, he is not liable since it was intended for that fate.
יג
שור שהיה עומד להריגה מפני שהוא מזיק את הבריות. ואילן העומד לקציצה מפני שהוא מזיק את הרבים. וקדם אחד ושחט שור זה וקצץ אילן [י] זה שלא מדעת הבעלים חייב לשלם לבעלים כמו שיראו הדיינים שהרי הפקיען מלעשות מצוה. ואם טען ואמר אתה אמרת לי להרגו ולקצצו. הואיל והוא עומד לכך הרי זה פטור:
14
Similarly, if a person slaughters a beast or a fowl, and another person covers the blood without the consent of the slaughterer, he is liable to pay a fine as dictated by the judges.
There are authorities who rule that in such instances a fine of a fixed amount, ten gold pieces, should be paid. For they ruled that anyone who prevents a colleague from performing a positive commandment - that he is fit to perform - by performing it first, should pay the owner ten gold pieces.
יד
וכן מי ששחט חיה ועוף ובא אחר וכסה הדם שלא מדעת השוחט. חייב ליתן כמו שיראו הדיינים. ויש מי שהורה שהוא נותן קנס קצוב והוא עשרה [כ] זהובים. וכן הורו שכל המונע הבעלים מעשות מצות עשה שהן ראויין לעשותה וקדם אחר ועשאה משלם לבעלים [ל] עשרה זהובים:
15
When a person causes damage with his own hands, the damage is evaluated in the same way as it would have been evaluated if the damage had been caused by his property.
What is implied? If a person kills an animal belonging to a colleague or breaks one of his utensils, we evaluate the animal's previous worth and the worth of the carcass, or the utensil's previous worth and its present worth. The person who caused the damage must pay the difference to the owner together with the carcass or the broken utensil, as we have explained above with regard to damage caused by an ox. For the same principles prevail.
If a person treads grapes belonging to a colleague, we must evaluate the loss. The same principles apply in other analogous situations.
טו
שמין למזיק בידו כדרך ששמין לו אם הזיק ממונו. כיצד הרי שהרג בהמת חבירו או שבר עליו שמין כמה היתה הבהמה שוה וכמה הנבילה שוה. וכמה היה הכלי שוה והוא שלם וכמה שוה עתה ומשלם הפחת לניזק עם הנבילה או הכלי השבור. כדרך שביארנו בשורו שהזיק שדין אחד הוא. דרך ענבים של חבירו שמין לו היזקו וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
16
When the loss he caused is expropriated from the person who caused the damage, it should be expropriated from his movableproperty. If he has no movable property, it should be expropriated from the finest landed property that he owns.
Similarly, the fines to be paid by a rapist, a seducer or a person who spreads malicious gossip about his wife must be paid from the finest landed property that he owns.
טז
כשגובין הפחת מן המזיק א גובין מן המטלטלין שלו. אם אין לו מטלטלין גובין מן היפה שבנכסיו. וכן האונס והמפתה והמוציא שם רע כולן גובין מהן מן היפה שבנכסיו:
17
When someone damages property belonging to a colleague and does not know the extent of the damage, the person whose property was damaged is given the prerogative of taking an oath according to the institutions of our Sages - as is a person whose property was stolen - and he may then collect the money that he claims. This applies provided he claims property that one might suppose that he did possess, as has been explained with regard to a person whose property was stolen.
יז
כל המזיק ממון חבירו ואינו יודע מה הזיק. הרי הניזק נשבע בתקנת חכמים ונוטל כמו שיטעון הנגזל. והוא שיטעון דברים שהוא אמוד בהן כמו שביארנו בנגזל:
18
What is implied? A person takes a wallet belonging to a colleague and throws it into the sea, or into a fire, or gives it to a person of force and thus causes it to be lost. The owner of the wallet claims that it was filled with gold coins, while the person who caused the damage says: "I do not know what it contained. Perhaps all it contained was earth or straw."
The person whose property was damaged is entitled to take an oath while holding a sacred article and collect the money he claims, provided he claims articles that we may assume that he owns or that were entrusted to him and would ordinarily be put in a wallet or the like.
If, however, it is not customary to place such articles in such containers, the owner is considered negligent and the person who caused the damage is not held liable.
What is implied? A person grabbed a filled covered leather sack or basket and threw it into the water or burned it. The person whose property was destroyed claimed that it was filled with pearls. His claim is not accepted, and the person who caused the damage is not required to take an oath. For it is not customary to place pearls in baskets or leather sacks.
If, however, the person whose property was damaged seizes property belonging to the person who caused the damage equivalent to the value of his claim, it should not be expropriated from him. Instead, he is required to take an oath that it contained pearls, and then he is able to keep their worth from the goods that he seized. The same laws apply in all analogous situations.
יח
כיצד לקח כיס חבירו והשליכו לים או לאש. או שמסרו ביד אנס ואבד. בעל הכיס אומר זהובים היה מלא והמזיק אומר איני יודע מה היה בו שמא עפר או תבן היה מלא. הרי הניזק נשבע בנקיטת חפץ ונוטל. והוא שיטעון דברים שהוא אמוד בהן או אמוד להפקידן אצלו ודרכן להניחן בכיס וכיוצא בו. אבל אם אין דרכן להניחן בכלי זה הוא פשע בעצמו. כיצד הרי שחטף [מ] חמת או סל מלאים ומחופים והשליכם לים או שרפן. וטען הניזק שמרגליות היו בתוכן אינו נאמן ואין משביעין אותו על כך. שאין דרך בני אדם להניח מרגליות בסלים [נ] ובחמתות. ואם תפש אין מוציאין מידו. אלא נשבע שמרגליות היו בה ונוטל ממה שיש אצלו וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
19
If the person who caused the damage knew that the wallet contained gold coins, but does not know their amount, and the person whose property was damaged claimed that it contained 1000 coins, the plaintiff's claim is accepted. He may collect 1000 gold coins without taking an oath provided he could be presumed [to possess such an amount of money. For the defendant is required to take an oath, but cannot, as will be explained with regard to an entrusted object.
יט
ידע ג המזיק שהכיס היה בו זהובים. אבל אינו יודע כמה היו ואומר הניזק אלף היו נוטל אלף [ס] בלא שבועה. ואינו יכול להשבע כמו שיתבאר בענין הפקדון:
• Issurei Biah - Chapter Twenty One
1
Whoever shares physical intimacy with one of the ariyot without actually becoming involved in sexual relations or embraces and kisses [one of them] out of desire1 and derives pleasure from the physical contact should be lashed2according to Scriptural Law. [This is derived from Leviticus 18:30 which] states: "To refrain from perform any of these abominable practices," and [ibid.:6 which] states: "Do not draw close to reveal nakedness." Implied is that we are forbidden to draw close to acts that lead to revealing nakedness.3
א
כל הבא על ערוה מן העריות דרך איברים או שחבק ונשק דרך תאוה ונהנה בקרוב בשר הרי זה לוקה מן התורה שנאמר לבלתי עשות מחקות התועבות וגו' ונאמר לא תקרבו לגלות ערוה כלומר לא תקרבו לדברים המביאין לידי גילוי ערוה:
2
A person who engages in any of the abovementioned practices is considered likely to engage in forbidden sexual relations.
It is forbidden4 for a person to make motions with his hands or feet or wink with his eyes to one of the ariyot, to share mirth with her or to act frivolously with her.5 It is even forbidden to smell her perfume6 or gaze at her beauty. A person who performs any of these actions intentionally should be given stripes for rebellious conduct.
A person who looks at even a small finger of a woman with the intent of deriving pleasure is considered as if he looked at her genitalia. It is even forbidden to hear the voice of a woman forbidden as an ervah or to look at her hair.
ב
העושה דבר מחוקות אלו הרי הוא חשוד על העריות ואסור לאדם לקרוץ בידיו וברגליו או לרמוז בעיניו לאחת מן העריות או לשחוק עמה או להקל ראש ואפילו להריח בשמים שעליה או להביט ביפיה אסור ומכין למתכוין לדבר זה מכת מרדות והמסתכל אפילו באצבע קטנה של אשה ונתכוון להנות כמי שנסתכל במקום התורף ואפילו לשמוע קול הערוה או לראות שערה אסור:
3
These matters are [also] forbidden with regard to women with whom relations are forbidden on the basis of [merely] a negative commandment.
It is permitted to look at the face of an unmarried woman and examine [her features] whether she is a virgin or has engaged in relations previously to whether she is attractive in his eyes so that he may marry her. There is no prohibition in doing this. On the contrary, it is proper to do this.7 One should not, however, look in a licentious manner. Behold [Job 31:1] states: "I established a covenant with my eyes; I would not gaze at a maiden."
ג
והדברים האלו אסורין בחייבי לאוין ומותר להסתכל בפני הפנויה ולבדקה בין בתולה בין בעולה כדי שיראה אם היא נאה בעיניו ישאנה ואין בזה צד איסור ולא עוד אלא שראוי לעשות כן אבל לא יסתכל דרך זנות הרי הוא אומר ברית כרתי לעיני ומה אתבונן על בתולה:
4
It is permitted for a person to gaze at his wife8 when she is in the niddah state9 although she is an ervah [at that time]. Although his heart derives satisfaction from seeing her, since she will be permitted to him afterwards, he will not suffer a lapse. He should not, however, share mirth with her or act frivolously with her lest this lead to sin.
ד
ומותר לאדם להביט באשתו כשהיא נדה ואע"פ שהיא ערוה ואף על פי שיש לו הנאת לב ממנה בראייה הואיל והיא מותרת לו לאחר זמן אינו בא בזה לדבר מכשול אבל לא ישחוק ולא יקל ראש עמה שמא ירגיל לעבירה:
5
It is forbidden for a man to have any woman - whether a minor or an adult, whether a servant or a freed woman - perform personal tasks for him, lest he come to lewd thoughts.
Which tasks are referred to? Washing his face, his hands, or his feet,10 spreading his bed in his presence,11 and pouring him a cup. For these tasks are performed for a man only by his wife.12
[A man] should not send greetings to a woman at all, not even via a messenger.13
ה
אסור להשתמש באשה כלל בין גדולה בין קטנה בין שפחה בין משוחררת שמא יבוא לידי הרהור באי זה שמוש אמרו רחיצת פניו ידיו ורגליו והצעת מטה לפניו ומזיגת הכוס שאין עושה לאיש דברים אלו אלא אשתו בלבד ואין שואלין בשלום אשה כלל ואפילו ע"י שליח:
6
When a man embraces or kisses any of the women forbidden to him as ariyot despite the fact that his heart does not disturb him concerning the matter,14 e.g., his adult sister, his mother's sister, or the like, it is very shameful. It is forbidden15 and it is foolish conduct. [This applies] even if he has no desire or pleasure at all. For one should not show closeness to a woman forbidden as an ervah at all, whether an adult or a minor, except a woman to her son and a father to his daughter.16
ו
המחבק אחת מן העריות שאין לבו של אדם נוקפו עליהן או שנשק לאחת מהן כגון אחותו הגדולה ואחות אמו וכיוצא בהן אע"פ שאין שם תאוה ולא הנאה כלל הרי זה מגונה ביותר ודבר אסור הוא ומעשה טפשים הוא שאין קריבין לערוה כלל בין גדולה בין קטנה חוץ מהאם לבנה והאב לבתו:
7
What is implied? A father is permitted to embrace his daughter, kiss her, and sleep with her with their bodies touching17 and a mother may do the same with her son as long as they are young. When they grow and become mature18 with the girl's body becoming developed,19 they should each sleep in clothing.
If the daughter is embarrassed to stand before her father naked or she married,20 and similarly, if the mother was embarrassed to stand before her son naked, even if [the children] are minors, when one reaches the point when one is ashamed [of being naked] in their presence, they should sleep together only when clothed.21
ז
כיצד מותר האב לחבק בתו ולנשקה ותישן עמו בקרוב בשר וכן האם עם בנה כל זמן שהם קטנים הגדילו ונעשה הבן גדול והבת גדולה עד שיהיו שדים נכונו ושערך צמח זה ישן בכסותו והיא ישנה בכסותה ואם היתה הבת בושה לעמוד לפני אביה ערומה או שנישאת וכן אם האם בושה לעמוד בפני בנה ערומה ואף על פי שהן קטנים משהגיעו להכלם מהן אין ישנים עמהם אלא בכסותן:
8
Lesbian relations are forbidden. This is "the conduct of Egypt" which we were warned against, as [Leviticus 18:3] states: "Do not follow the conduct of Egypt." Our Sages said:22 What would they do? A man would marry a man, a woman would marry a woman, and a woman would marry two men.
Although this conduct is forbidden,23 lashes are not given for it, for it is not a specific prohibition24 and there is no intercourse at all. Therefore such women are not forbidden to marry into the priesthood as zonot, nor does a woman become prohibited to her husband because of this,25 for this is not considered harlotry. It is, however, appropriate to give them stripes for rebellious conduct26because they performed a transgression. A man should take precautions with his wife with regard to this matter and should prevent women who are known to engage in such practices from visiting her and her from visiting them.
ח
נשים המסוללות זו בזו אסור וממעשה מצרים הוא שהוזהרנו עליו שנאמר כמעשה ארץ מצרים לא תעשו אמרו חכמים מה היו עושים איש נושא איש ואשה נושא אשה ואשה נשאת לשני אנשים אע"פ שמעשה זה אסור אין מלקין עליו שאין לו לאו מיוחד והרי אין שם ביאה כלל לפיכך אין נאסרות לכהונה משום זנות ולא תיאסר אשה על בעלה בזה שאין כאן זנות וראוי להכותן מכת מרדות הואיל ועשו איסור ויש לאיש להקפיד על אשתו מדבר זה ומונע הנשים הידועות בכך מלהכנס לה ומלצאת היא אליהן:
9
A man's wife is permitted to him. Therefore a man may do whatever he desires with his wife. He may engage in relations whenever he desires, kiss any organ he desires,27 engage in vaginal or anal intercourse or engage in physical intimacy without relations, provided he does not release seed in vain.28
Nevertheless, it is pious conduct for a person not to act frivolously concerning such matters and to sanctify himself at the time of relations, as explained in Hilchot Deot.29 He should not depart from the ordinary pattern of the world. For this act was [given to us] solely for the sake of procreation.30
ט
אשתו של אדם מותרת היא לו לפיכך כל מה שאדם רוצה לעשות באשתו עושה בועל בכל עת שירצה ומנשק בכל אבר ואבר שירצה [ובא עליה כדרהה ושלא כדרכה] ובלבד שלא יוציא שכבת זרע לבטלה ואף על פי כן מדת חסידות שלא יקל אדם את ראשו לכך ושיקדש עצמו בשעת תשמיש כמו שביארנו בהלכות דעות ולא יסיר מדרך העולם ומנהגו שאין דבר זה אלא כדי לפרות ולרבות:
10
A man is forbidden to engage in relations by candlelight.31If, on the Sabbath,32 he did not have another room and there is a light burning, he should not engage in relations at all.33
Similarly, it is forbidden for a Jew to engage in relations during the day, for this is brazen conduct. If he is a Torah scholar, who will not be drawn after this, he may create darkness with his garment and engage in relations. One should not, however, adopt this measure unless there is a great need.34 It is the course of holy conduct to engage in relations in the middle of the night35
י
אסור לאדם לשמש מטתו לאור הנר הרי שהיתה שבת ולא היה לו בית אחר והיה הנר דלוק הרי זה לא ישמש כלל וכן אסור לישראלי לשמש מטתו ביום שעזות פנים היא לו ואם היה תלמיד חכם שאינו בא להמשך בכך הרי זה מאפיל בטליתו ומשמש ואין נזקקין לדבר זה אלא מפני צורך גדול ודרך קדושה לשמש באמצע הלילה:
11
Our Sages do not derive satisfaction from a person who engages in sexual relations excessively and frequents his wife like a rooster. This reflects a very blemished [character]; it is the way underdeveloped people conduct themselves. Instead, everyone who minimizes his sexual conduct is praiseworthy, provided he does not neglect his conjugal duties36 without the consent of his wife. The sole reason while originally it was ordained that a person who had a seminal emission should not read from the Torah until they immerse themselves37 was to minimize sexual conduct.
יא
אין דעת חכמים נוחה למי שהוא מרבה בתשמיש המטה ויהיה מצוי אצל אשתו כתרנגול ופגום הוא עד מאד ומעשה בורים הוא אלא כל הממעט בתשמיש הרי זה משובח והוא שלא יבטל עונה [אלא] מדעת אשתו ולא תקנו בראשונה לבעלי קריין שלא יקראו בתורה עד שיטבלו אלא כדי למעט בתשמיש המטה:
12
Similarly, our Sages38 forbade a person from engaging in relations with his wife while his heart is focused on another woman. He should not engage in relations while intoxicated, nor while quarreling, nor out of hatred. He should not engage in relations with her against her will when she is afraid of him.39 Nor when one of them is placed under a ban of ostracism. He should not engage in relations [with his wife] after he made the decision to divorce her. If he does so,40the children will not be of proper character. There will be those who are brazen and others who are rebellious and sinful.
יב
וכן אסרו חכמים שלא ישמש אדם מטתו ולבו מחשב באשה אחרת ולא יבעול מתוך שכרות ולא מתוך מריבה ולא מתוך שנאה ולא יבוא עליה על כרחה והיא יראה ממנו ולא כשיהיה אחד מהן מנודה ולאו יבוא עליה אחר שגמר בלבו לגרשה ואם עשה כן הבנים אינן הגונים אלא מהן עזי פנים ומהן מורדים ופושעים:
13
Similarly, our Sages said41 that whenever an audacious woman demands relations verbally, a man seduces a woman for the sake of marriage, he had the intent of having relations with his wife Rachel and instead, engages in relations with his wife Leah, or a woman does not wait three months after the death of her husband and gives birth to a son whose identity is questionable,42 all of the children born in these situations will be rebellious and sinful who will be purified by the sufferings of exile.
יג
וכן אמרו חכמים שכל אשה חצופה שהיא תובעת תשמיש המטה בפיה או המפתה אשה לשם נישואין או המתכוין לבוא על רחל אשתו ובא על לאה אשתו ומי שלא שהתה אחר מיתת בעלה שלשה חדשים והרי הבן ספק כל אלו הבנים הילודים מהם הם המורדים והפושעים שיסורי הגלות בוררין אותן:
14
It is forbidden for a man to engage in relations with his wife in the marketplaces, streets, gardens, or orchards. Instead, [a couple should be physically intimate] only in a home, so that they will not appear as licentious relations and will not habituate themselves to licentious relations.43 When a man engages in relations with his wife in such places, he should be given stripes for rebellious conduct. Similarly, when a man consecrates a woman via sexual relations,44 consecrates her in the market place or consecrates her without there being an engagement beforehand, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.45
יד
ואסור לאדם לבא על אשתו בשווקים וברחובות או בגנות ובפרדסין אלא בבית דירה שלא יראה כזנות וירגילו עצמם לידי זנות והבועל את אשתו במקומות אלו מכין אותו מכת מרדות וכן המקדש בביאה והמקדש בשוק והמקדש בלא שדוך מכין אותו מכת מרדות:
15
טו
ואכסנאי אסור בתשמיש המטה עד שיחזור לביתו וכן אסרו חכמים על האיש שידור בבית חמיו שזו עזות פנים היא ולא יכנס עמו למרחץ:
16
A person should not enter a bathhouse with his father, his sister's husband, nor with his student.48 If he needs his student [to assist him], it is permitted. There are places where people followed the custom that two brothers would not enter a bathhouse at the same time.
טז
ולא יכנס אדם עם אביו למרחץ ולא עם בעל אחותו ולא עם תלמידו ואם היה צריך לתלמידו מותר ויש מקומות שנהגו שלא יכנסו שני אחים כאחד למרחץ:
17
Jewish women should not walk in the marketplace with uncovered hair. [This applies to] both unmarried49 and married women. Similarly, a woman should not walk in the street with her son following her. [This is] a decree, [enacted so that] her son not be abducted and she follow after him to bring him back and she be molested by wicked people who took hold of him as a caprice.
יז
לא יהלכו בנות ישראל פרועי ראש בשוק אחת פנויה ואחת אשת איש ולא תלך אשה בשוק ובנה אחריה גזירה שמא יתפשו בנה ותלך אחריו להחזירו ויתעללו בה הרשעים שתפסוהו דרך שחוק:
18
It is forbidden to release sperm wastefully.50 Therefore a person should not enter his wife and ejaculate outside of her.51 A man should not marry a minor who is not fit to give birth.52
Those who, however, release sperm with their hands, beyond the fact that they commit a great transgression, a person who does this will abide under a ban of ostracism. Concerning them, it is said: "Your hands are filled with blood." It is as if they killed a person.
יח
אסור להוציא שכבת זרע לבטלה לפיכך לא יהיה אדם דש מבפנים וזורה מבחוץ ולא ישא קטנה שאינה ראויה לילד אבל אלו שמנאפין ביד ומוציאין שכבת זרע לא די להם שאיסור גדול הוא אלא שהעושה זה בנדוי הוא יושב ועליהם נאמר ידיכם דמים מלאו וכאילו הרג הנפש:
19
It is forbidden for a person to intentionally cause himself to have an erection or to bring himself to [sexual] thoughts. If a [sexual] thought comes to his mind, he should divert his heart from profligate and destructive matters to the words of Torah53which are "a beloved hind, arousing favor."54 For this reason, it is forbidden for a person to sleep on his back with his face upward,55Instead, he should turn to the side slightly so that he will not develop an erection.
יט
וכן אסור לאדם שיקשה עצמו לדעת או יביא עצמו לידי הרהור אלא אם יבא לו הרהור יסיע לבו מדברי הבאי (והשחתה) לדברי תורה שהיא אילת אהבים ויעלת חן לפיכך אסור לאדם לישן על ערפו ופניו למעלה עד שיטה מעט כדי שלא יבוא לידי קישוי:
20
One should not look at animals, beasts, and fowls at the time the males and females are coupling. It is, however, permitted for a breeder of livestock to insert a male animal's organ in a female's. Since he is working in his profession, he will not be motivated to [sexual] thoughts.
כ
ולא יסתכל בבהמה ובחיה ועוף בשעה שמזדקקין זכר לנקבה ומותר למרביעי בהמה להכניס כמכחול בשפופרת מפני שהן עסוקין במלאכתן לא יבואו לידי הרהור:
21
כא
וכן אסור לאדם להסתכל בנשים בשעה שהן עומדות על הכביסה אפילו להסתכל בבגדי צמר של אשה שהוא מכירה אסור שלא יבוא לידי הרהור:
22
When a person encounters a woman in the street, it is forbidden for him to walk behind her.58 Instead, he should hurry and [position himself so that] she is at his side or behind him. Whoever walks behind a woman in the marketplace is one of the frivolous of the common people.
It is forbidden to pass the entrance of a harlot without distancing oneself four cubits, as [Proverbs 5:8] states: "Do not come close to the entrance of her home."
כב
מי שפגע באשה בשוק אסור לו להלך אחריה אלא רץ ומסלקה לצדדין או לאחריו וכל המהלך בשוק אחרי אשה הרי זה מקלי עמי הארץ ואסור לעבור על פתח אשה זונה עד שירחיק ד' אמות שנאמר ואל תקרב אל פתח ביתה:
23
It is forbidden for an unmarried man to extend his hand to his testicles, lest he be stimulated to [sexual] thoughts. Indeed, he should not extend his hand below his navel, lest he be stimulated to [sexual] thoughts. If he urinates, he should not hold the shaft of his organ while urinating. If he is married,59 this is permitted. Whether he is married or not, he should not extend his hand to his organ at all, except when he has to urinate.60
כג
ואסור לאדם שאינו נשוי לשלוח ידו במבושיו שלא יבוא לידי הרהור ואפילו מתחת טיבורו לא יכניס ידו שמא יבוא לידי הרהור ואם השתין מים לא יאחוז באמה וישתין ואם היה נשוי מותר ובין נשוי ובין שאינו נשוי לא יושיט ידו לאמה כלל אלא בשעה שהוא צריך לנקביו:
24
One of the pious men of the early eras and the wise men of stature prided himself in that he never looked at his male organ. Another said with pride that he had never contemplated his wife's physical form.61 For their hearts would be diverted from profligate matters to the words of truth which take hold of the hearts of the holy.
כד
חסידים הראשונים וגדולי החכמים התפאר אחד מהם שמעולם לא נסתכל במילה שלו ומהן מי שהתפאר שלא התבונן מעולם בצורת אשתו מפני שלבו פונה מדברי הבאי לדברי האמת שהן אוחזות לבב הקדושים:
25
Among our Sages' commands is that a person should marry off his sons and daughters close to the time they reach physical maturity.62 For were he to leave them [unmarried], they may be motivated to promiscuity or sexual thoughts. Concerning this was applied the verse [Job 5:24]: "Scrutinize your dwelling and you shall not sin."63
It is forbidden to marry a woman to a minor, for this is comparable to promiscuity.64
כה
מצות חכמים שישיא אדם בניו ובנותיו סמוך לפרקן שאם יניחן יבואו לידי זנות או לידי הרהור ועל זה נאמר ופקדת נוך ולא תחטא ואסור להשיא אשה לקטן שזה כמו זנות היא:
26
כו
ואין האיש רשאי לישב בלא אשה ולא ישא עקרה וזקנה שאינה ראויה לילד ורשות לאשה שלא תנשא לעולם או תנשא לסריס ולא ישא בחור זקנה ולא ישא זקן ילדה שדבר זה גורם לזנות:
27
Similarly, a person who divorced his wife after they were married69should not live in the same courtyard as she, lest this lead to promiscuity.70If he was a priest, he should not dwell in the same lane as she.71 A small village is considered as a lane.
If he owes her a debt, she should appoint an agent to demand payment from him.72 When a divorcee and her ex-husband come [to court] for a judgment, we place them under a ban of ostracism or subject them to stripes for rebellious conduct.73
If, however, a woman was divorced [merely] after consecration, she may summon him to court and dwell near him.74 If they shared extensive familiarity, this is forbidden even if [they were divorced merely] after consecration.
Who is forced to move? She is forced to move because of him.75 If the courtyard belongs to her, he is forced to move because of her.
כז
וכן מי שגירש את אשתו מן הנשואין לא תדור עמו בחצר שמא יבואו לידי זנות ואם היה כהן לא תדור עמו במבוי וכפר קטן נידון כמבוי היה לה מלוה אצלו עושה שליח לתובעו וגרושה שבאה עם המגרש לדין מנדין אותן או מכין אותן מכת מרדות ואם נתגרשה מן האירוסין מותרת לתובעו בדין ולדור עמו ואם היה לבו גס בה אף מן האירוסין אסור ומי נדחה מפני מי היא נדחת מפניו ואם היתה החצר שלה הוא ידחה מפניה:
28
A person should not marry a woman with the intent to divorce her, [as alluded to by Proverbs 3:29]: "Do not devise evil against your loved one, one who dwells securely with you." If he notifies her at the outset that he is marrying her only for a limited time, it is permitted.76
כח
אסור לאדם לישא אשה ודעתו לגרשה שנאמר אל תחרוש על רעך רעה והוא יושב לבטח אתך ואם הודיעה בתחלה שהוא נושא אותה לימים מותר:
29
A person should not marry one woman in one country and another woman in another country, lest this situation continue for a long time and [ultimately,] a brother may marry his sister, the sister of his mother, or the sister of his father and the like without knowing.77 If [the man with two wives] is a person of stature whose name is known and whose descendants are well known and celebrated, it is permitted.78
כט
ולא ישא אדם אשה במדינה זו ואשה במדינה אחרת שמא יאריכו הימים ונמצא אח נושא אחותו ואחות אמו ואחות אביו וכיוצא בהן ואינו ידוע ואם היה אדם גדול ששמו ידוע והרי זרעו מפורסמין וידועין הרי זה מותר:
30
A man should not marry a woman from a family of lepers, nor from a family of epileptics, i.e., that it has been established on three occasions that the descendants of this family have this malady.
ל
לא ישא אדם אשה ממשפחת מצורעים ולא ממשפחת נכפין והוא שהוחזקו שלשה פעמים שיבואו בניהם כך:
31
When a woman was married to two husbands and they both died, she should not marry a third [man].79 If she did marry, she need not be divorced.80 Indeed, even if he merely consecrated her, he may consummate the marriage.
An unlearned81 Israelite should not marry the daughter of a priest. For this is comparable to the desecration of Aaron's seed. If they marry, our Sages said82that their marriage will not be propitious. Instead, they will die without children, either he or she will die in the near future, or there will be strife between them.83When, by contrast, a Torah scholar marries the daughter of a priest, this is attractive and praiseworthy, [joining] the Torah and the priesthood as one.
לא
אשה שנשאת לשני אנשים ומתו לשלישי לא תנשא ואם נשאת לא תצא ואפילו נתקדשה יכנוס ולא ישא ישראל עם הארץ כהנת שזה כמו חילול לזרעו של אהרן ואם נשא אמרו חכמים אין זווגן עולה יפה אלא מת בלא בנים או מת הוא או היא במהרה או קטטה תהיה ביניהם אבל תלמיד חכם שנשא כהנת הרי זה נאה ומשובח הרי תורה וכהונה כאחד:
32
A person should not marry the daughter of an unlearned person. For if he dies or is exiled, his children will grow up unlearned, since their mother is not knowledgeable regarding the crown of Torah.84 Nor should he give his daughter to an unlearned person in marriage. For anyone who gives his daughter to an unlearned person is like one who bound her and placed her before a lion. He will strike her and engage in relations and has no shame.
A person should sell everything that he has [so that] he can marry the daughter of a Torah scholar. For if he dies or is exiled, his children will grow up as Torah scholars. And he should marry his daughter to a Torah scholar for there is no shameful conduct or strife in the home of a Torah scholar.
לב
לא ישא אדם בת עמי הארץ שאם מת או גולה בניו עמי הארץ יהיו שאין אמן יודעת כתר התורה ולא ישיא בתו לעם הארץ שכל הנותן בתו לעם הארץ כמי שכפתה ונתנה לפני הארי מכה ובועל ואין לו בושת פנים ולעולם ימכור אדם כל מה שיש לו וישא בת תלמיד חכם שאם מת או גולה בניו תלמידי חכמים וכן ישיא בתו לתלמיד חכם שאין דבר מגונה ולא מריבה בביתו של תלמיד חכם:
FOOTNOTES
1.
Compare to Halachah 6.
2.
As evident from Halachah 3, although such acts are forbidden whenever sexual relations are prohibited, lashes are given only when the woman is one of the ariyot (Maggid Mishneh).
3.
The verse teaches that not only is undesirable sexual conduct itself forbidden, but also preliminary acts that lead to such conduct.
This teaching is significant from a theoretical perspective. Our Sages teach (Avot 1:1): "Make a fence around the Torah," i.e., enact prohibitions to safeguard Scriptural prohibitions and prevent them from being violated. Our Rabbis, however, question if there is a concept of "making a fence" in Scriptural Law, i.e., are there prohibitions that exist solely to prevent one from violating more severe prohibitions?
It would appear that this prohibition would fall into that category (see Halachah 4). Why are these acts of closeness forbidden? Because most likely they will lead to intimacy. One may, however, explain that these acts of closeness are, in and of themselves, "abominable practices," and hence, forbidden.
The above discussion is relevant according to the Rambam's approach. The Ramban [Hasgot to Sefer HaMitzvot (mitzvah 353) differs and does not consider the prohibition mentioned here of Scriptural origin. Instead, he views it as a Rabbinic safeguard, "a fence" instituted by the Rabbis to protect Scriptural Law.
4.
The Maggid Mishneh considers the following as Rabbinic safeguards. The Beit Shmuel 21:2 mentions opinions which consider some as having a Scriptural source.
5.
As Avot 1:5 teaches: "Mirth and frivolity habituate a person to immorality."
6.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:4), the Rambam quotes the Pesikta Rabati, ch. 25, which interprets the commandment lo tinaf, as "Do not taken forbidden pleasure with your nose."
7.
For if a person does not look at a woman before he marries her, he may have an unpleasant surprise afterwards (Kiddushin 41a). The Ra'avad suggests that a pious person should rely on the opinion of others rather than looking at his intended himself, but the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 21:3) quotes the Rambam's view.
8.
Indeed, a woman may adorn herself during this time so that she will not appear unattractive to her husband (Chapter 11, Halachah 19).
9.
This applies only to portions of her body which are usually revealed. He should not look at those portions that are usually covered (Ra'avad).
10.
This applies even if the woman does not actually touch him [Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 21:5)].
11.
Implied is that outside one's presence, this is permitted.
12.
For they all suggest a certain measure of intimacy. Compare to Chapter 11, Halachah 19.
When commenting on the quotation of these laws by the Shulchan Aruch, the Rama mentions certain leniencies, e.g., if the tasks are performed in a public place, if there is no indication of closeness involved.
13.
Our translation is based on the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh who explains that it is permitted to inquire concerning a woman's welfare.
14.
I.e., he has no fear that this closeness will lead to intimacy.
15.
Nevertheless, if one has no pleasure or desire, the act is not punished by lashes [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:3)].
16.
The Chelkat Mechokek 21:10 adds that one may show physical closeness to one's granddaughter and to one's infant sister.
17.
I.e., even unclothed.
18.
In Hilchot Keriat Shema 3:19, the Rambam mentions that the children must also reached the age of majority, thirteen for boys and twelve for girls. In our translation, however, we have focused on the physical characteristics, because the Chelkat Mechokek 21:12 emphasizes that this is what is of primary importance.
19.
The Rambam borrows the wording of Ezekiel 16:7 which literally means "her breasts are developed and her hair has grown."
20.
The Maggid Mishneh states that this applies even if she is merely consecrated.
21.
Even when children reach the stage when they and their parents are required to sleep together while clothed, their parents are still allowed to embrace them and kiss them (Beit Shmuel 7:15).
22.
Sifra, commenting on the above verse.
23.
By Scriptural Law. The verse is not merely cited as support for a Rabbinic injunction.
24.
As stated in Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 353), this is a general prohibition, including all types of forbidden sexual behavior. As stated in Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2-3, lashes are not given for the violation of prohibitions that are of a general nature.
25.
As would apply were this to be considered as adultery.
26.
This represents a change of opinion from his statements in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:3) where he writes that even according to Rabbinic Law, no punishment should be given.
27.
The Beit Shmuel 25:1 quotes many authorities who forbid a man from kissing his wife's genitalia.
28.
See Halachah 18.
29.
In Hilchot Deot, ch. 3, the Rambam elaborates on the concept that all of a person's actions, even his sexual conduct, must be for the sake of heaven. In Chapter 5, Halachot 4-5, the Rambam elaborates on refined habits of sexual conduct.
30.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:3), the Rambam writes:
The intent of sexual relations is the preservation of the species and not only pleasure. The aspect of pleasure was introduce only to motivate the created beings toward that ultimate goal....The proof of this is that desire and pleasure cease after ejaculation; this was the entire goal for which our instincts were aroused. If the goal were pleasure, satisfaction would continue as long as man desired.
31.
The point of the laws mentioned in this halachah is that one should not look at one's wife while engaging in relations.
32.
When it is a mitzvah to engage in relations.
33.
If one can cover the light or create a partition in front of it in a manner permitted on the Sabbath, there is no prohibition [Chelkat Mechokek 25:4; Rama (Orach Chayim 240:11)].
34.
I.e., one feels very aroused (Magen Avraham 240:25).
35.
In Hilchot Deot 5:4, the Rambam gives a rationale that at this time a person's food will have been digested and yet, he will not be overly hungry. The commentaries to Nedarim 20b explain that in this manner, the man and his wife will have forgotten all their daytime concerns and will be able to focus their attention on each other and the holiness of the experience.
36.
See Hilchot Ishut, ch. 14, which explains the frequency of the conjugal duties a husband has to his wife. This factor is dependent on the nature of the husband's work and the manner in which it taxes him.
37.
See Hilchot Kriat Shema 4:8 which explains that originally, Ezra enacted such a decree for the reason mentioned by the Rambam. Afterwards, our Sages checked and saw that this decree had never fully spread throughout the Jewish community. Hence they nullified it.
38.
Nedarim 20b.
39.
See Hilchot Deot 5:4-5 which states:
[Relations should be conducted] amidst their mutual consent and joy. He should converse and dally with her somewhat, so that she will be relaxed. He should have intercourse [with her] modestly and not boldly.... Whoever conducts himself in this manner [may be assured that] not only does he sanctify his soul, purify himself, and refine his character, but furthermore, if he has children, they will be handsome and modest, worthy of wisdom and piety.
40.
I.e., exhibits any of the undesirable behaviors described above. The rationale is, as explained in Avodat HaKodesh and other sources, a person's intent at the time of sexual relations has a major effect in determining the character of his children.
41.
Nedarim, loc. cit..
42.
As stated in Hilchot Gerushin 11:16, whenever a woman is divorced or widowed, she should wait 90 days before remarrying, so that the identity of her child's father will be clearly established.
43.
For surrendering oneself to one's desires without control within the context of marriage may lead one to surrender oneself to one's desires outside the context of marriage.
44.
According to Scriptural Law, a person may consecrate his wife by engaging in relations with her. Nevertheless, our Sages forbade such a practice because of its immodest nature (Hilchot Ishut 3:21).
45.
As Hilchot Ishut, ibid.::22 continues, the latter two practices were forbidden as a safeguard to lewd conduct. Our Sages feared that if women would be consecrated in this manner, the people would look at marriage and intimacy in a much baser manner.
46.
Kiddushin 12b.
47.
For an extended period of time. Needless, to say, there is no difficulty with making a short visit.
With regard to both this and the previous law, the Ra'avad writes that if the couple are given a separate room and they use their own bedspreads, there is no prohibition. The Maggid Mishneh writes that in practice, many people follow this approach, although he does not see a source for this leniency in the Talmud. The Chelkat Mechokek 25:6 and the Beit Shmuel 25:7 quotes the Ra'avad's view.
48.
Lest this arouse undesirable thoughts [Rashi, Pesachim 51a; see Rama (Even HaEzer 23:6)].
49.
I.e., a widow or a divorcee. A woman who never married may wear her hair uncovered (Chelkat Mechokek 21:2).
50.
When stating this prohibition, Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 23:1) adds: "This transgression is more severe than any of the sins in the Torah."
51.
See the commentaries to Genesis, ch. 38, which relate that this was the sin of Judah's two sons: Er and Onan. They married Tamar, but did not desire that she become pregnant. Hence they did not release their sperm within her. Their sin angered God and He caused them to die.
52.
For in essence, whenever the couple engage in intercourse, he will be releasing sperm without purpose, because she is not old enough to become pregnant. Niddah 13b states that those who marry minors hold back Mashiach's coming.
It must be emphasized that if a man does marry a minor, he is permitted to engage in relations with her [Rama (Even HaEzer 23:5)]. Similarly, relations are permitted in other instances where they will not lead to pregnancy: e.g., when the woman is already pregnant, directly after birth, or she is past menopause. Since a man has conjugal duties to his wife, he is not allowed to ignore them even though she will not become pregnant.
53.
See Chapter 22, Halachah 21. See also Avot D'Rabbi Nattan 20:1 which implies that this is not merely a matter of will power and mind control. Instead, directing one's attention to the Torah awakens spiritual influences which prevent a person's attention from focusing on sexual thoughts.
54.
This analogy for the Torah is taken from Proverbs 5:19.
55.
Needless to say, it is forbidden for one to sleep on his belly.
56.
Our translation follows the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. This also follows the text of Avodah Zarah 20b, the Rambam's apparent source. The standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah employs a slightly different version.
57.
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 21:1) clarifies that it applies even when the woman is not wearing the garments. The clothes themselves may prompt the man's imagination.
58.
For watching her body might arouse him.
59.
Even if his wife is not together with him (Beit Shmuel 23:4).
60.
See Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 3:14) which grants a man permission to hold himself below the corona of his organ, for this does not stimulate him sexually.
61.
See Shabbos 118b, 53b.
62.
I.e., directly after a youth becomes thirteen (Chelkat Mechokek 1:3).
63.
I.e., having foresight with regard to one's children's sexual behavior will prevent sin. See the conclusion of Hilchot Sotah where the Rambam cites the same verse in a different - although somewhat related - context.
64.
According to Scriptural Law, a man cannot consecrate a woman until he reaches the age of thirteen and demonstrates signs of physical maturity. Hence, if a couple are married beforehand, all relations are comparable to promiscuity. See Chelkat Mechokek, loc. cit. and Beit Shmuel 1:4 who discuss certain views that maintain that it is permitted to marry beforehand.
65.
Lest he be prompted to sexual thoughts.
66.
This certainly applies before the man has fulfilled the obligation to be fruitful and multiply (i.e., he fathered a boy and a girl). Even after he has fulfilled that mitzvah, he should marry a woman capable of bearing children [Hilchot Ishut 15:7, 16; Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 1:8)]. In the latter situation, however, there is room for certain leniencies.
67.
For she is not bound by the commandment of procreation.
68.
We assume that the difference in age will lead to a lack of sexual harmony and cause the man and/or woman to seek fulfillment outside of marriage.
69.
If, however, the woman was merely consecrated, the couple will not have shared familiarity and there is less grounds for suspicion, as mentioned at the conclusion of the halachah.
70.
In the Talmudic era, the custom was to build blocks of homes that opened up to a communal courtyard. Several of these courtyards would open up to a single lane. If a man and his divorcee would dwell in a single courtyard - and even in a single lane - they would meet each other on a frequent basis. In such a situation, we fear that the familiarity that they shared in the past might lead them to be intimate.
Rav Moshe HaCohen and others question the Rambam's ruling, noting that as long as the woman has not remarried, there is no prohibition against relations between the couple. They cite the standard text of Ketubot 27b which reads "A woman should not marry in his neighborhood." They maintain that the prohibition applies only when the woman remarries. She and her new husband should not dwell near her previous husband lest this lead to adultery.
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 119:7) quotes the Rambam's wording. The Rama, however, mentions that if a woman remarries, she should not dwell in the same lane as her ex-husband even if he is not a priest.
71.
Since he is also bound by the prohibition against relations with a divorcee, there are more severe restrictions.
72.
Rather than demand payment herself. In this way, they will share less contact.
73.
For one of them should have appointed an agent so that they would avoid meeting each other.
74.
Since they never lived together, we do not fear that meeting each other will lead to intimacy.
75.
This applies if the home belongs to the husband and even if the woman also owns a home in that courtyard or the couple's home was rented (Chelkat Mechokek 119:27). Ketubot 28a explains that it is more difficult for a man to leave his home than it is for a woman.
76.
In this instance, she is not "dwelling securely," because she was informed of the temporary nature of the relationship from the outset. See Yevamot 37b which gives the example of several Sages who would marry women for brief periods of times after informing them beforehand.
See also the Chelkat Mechokek 119:1 and the Beit Shmuel 119:1 which debate whether it is proper for a man to engage in relations with his wife in such a situation. For as stated in Halachah 12, a man should not engage in relations with his wife if he intends to divorce her.
77.
Since they live apart from each other, it is possible that they will not know of the other's existence. If they visit that other locale, they may marry a relative without knowing of the family connection.
78.
For then, it will be unlikely that his descendants will intermarry unknowingly.
79.
For we fear that he will die as they did. See the Rama (Even HaEzer 9:1) who mentions certain leniencies concerning this situation.
80.
The commentaries cite the Biblical narrative concerning the marriage of Judah's sons to Tamar (Genesis, ch. 38) as proof of these laws. At the outset, Judah did not want her to marry his third son. After he had relations with her, however, he married her and continued living with her as man and wife.
81.
The term am haaretz which we translated as "unlearned" has broader implications. As indicated by the following halachah, it also has the connotation of one who is not careful in the observance of the mitzvot and whose character is unrefined and underdeveloped.
82.
Pesachim 49b.
83.
The commentaries note that Pesachim, op. cit., states "it will lead to poverty." Some resolve the differences by explaining that poverty will lead a family to strife.
84.
I.e., we can assume that his wife will return to her family and that the children will be raised according to the prevailing atmosphere in that home. From the statements of Rama (Even HaEzer 2:6), we can conclude that if an unlearned person is precise in his observance of the mitzvot, these words of caution do not apply.
Issurei Biah - Chapter Twenty Two
1
It is forbidden to enter into privacy with any of the woman forbidden as ariot,1 even if she is elderly or a young girl,2 for this leads to forbidden relations. [The only] exceptions are a woman and her son, a father and his daughter, and a husband with his wife who is in the niddah state.3
When a bridegroom's wife menstruates before he engages in relations with her, it is forbidden for him to enter into privacy with her.4 Instead, she should sleep among [other] women and he should sleep among [other] men.5 If they engaged in relations once and afterwards, she became impure, he is permitted to enter into privacy with her.
א
אסור להתייחד עם ערוה מן העריות בין זקנה בין ילדה שדבר זה גורם לגלות ערוה חוץ מהאם עם בנה והאב עם בתו והבעל עם אשתו נדה וחתן שפירסה אשתו נדה קודם שיבעול אסור להתייחד עמה אלא היא ישנה בין הנשים והוא ישן בין האנשים ואם בא עליה ביאה ראשונה ואחר כך נטמאת מותר להתייחד עמה:
2
Jewish men were not suspected of engaging in relations with men or with animals. Hence, there is no prohibition against entering into privacy with them.6If, however, a person distances himself from entering into privacy even with a male or an animal, it is praiseworthy. Sages of great stature would distance themselves from animals so that they would not be alone with them.7
The prohibition against entering into privacy with woman forbidden as ariot has been transmitted by the Oral Tradition.8
ב
לא נחשדו ישראל על משכב זכור ועל הבהמה לפיכך אין אסור להתייחד עמהן ואם נתרחק אפילו מייחוד זכור ובהמה הרי זה משובח וגדולי החכמים היו מרחיקין הבהמה כדי שלא יתייחדו עמה ואיסור ייחוד העריות מפי הקבלה:
3
When the incident concerning Amnon and Tamar occurred,9David and his court decreed a prohibition against entering into privacy with an unmarried woman. Although an unmarried woman is not an ervah, such an act is considered as entering into privacy with an ervah. Shammai and Hillel decreed a prohibition against entering into privacy with gentiles.10
Thus when anyone enters into privacy with a woman, whether Jew or gentile, with whom such an act is forbidden, both the man and the woman are given stripes for rebellious conduct and an announcement is made concerning them.11 An exception is made with regard to a married woman. Although it is forbidden to enter into privacy with her, if one does enter into privacy with her, corporal punishment is not administered12 lest a rumor be initiated that she committed adultery. Thus a rumor might spread that her children are mamzerim.
ג
כשאירע מעשה אמנון ותמר גזר דוד ובית דינו על ייחוד פנויה ואע"פ שאינה ערוה בכלל ייחוד עריות היא ושמאי והלל גזרו על ייחוד כותית נמצא כל המתייחד עם אשה שאסור להתייחד עמה בין ישראלית בין כותית מכין את שניהן מכת מרדות האיש והאשה ומכריזין עליהן חוץ מאשת איש שאף על פי שאסור להתייחד עמה אם נתייחד אין לוקין שלא להוציא לעז עליה שזינתה ונמצאו מוציאין לעז על הבנים שהן ממזרים:
4
Whenever a man is forbidden to enter into privacy with a woman, this act is permitted if he is accompanied by his wife, for his wife will guard him [against transgression]. A Jewish woman should not enter into privacy with a gentile man even if his wife is with him. For a gentile's wife will not guard him [against transgression] and they have no shame.13
ד
כל אשה שאסור להתייחד עמה אם היתה אשתו עמו ה"ז מותרת להתייחד מפני שאשתו משמרתו אבל לא תתייחד ישראלית עם הכותי ואע"פ שאשתו עמו שאין אשתו של כותי משמרתו ואין להן בושה:
5
Similarly, a Jewish child should not be entrusted to a gentile with the intent that he teach him to read or teach him a craft, for all gentiles are suspect to engage in homosexual relations. Similarly, we do not house an animal in an inn belonging to gentiles, not even a male in an inn with males and a female in an inn with females.14
ה
וכן אין מוסרין תינוק ישראל לכותי ללמדו ספר וללמדו אומנות מפני שכולן חשודין על משכב זכור ואין מעמידין בהמה בפונדקיות של כותים ואפילו זכרים אצל זכרים ונקבות אצל נקבות:
6
We do not entrust an animal, beast, or fowl to a gentile shepherd, not even a male animal to a male shepherd and a female animal to a female shepherd, because they are all suspect to sodomize animals. We have already explained15 that [gentiles] are forbidden to engage in homosexuality or sodomy. And [Leviticus 19:14] states: "Do not place a stumbling block before the blind."16
ו
ואין מוסרין בהמה חיה ועוף לרועה כותי אפילו זכרים לכותים ונקבות לכותית מפני שכולן חשודין על הרבעת בהמה וכבר ביארנו שהן אסורין בזכור ובבהמה ונאמר ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול:
7
Why do we not entrust a female animal to a female gentile? For [all gentiles] are assumed to be promiscuous and when a gentile man will come to sleep with this gentile woman, it is possible that he will not find her and instead, sodomize the animal. Or even if he does find her, he may sodomize the animal.
ז
ומפני מה אין מוסרין בהמה נקבה לכותית מפני שכולן בחזקת נואפים וכשיבוא הנואף לשכב עם הכותית זו אפשר שלא ימצאנה וישכב עם הבהמה או אפילו ימצאנה ישכב עם הבהמה:
8
One woman should not enter into privacy even with many men17 unless the wife of one of them is present.18 Similarly, one man should not enter into privacy even with many women,19But when there are many women together with many men, we do not show concern for the prohibition against entering into privacy.20
If the men were outside and the women were inside or if the men were inside and the women were outside, and one woman - or one man - separated themselves and joined the group of the other sex, the prohibition against entering into privacy applies.
Even a man whose business and profession [brings him into contact] with women21 is forbidden to enter into privacy with them. What should he do? He should involve himself with them while accompanied by his wife or turn to another profession.
ח
לא תתייחד אשה אחת אפילו עם אנשים הרבה עד שתהיה אשתו של אחד מהם שם וכן לא יתייחד איש אחד אפילו עם נשים הרבה נשים הרבה עם אנשים הרבה אין חוששין לייחוד היו האנשים מבחוץ והנשים מבפנים או האנשים מבפנים והנשים מבחוץ ופירשה אשה אחת לבין האנשים או איש לבין הנשים אסורין משום ייחוד אפילו איש שעסקו ומלאכתו עם הנשים אסור לו להתייחד עם הנשים כיצד יעשה יתעסק עמהן ואשתו עמו או יפנה למלאכה אחרת:
9
It is permitted to enter into privacy with two yevamot, two wives of the same man, a woman and her mother-in-law, or a woman and her husband's daughter, a woman and her husband's daughter, or a woman and her mother-in-law's daughter. [The rationale is that] these women hate each other and will not conceal the other's [misdeeds].22 Similarly, it is permitted to enter into privacy with a woman who is accompanied by a young child old enough to understand what sexual relations are, but who would not engage in relations herself. [The rationale is that the woman] would not act promiscuously in the presence of this child, for she will reveal her secret.
ט
מותר להתייחד עם שתי יבמות או עם שתי צרות או עם אשה וחמותה או עם אשה ובת בעלה או עם אשה ובת חמותה מפני ששונאות זו את זו ואין מחפות זו על זו וכן מותר להתייחד עם אשה שיש עמה תינוקת קטנה שיודעת טעם ביאה ואינה מוסרת עצמה לביאה שאינה מזנה בפניה שהרי זו מגלה את סודה:
10
It is permitted to enter into privacy with a female child less than three years old and a male child less than nine years old. For [our Sages] only issued decrees concerning entering into privacy with a woman fit to engage in relations and a male fit to engage in relations.23
י
תינקות מבת שלש ולמטה ותינוק בן תשע ולמטה מותר להתייחד עמהן שלא גזרו אלא על ייחוד אשה הראויה לביאה ואיש הראוי לביאה:
11
יא
אנדרוגינוס אינו מתייחד עם הנשים ואם נתייחד אין מכין אותו מפני שהוא ספק אבל האיש מתייחד עם האנדרוגינוס ועם הטומטום:
12
When a married woman's husband is in the [same] city, she need not be concerned about [the prohibition against] entering into privacy with another man, because she will be impressed by the fear of her husband.27 If a man is overly familiar with her, e.g., they grew up together or she is his relative, she should not enter into privacy with him even if her husband is in the same city.28
יב
אשת איש שהיה בעלה בעיר אינה חוששת לייחוד מפני שאימת בעלה עליה ואם היה זה גס בה כגון שגדלה עמו או שהיתה קרובתו לא יתייחד עמה ואף על פי שבעלה בעיר וכן כל המתייחד עם אשה והיה הפתח פתוח לרשות הרבים אין חוששין משום ייחוד:
13
An unmarried man should not teach young children, because the mothers come to the school because of their sons and thus he will be tempted by women.31 Similarly, a woman32should not teach young boys, because their fathers come because of their sons and thus they will enter into privacy with her. A teacher does not have to have his wife together with him in school,33It is sufficient that she be at home, while he teaches in his place.34
יג
מי שאין לו אשה לא ילמד תינוקות מפני שאמות הבנים באות לבית הספר לבניהם ונמצא מתגרה בנשים וכן אשה לא תלמד קטנים מפני אבותיהן שהן באין בגלל בניהם ונמצאו מתייחדים עמה ואין המלמד צריך שתהיה אשתו שרויה עמו בבית הספר אלא היא בביתה והוא מלמד במקומו:
14
Our Sages ordained that women speak to each other while in a lavatory,35 so that a man will not enter there and thus be alone with them.
יד
תיקנו חכמים שתהיינה הנשים מספרות זו עם זו בבית הכסא כדי שלא יכנס שם איש משום ייחוד:
15
We do not appoint even a faithful and observant person to be a guard of a courtyard where women live. [This applies] even if he stands outside, for there is no guardian against promiscuity.36
It is forbidden for a person to appoint a supervisor over his home so that he does not lead his wife to sin.37
טו
אין ממנין אפילו אדם נאמן וכשר להיות שומר חצר שיש שם נשים אע"פ שהוא עומד בחוץ שאין אפוטרופוס לעריות ואסור לאדם למנות אפוטרופוס על ביתו שלא ינהיג אשתו לדבר עבירה:
16
It is forbidden for a Torah scholar to dwell in a courtyard where a widow lives even though he does not enter into privacy with her lest suspicions arise38unless his wife is with him. Similarly, a widow should not raise a dog because of the suspicions that might arise. Nor should a woman purchase male servants - even minors - because of the suspicions that may arise.39
טז
אסור לתלמיד חכם לשכון בחצר שיש בה אלמנה אף על פי שאינו מתייחד עמה מפני החשד אלא א"כ היתה אשתו עמו וכן אלמנה אסורה לגדל כלב מפני החשד ולא תקנה אשה עבדים זכרים אפילו קטנים מפני החשד:
17
We do not relate the hidden matters40 concerning forbidden sexual conduct to three students. [The rationale is that] one will be absorbed in questioning the teacher, the other two will be debating the matter back and forth and will not be free to listen. Since a person's mind is aroused by sexual matters,41if a doubt arises concerning something he heard, he may [in error] rule leniently. Therefore, we teach only to two. In this manner, the one listening will focus his attention and recall what he will hear from the teacher.
יז
אין דורשין בסתרי עריות בשלשה מפני שהאחד טרוד בשאלת הרב והשנים נושאין ונותנין זה עם זה ואין דעתם פנויה לשמוע שדעתו של אדם קרובה אצל עריות אם נסתפק לו דבר ששמע מורה להקל לפיכך אין דורשין אלא לשנים כדי שיהיה האחד השומע מפנה דעתו ויודע מה שישמע מן הרב:
18
There is nothing in the entire Torah that is more difficult for the majority of people to separate themselves from than sexual misconduct and forbidden relationships. Our Sages said:42When the Jews were commanded regarding forbidden sexual relations, they wept and accepted this mitzvah with complaints and moaning, as implied by the phrase: "Crying among their families," [which is interpreted as meaning]: "Crying about family matters."
יח
אין לך דבר בכל התורה כולה שהוא קשה לרוב העם לפרוש אלא מן העריות והביאות האסורות אמרו חכמים בשעה שנצטוו ישראל על העריות בכו וקבלו מצוה זו בתרעומות ובכיה שנאמר בוכה למשפחותיו על עסקי משפחות:
19
Our Sages said:43 A person's soul desires and craves theft and forbidden sexual relations. You will never find a community that does not have some people who are promiscuous regarding forbidden relationships and prohibited sexual conduct. Moreover, our Sages said:44 Most people trespass with regard to theft; a minority with regard to forbidden sexual conduct, and all with regard to the shade of undesirable gossip.45
יט
ואמרו חכמים גזל ועריות נפשו של אדם מתאוה להן ומחמדתן ואין אתה מוצא קהל בכל זמן וזמן שאין בהן פרוצין בעריות וביאות אסורות [ועוד] אמרו חכמים רוב בגזל מיעוט בעריות והכל באבק לשון הרע:
20
Therefore it is proper for a person to subjugate his natural inclination with regard to this matter and train himself in extra holiness, pure thought, and proper character traits so that he will be guarded against them.
He should be very careful with regard to entering into privacy with a woman, for this is a great cause [of transgression]. Our great Sages would tell their students:46"Watch me because of my daughter," "Watch me because of my daughter-in-law," so that they would teach their students not to be embarrassed about such matters and distance themselves from entering into privacy with women.
כ
לפיכך ראוי לו לאדם לכוף יצרו בדבר זה ולהרגיל עצמו בקדושה יתירה ובמחשבה טהורה ובדעה נכונה כדי להנצל מהן ויזהר מן הייחוד שהוא הגורם הגדול גדולי החכמים היו אומרים לתלמידיהם הזהרו בי מפני בתי הזהרו בי מפני כלתי כדי ללמד לתלמידיהם שלא יתביישו מדבר זה ויתרחקו מן הייחוד:
21
Similarly, a person should distance himself from levity, intoxication, and flirtation,47 for they are great precipitators and steps [leading] to forbidden relations.
A man should not live without a wife, for this practice leads to great purity.48 And [our Sages gave] even greater [advice], saying:49 "A person should always turn himself and his thoughts to the words of the Torah and expand his knowledge in wisdom, for the thoughts of forbidden relations grow strong solely in a heart which is empty of wisdom." And in [Solomon's words of] wisdom [Proverbs 5:19], it is written: "It50 is a beloved hind, arousing favor. Her breasts will satisfy you at all times. You shall be obsessed with her love."
כא
וכן ינהוג להתרחק מן השחוק ומן השכרות ומדברי עגבים שאלו גורמין גדולים והם מעלות של עריות ולא ישב בלא אשה שמנהג זה גורם לטהרה יתירה גדולה מכל זאת אמרו יפנה עצמו ומחשבתו לדברי תורה וירחיב דעתו בחכמה שאין מחשבת עריות מתגברת אלא בלב פנוי מן החכמה ובחכמה הוא אומר אילת אהבים ויעלת חן דדיה ירווך בכל עת באהבתה תשגה תמיד:
Blessed be God who grants assistance.
סליקו להו הלכות איסורי ביאה בס"ד:
FOOTNOTES
1.
This prohibition also includes woman with whom relations are forbidden merely by a negative commandment (Beit Shmuel 22:1).
2.
And thus there is no apparent motivation toward sexual relations.
3.
See the Chelkat Mechokek 22:1 and the Beit Shmuel, loc. cit. which cite opinions that maintain that a man is permitted to enter into privacy with his sister in a temporary situation.
4.
Since the couple have never engaged in relations, we fear that they will not be able to control their desire. Hence we require them to take this added safeguard.
5.
See Rama (Yoreh De'ah 192:4) who discusses this issue in depth, mentioning several stringencies and leniencies. He states the prevailing custom is for a young boy to accompany the groom and a young girl to accompany the bride. Every person should check with a competent Rabbinic authority with regard to the custom followed in their community.
6.
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 24:1) writes that homosexuality had become prevalent in his community and hence, it was deemed appropriate not to enter into privacy with other men. The Bayit Chadash states that in places where this transgression is not widespread, there is no need for taking such precautions.
7.
See Kiddushin 81b.
8.
Kiddushin 80b states that "there is an allusion to the prohibition against entering into privacy in the Torah." The Rambam understands that to mean that the prohibition was conveyed by the Oral Tradition and our Sages found an allusion for it in the Torah. The Tur (Even HaEzer 22), however, follows the opinion of Tosafot who maintains that the prohibition is of Scriptural origin.
9.
As II Samuel, ch. 13, relates: Amonon, David's oldest son, lusted for Tamar, his half-sister. He feigned illness and asked that Tamar serve him a meal. While she was serving him, he raped her.
10.
In that era, there already were more substantial social conduct between Jews and gentiles and our Sages felt that there was a need for further safeguards.
11.
Publicizing their misconduct so that the shame will further inhibit a future recurrence.
12.
The simple meaning of the Rambam's words is that lashes are not administered at all, neither to the man or the woman. The Bayit Chadash (Even HaEzer 22), however, states that punishment should be administered to the man, for it is not necessary to mention the woman with whom he transgressed.
13.
And there is the possibility that he will engage in relations with her in the presence of his wife.
14.
For we fear that the gentiles will engage in sexual misconduct. See Halachah 7.
15.
Chapter 14, Halachah 10.
16.
As interpreted by Avodah Zarah 6b, et al, this verse is a command not to place a person in a situation where he is likely to sin. By placing an animal belonging to him in the gentile's possession, the Jew is making it possible for him to sin.
17.
For we fear that she will enter into relations with one or more of the men in the presence of the others.
The Rama (Even HaEzer 22:5) states that a woman may enter into privacy with two upright men in a city, but not in a field, and only during the day, but not at night).
18.
For in that instance, she will guard him, as stated in Halachah 4. Nor will the other woman engage in relations in her presence, for it is likely that she will publicize the matter (Kessef Mishneh).
19.
For in this instance as well, there is the possibility that they will engage in relations. The Rama (loc. cit.) gives permission for many [three (Chelkat Mechokek 22:11) women to enter into privacy with one man, provided his profession does not involve contact with women.
20.
In such a situation, it is highly unlikely that the people will engage in relations.
21.
E.g., one who sells clothes or perfumes to women.
22.
Hence the women will be frightened to engage in sexual relations, for they know the matter will become public knowledge.
23.
And this does not apply below the ages mentioned in the halachah.
24.
A person with both male and female sexual organs.
25.
For he has a sexual drive for relations with women (Beit Shmuel 22:16).
26.
A tumtum refers to a person whose genitalia are covered by a block of flesh and it cannot be determined whether he is a male or female. A male is permitted to enter into privacy with these individuals, because he does not have a sexual drive for anyone other than an actual woman (ibid.).
27.
She will fear that at any particular time, her husband will come. Hence she will never commit adultery.
28.
Because this familiarity may cause her to overstep the bounds of modesty even when her husband is in the city.
29.
The later commentaries explain that open windows are also sufficient.
30.
Since it is possible for the two to be seen by passersby, they will not transgress.
31.
This applies even in a situation where there is no question of the teacher entering into privacy with the mothers (Beit Shmuel 22:21).
32.
This refers to an unmarried woman or one whose husband is out of town. Otherwise, there is no prohibition against entering into privacy (Chelkat Mechokek 22:21).
33.
To avoid the prohibition that stems from his being tempted by women.
34.
According to the Maggid Mishneh, this leniency applies even if the teacher's wife is in another city. As long as he is married, there is no prohibition. The Chelkat Mechokek 22:21 and the Beit Shmuel 22:22 differ and conclude that this leniency applies only when the man's wife lives in the same city where he teaches. If she lives in another city, it is forbidden.
35.
The Rama (Even HaEzer 22:13) states that this refers to outhouses in the fields (which was the custom in the Talmudic era), but not to outhouses in the city (which had become the custom in his time). Needless to say, it does not apply in the present age when the lavatories are in the privacy of buildings.
36.
I.e., No matter how upright the person's character, there is the possibility that frequent exposure to women will lead him to undesirable relations.
37.
We fear that if another man was placed in charge of a person's home, he would have frequent contact with the owner's wife and there is the possibility that ultimately the two will commit adultery. As Berachot 63a states: "Had Potiphar not appointed Joseph as the supervisor of his home, that incident (Potiphar's wife attempted seduction of Joseph) would never have occurred."
38.
I.e., people at large will suspect that they are sharing a relationship.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, explaining that what was forbidden was to dwell with her in the same home. There are no restrictions against dwelling in the same courtyard. According to the Rambam, dwelling in the same home temporarily is permitted as long as one does not enter into privacy with her. The Maggid Mishneh supports the Rambam's interpretation.
39.
I.e., people will gossip that she is intimate with the dog or the servants. In Hilchot Avadim 9:6, the Rambam mentions this restriction only with regard to servants nine years old or above. See the notes to that halachah.
40.
Rashi (Chagigah 11b) interprets this as referring to those matters which are not explicit in the Torah.
41.
The Rambam, based on Chagigah, loc. cit., is explaining why there is a difference between the laws concerning forbidden sexual conduct and those involving other matters.
42.
Sifri, Parshat Bahaaloscha; Shabbat 130b.
43.
Makkot 23b.
44.
Bava Batra 165a.
45.
This term refers to remarks concerning a colleague that are not actually lashon hara, unfavorable gossip, but which border on that type of speech. See Hilchot De'ot, ch. 7, for a more precise discussion of this issue.
46.
See Kiddushin 82b who quotes Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Meir as making such statements. It continues, relating that one of his students mocked Rabbi Meir for making such statements. Shortly afterwards, it was discovered that this student committed adultery with his mother-in-law.
47.
Our translation is based on the words of Rama (Even HaEzer 25:1) and Chelkat Mechokek 25:1.
48.
While married, he will have the opportunity for ordinary male-female relationships and will not develop pent up feelings that seek expression in forbidden relations.
49.
Kiddushin 30b.
50.
The Torah. See Eruvin 54b which explains the analogy in detail.
Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 1
Introduction to Hilchos Ma'achalot Assurot
They contain 28 mitzvot: four positive commandments and 28 negative commandments. They are:
1. To check the signs that distinguish a non-kosher domesticated animal or beast from a kosher one; 2. To check the signs that distinguish a non-kosher fowl from a kosher one;
3. To check the signs that distinguish a non-kosher locust from a kosher one;
4. To check the signs that distinguish a non-kosher fish from a kosher one;
5. Not to partake of a non-kosher domesticated animal or beast;
6. Not to partake of a non-kosher fowl;
7. Not to partake of a non-kosher fish;
8. Not to partake of a flying teeming animal;
9. Not to partake of a teeming animal of the land;
10. Not to partake of a creeping animal of the land;
11. Not to partake of a worm [growing] in fruit after it emerges into the air;
12. Not to partake of an aquatic teeming animal;
13. Not to partake of a nevelah, an animal that died [without ritual slaughter];
14. Not to benefit from an ox that was stoned to death;
15. Not to partake of an animal with a mortal wound;
16. Not to partake of a limb from a living animal;
17. Not to partake of blood;
18. Not to partake of the fat of a kosher animal;
19. Not to partake of the gid hanesheh;
20. Not to partake of a mixture of milk and meat;
21. Not to cook such a mixture;
22. Not to partake of bread from new grain [before the appropriate time];
23. Not to partake of new grain that has been roasted [before the appropriate time];
24. Not to partake of fresh new grain [before the appropriate time];
25. Not to partake of orlah;
26. Not to partake of produce grown in a vineyard with mixed species;
27. Not to partake of tevel;
28. Not to drink wine poured as a libation [to a false deity].
3. To check the signs that distinguish a non-kosher locust from a kosher one;
4. To check the signs that distinguish a non-kosher fish from a kosher one;
5. Not to partake of a non-kosher domesticated animal or beast;
6. Not to partake of a non-kosher fowl;
7. Not to partake of a non-kosher fish;
8. Not to partake of a flying teeming animal;
9. Not to partake of a teeming animal of the land;
10. Not to partake of a creeping animal of the land;
11. Not to partake of a worm [growing] in fruit after it emerges into the air;
12. Not to partake of an aquatic teeming animal;
13. Not to partake of a nevelah, an animal that died [without ritual slaughter];
14. Not to benefit from an ox that was stoned to death;
15. Not to partake of an animal with a mortal wound;
16. Not to partake of a limb from a living animal;
17. Not to partake of blood;
18. Not to partake of the fat of a kosher animal;
19. Not to partake of the gid hanesheh;
20. Not to partake of a mixture of milk and meat;
21. Not to cook such a mixture;
22. Not to partake of bread from new grain [before the appropriate time];
23. Not to partake of new grain that has been roasted [before the appropriate time];
24. Not to partake of fresh new grain [before the appropriate time];
25. Not to partake of orlah;
26. Not to partake of produce grown in a vineyard with mixed species;
27. Not to partake of tevel;
28. Not to drink wine poured as a libation [to a false deity].
These mitzvot are explained in the ensuing chapters.
הלכות מאכלות אסורות - הקדמה
הלכות מאכלות אסורות יש בכללן שמונה ועשרים מצות ארבע מצות עשה וארבע ועשרים מצות לא תעשה וזה הוא פרטן:
(א) לבדוק בסימני בהמה וחיה להבדיל בין טמאה לטהורה
(ב) לבדוק בסימני העוף להבדיל בין הטמא לטהור
(ג) לבדוק בסימני חגבים להבדיל בין טמא לטהור
(ד) לבדוק בסימני דגים להבדיל בין טמא לטהור
(ה) שלא לאכול בהמה וחיה טמאה
(ו) שלא לאכול עוף טמא
(ז) שלא לאכול דגים טמאים
(ח) שלא לאכול שרץ העוף
(ט) שלא לאכול שרץ הארץ
(י) שלא לאכול רמש הארץ
(יא) שלא לאכול תולעת הפירות כשתצא לאויר
(יב) שלא לאכול שרץ המים
(יג) שלא לאכול נבילה
(יד) שלא ליהנות בשור הנסקל
(טו) שלא לאכול טרפה
(טז) שלא לאכול אבר מן החי
(יז) שלא לאכול דם
(יח) שלא לאכול חלב בהמה טהורה
(יט) שלא לאכול גיד הנשה
(כ) שלא לאכול בשר בחלב
(כא) שלא לבשלו
(כב) שלא לאכול לחם תבואה חדשה
(כג) שלא לאכול קלי מן החדש
(כד) שלא לאכול כרמל מן החדש
(כה) שלא לאכול ערלה
(כו) שלא לאכול כלאי הכרם
(כז) שלא לאכול טבל
(כח) שלא לשתות יין נסך
(ב) לבדוק בסימני העוף להבדיל בין הטמא לטהור
(ג) לבדוק בסימני חגבים להבדיל בין טמא לטהור
(ד) לבדוק בסימני דגים להבדיל בין טמא לטהור
(ה) שלא לאכול בהמה וחיה טמאה
(ו) שלא לאכול עוף טמא
(ז) שלא לאכול דגים טמאים
(ח) שלא לאכול שרץ העוף
(ט) שלא לאכול שרץ הארץ
(י) שלא לאכול רמש הארץ
(יא) שלא לאכול תולעת הפירות כשתצא לאויר
(יב) שלא לאכול שרץ המים
(יג) שלא לאכול נבילה
(יד) שלא ליהנות בשור הנסקל
(טו) שלא לאכול טרפה
(טז) שלא לאכול אבר מן החי
(יז) שלא לאכול דם
(יח) שלא לאכול חלב בהמה טהורה
(יט) שלא לאכול גיד הנשה
(כ) שלא לאכול בשר בחלב
(כא) שלא לבשלו
(כב) שלא לאכול לחם תבואה חדשה
(כג) שלא לאכול קלי מן החדש
(כד) שלא לאכול כרמל מן החדש
(כה) שלא לאכול ערלה
(כו) שלא לאכול כלאי הכרם
(כז) שלא לאכול טבל
(כח) שלא לשתות יין נסך
וביאור מצות אלו בפרקים אלו:
1
It is a positive commandment to know the signs that distinguish between domesticated animals, beasts, fowl, fish, and locusts that are permitted to be eaten and those which are not permitted to be eaten,1 as [Leviticus 20:25] states: "And you shall distinguish between a kosher animal and a non-kosher one, between a non-kosher fowl and a kosher one." And [Leviticus 11:47] states: "To distinguish between the kosher and the non-kosher, between a beast which may be eaten and one which may not be eaten."
א
מצות עשה לידע הסימנין שמבדילין בהן בין בהמה וחיה ועוף ודגים וחגבים שמותר לאכלן ובין שאין מותר לאכלן שנאמר והבדלתם בין הבהמה הטהורה לטמאה ובין העוף הטמא לטהור ונאמר להבדיל בין הטמא ובין הטהור ובין החיה הנאכלת ובין החיה אשר לא תאכל:
2
The signs of a [kosher] domesticated animal and beast are explicitly mentioned in the Torah.2 There are two signs: a split hoof and chewing the cud. Both are necessary.
Any domesticated animal and beast that chews the cud does not have teeth on its upper jaw-bone. Every animal that chews the cud has split hoofs except a camel.3 Every animal that has split hoofs chews the cud except a pig.
ב
סימני בהמה וחיה נתפרשו בתורה והם שני סימנין מפרסת פרסה ומעלת גרה עד שיהיו שניהם וכל בהמה וחיה שהיא מעלת גרה אין לה שינים בלחי העליון וכל בהמה שהיא מעלת גרה הרי היא מפרסת פרסה חוץ מן הגמל וכל בהמה שהיא מפרסת פרסה היא מעלת גרה חוץ מן החזיר:
3
Therefore if a person finds an animal whose hoofs are cut off in the desert and he cannot identify its species, he should check its mouth. If it does not have teeth on its upper jaw, it can be identified as kosher, provided one can recognize a camel.4 If a person finds an animal whose mouth is cut off, he should check its hooves, if they are split, it is kosher, provided he can recognize a pig.5
When both its mouth and its hoofs are cut off, he should inspect the end of its tail after he slaughters it.6 If he discovers that [the strings of] its meat extend both lengthwise and widthwise,7 it is kosher, provided he can recognize a wild donkey. For [the strings of] its meat also extend both lengthwise and widthwise.8
ג
לפיכך המוצא בהמה במדבר ואינו מכירה ומצאה חתוכת הפרסות בודק בפיה אם אין לה שינים למעלה בידוע שהיא טהורה והוא שיכיר גמל מצא בהמה שפיה חתוך בודק בפרסותיה אם היא שסועה טהורה והוא שיכיר חזיר מצא פיה חתוך ורגליה חתוכות בודק בה אחר ששחטה בכנפי העוקץ אם מצא בשרה שם מהלך שתי וערב טהורה והוא שיכיר ערוד שכן הוא בשרו שתי וערב:
4
When a kosher animal gives birth to an offspring resembling a non-kosher animal, it is permitted to be eaten even though it does not have split hoofs or chew the cud, but instead, resembles a horse or a donkey in all matters.9
When does the above apply? When he sees it give birth. If, however, he left a pregnant cow in his herd and found an animal resembling a pig dependent on it, the matter is doubtful and [the young animal] is forbidden to be eaten. [This applies] even if it nurses from [the cow], for perhaps it was born from a non-kosher species, but became dependent on the kosher animal.10
ד
בהמה טהורה שילדה כמין בהמה טמאה אע"פ שאינו מפריס פרסה ולא מעלה גרה אלא כמין סוס או חמור לכל דבר הרי זה מותר באכילה בד"א בשילדה לפניו אבל אם הניח פרה מעוברת בעדרו ובא ומצא כמין חזיר כרוך אחריה אף על פי שהוא יונק ממנה הרי זה ספק ואסור באכילה שמא מן הטמאה נולד ונכרך אחר הטהורה:
5
When a non-kosher animal gives birth to an offspring resembling a kosher animal, it is forbidden to be eaten. [This applies] even if it has split hoofs and chews its cud and resembles an ox or a sheep in all matters. [The rationale is that offspring] produced by a non-kosher animal are not kosher11 and those produced by a kosher animal are kosher.
For this reason, a non-kosher fish found in the belly of a kosher fish is forbidden, and a kosher fish found in the belly of a non-kosher fish is permitted, for they did not produce the fish, but instead, swallowed it.
ה
בהמה טמאה שילדה כמין בהמה טהורה אע"פ שהוא מפריס פרסה ומעלה גרה והרי הוא כמין שור לכל דבר או כמין שה הרי זה אסור באכילה שהגדל מן הטמאה טמא ומן הטהורה טהור (לפיכך) דג טמא שנמצא במעי דג טהור אסור ודג טהור הנמצא במעי דג טמא מותר לפי שאין גדוליו אלא בלעו:
6
When a kosher animal gives birth to an offspring that has two backs and two backbones12 or such a creature is discovered within [an animal that was slaughtered], it is forbidden to be eaten. This is what is meant by the term hashisuah which is forbidden by the Torah, as [Deuteronomy 14:7] states: "These may not be eaten from those which chew the cud and have split hoofs, the shisuah...", i.e., an animal that was born divided into two animals.
ו
בהמה טהורה שילדה או שנמצא בה בריה שיש לה שתי גבין ושתי שדרות אסורה באכילה וזו היא השסועה שנאסרה בתורה שנאמר את זה לא תאכלו ממעלי הגרה וממפריסי הפרסה השסועה כלומר בריה שנולדה שסועה לשתי בהמות:
7
Similarly, when [a fetus] resembling a fowl is found within a [slaughtered] animal, it is forbidden to be eaten. [This applies] even if it resembles a kosher fowl. [For when a fetus] is discovered in an animal, only one which has a hoof is permitted.13
ז
וכן בהמה שנמצא בה דמות עוף אע"פשהוא עוף טהור הרי זה אסור באכילה לא הותר מן הנמצא בבהמה אלא מה שיש לו פרסה:
8
There are no other domesticated animals or wild beasts in the world that are permitted to be eaten except the ten species mentioned in the Torah. They are three types of domesticated animals: an ox, a sheep, and a goat, and seven types of wild beasts: a gazelle,14a deer, an antelope, an ibex, a chamois, a bison, and a giraffe. [This includes the species] itself and its subspecies, e.g., the wild ox and the buffalo are subspecies of the ox.15
All of these ten species and their subspecies chew the cud and have split hoofs. Therefore, a person who recognizes these species need not check neither their mouths16 and not their feet.
ח
אין לך בכל בהמה וחיה שבעולם שמותר באכילה חוץ מעשרת המינין המנויין בתורה שלשה מיני בהמה והם:
שור שה ועז ושבעה מיני חיה:
איל וצבי ויחמור ואקו ודישון ותאו וזמר הם ומיניהן כגון שור הבר והמריא שהן ממין השור וכל העשרה מינין ומיניהם מעלה גרה ומפריס פרסה לפיכך מי שהוא מכירן אינו צריך לבדוק לא בפה ולא ברגלים:
9
Although all these species are permitted to be eaten, we must make a distinction between a kosher domesticated animal and a kosher wild beast. For the fat of a wild beast is permitted to be eaten and its blood must be covered.17 With regard to a kosher domesticated animal, by contrast, one is liable for kerais for partaking of its fat18 and its blood need not be covered.
ט
אף על פי שכולן מותרין באכילה צריכין אנו להבדיל בין בהמה טהורה וחיה טהורה שהחיה חלבה מותר ודמה טעון כסוי והבהמה הטהורה חלבה בכרת ואין דמה טעון כסוי:
10
According to the Oral Tradition, these are the distinguishing signs of a [kosher] wild beast: Any species that has split hoofs, chews its cud, and has horns which branch off like those of a gazelle are certainly kosher wild beasts. [The following laws apply with regard to] all those whose horns do not branch off: If they are curved, like the horns of an ox, notched, like the horns of a goat, but the notch should be embedded within them, and spiraled, like the horns of a goat,19 it is a kosher wild beast. Its horns, however, must have these three signs: They must be curved, notched, and spiraled.
י
וסימני חיה מפי השמועה הן כל מין שהוא מפריס פרסה ומעלה גרה ויש לו קרנים מפוצלות כגון האיל הרי זה חיה טהורה בודאי וכל שאין קרניו מפוצלות אם היו קרניו כרוכות כקרני השור וחרוקות כקרני העז ויהיה החרק מובלע בהן והדורות כקרני הצבי הרי זו חיה טהורה ובלבד שיהיה בקרנים שלשה סימנין אלו כרוכות חרוקות והדורות:
11
When does the above apply? With regard to a species that he does not recognize. [Different rules apply with regard to] the seven species mentioned in the Torah. If he recognizes this species, he may partake of its fat and is obligated to cover its blood, even one does not find any horns on it at all.
יא
בד"א במין שאינו מכירו אבל שבעה מיני חיה האמורין בתורה אם היה מכיר אותן אפילו לא מצא לו קרנים הרי זה אוכל חלבו וחייב לכסות דמו:
12
A wild ox is a species of domesticated animal.20 A unicorn21is considered a wild beast even though it has only one horn.22
Whenever we have a doubt whether an animal is a domesticated animal or a wild beast, its fat is forbidden, but lashes are not given for partaking of it, and we must cover its blood.23
יב
שור הבר מין בהמה הוא והקרש אע"פ שאין לו אלא קרן אחת הרי הוא חיה וכל שיסתפק לך אם הוא מין חיה או מין בהמה חלבו אסור ואין לוקין עליו ומכסין את דמו:
13
יג
כלאים הבא מבהמה טהורה עם חיה טהורה הוא הנקרא כוי חלבו אסור ואין לוקין עליו ומכסין את דמו ואין מין טמא מתעבר ממין טהור כלל:
14
יד
The distinguishing signs of a kosher [species of] fowl are not mentioned explicitly by the Torah. Instead, the Torah mentions26 only the non-kosher species. The remainder of the species of fowl are kosher. There are 24 forbidden species. They are:
a) the eagle,27
b) the ossifrage,
c) the osprey;
d) the kite, this is identical with the rayah mentioned in Deuteronomy,
e) the vulture, this is identical with the dayah mentioned in Deuteronomy,
f) members of the vulture family; for the Torah states "according to its family," implying that two species [are forbidden],
g) the raven,
|
h) the starling;28 since the Torah states "according to its family" with regard to the raven, the starling is included,
i) the ostrich,
j) the owl,
k) the gull,
l) the hawk,
m) the gosshawk, for this is among the hawk family; and the verse says "according to its family,"
n) the falcon,
|
o) the cormorant,
p) the ibis,
q) the swan,
r) the pelican,
s) the magpie,
t) the stork,
u) the heron,
v) members of the heron family; for the Torah states "according to its family,"
w) the hoopie, and
x) the bat.
|
סימני עוף טהור לא נתפרש מן התורה אלא מנה מנין טמאים בלבד ושאר מיני העוף מותרין והמינין האסורין ארבעה ועשרים הן ואלו הן:
(א) נשר (ב) פרס (ג) עזניה (ד) דאה והיא הראה האמורה במשנה תורה (ה) איה והיא הדיה האמורה במשנה תורה (ו) מין האיה שכן כתוב בה למינה מכלל שהוא שני מינין (ז) עורב (ח) זרזיר שכן נאמר בעורב למינו להביא את הזרזיר (ט) יענה (י) תחמס (יא) שחף (יב) נץ (יג) ושרנקא והוא מין הנץ שכן כתוב בו למינהו (יד) כוס (טו) שלך (טז) ינשוף (יז) תנשמת (יח) קאת (יט) רחמה (כ) חסידה (כא) האנפה (כב) מין האנפה שכן נאמר בה למינה (כג) הדוכיפת (כד) העטלף:
15
Whoever is knowledgeable with regard to these species29and their names30 may partake of any fowl from other species.31 A kosher species of fowl may be eaten based on tradition, i.e., that it is accepted simply in that place that the species of fowl is kosher.32 A hunter's word is accepted if he says: "The hunter who taught me told me33 that this fowl is permitted," provided that [teacher] has an established reputation as being knowledgeable with regard to these species and their names.
טו
כל מי שהוא בקי במינין אלו ובשמותיהן הרי זה אוכל עוף שאינו מהם ואינו צריך בדיקה ועוף טהור נאכל במסורת והוא שיהיה דבר פשוט באותו מקום שזה עוף טהור ונאמן צייד לומר עוף זה התיר לי רבי הצייד והוא שיוחזק אותו צייד שהוא בקי במינין אלו ובשמותיהן:
16
Whoever does not recognize these species and does not know their names must check according to the following signs given by our Sages: Any fowl that attacks with its claws34 and eats is known to be among these species and is unkosher. If [a fowl] does not attack with its claws and eat, it is kosher if it possesses one of the following signs: a) it has an extra claw,35 b) a crop;36 this is also referred to as a mur'ah, c) [the membrane of] its craw37 can be peeled by hand.38
טז
מי שאינו מכירן ואינו יודע שמותיהן בודק בסימנין אלו שנתנו חכמים כל עוף שהוא דורס ואוכל בידוע שהוא מאלו המינין וטמא ושאינו דורס ואוכל אם יש בו אחד משלשה סימנין אלו הרי זה עוף טהור ואלו הן:
אצבע יתירה או זפק והיא המוראה או שהיה קרקבנו נקלף ביד:
17
[The rationale is that] there are none of the forbidden species that do not attack with its claws and eat and possesses one of these three signs with the exception of the ossifrage and the osprey. And the ossifrage and the osprey are not found in settled areas, but rather in the deserts of the distant islands that are very far removed to the extent that are located at the ends of the settled portions of the world.
יז
לפי שאין בכל אלו המינין האסורין מין שאינו דורס ויש בו אחד משלשה סימנין אלו חוץ מפרס ועזניה ופרס ועזניה אינן מצויין בישוב אלא במדברות איי הים הרחוקות עד מאד שהן סוף הישוב:
18
If its craw can be peeled with a knife, but cannot be peeled by hand and it does not possess any other sign even though it is not a bird of prey, there is an unresolved doubt regarding the matter.39 If the membrane was firm and tightly attached, but [the craw] was left in the sun and it became looser [to the extent that] it could be peeled by hand, [the species] is permitted.
יח
היה הקרקבן נקלף בסכין ואינו נקלף ביד ואין בו סימן אחר אף על פי שאינו דורס הרי זה ספק היה חזק ודבק והניחו בשמש ונתרפה ונקלף ביד הרי זה מותר:
19
The Geonim said that they have an existing tradition that one should not rule to permit a fowl that possesses only one of these signs unless that sign is that its craw can be peeled by hand. If, however, it cannot be peeled by hand, it was never permitted [to be eaten] even if it possesses a crop or an extra claw.
יט
אמרו הגאונים שמסורת היא בידיהם שיאן מורין להתיר עוף הבא בסימן אחד אלא אם היה אותו סימן שיקלף קרקבנו ביד אבל אם אינו נקלף ביד אע"פ שיש לו זפק או אצבע יתירה מעולם לא התירוהו:
20
Whenever a bird divides its claws when a line is extended for it,40placing two on one side and two on the other or it seizes an object in the air and eats while in the air, it is a bird of prey41 and non-kosher. Any species that lives together with non-kosher species and resembles them, is itself non-kosher.42
כ
כל עוף שחולק את רגליו כשמותחין לו חוט שתים לכאן ושתים לכאן או שקולט מן האויר ואוכל באויר הרי זה דורס וטמא וכל השוכן עם הטמאים ונדמה להם הרי זה טמא:
21
There are eight species of locusts which the Torah permitted:
a) a white locust,43 b) a member of the white locust family,44 the razbenit, c) the spotted grey locust, d) a member of the spotted grey locust family, the artzubiya, e) the red locust, d) a member of the red locust family, the bird of the vineyards, f) the yellow locust, g) a member of the yellow locust family, the yochanah of Jerusalem.
כא
ומיני חגבים שהתירה תורה שמונה ואלו הן:
(א) חגב (ב) מין חגב והוא הרזבנית (ג) חרגול (ד) ומין חרגול והוא ערצוביא (ה) ארבה (ו) ומין ארבה והיא צפורת כרמים (ז) סלעם (ח) ומין סלעם והיא יוחנא ירושלמית:
22
Whoever is knowledgeable with regard to these species and their names may partake of them. A hunter's word is accepted as [stated with regard] to a fowl.45 A person who is not familiar with them should check their identifying signs. [The kosher species] have three signs. Whenever a species has four legs, four wings that cover the majority of the length and the majority of the width of its body, and it has two longer legs to hop, it is a kosher species.46 Even if its head is elongated and it has a tail, if it is referred to as a locust, it is a kosher species.47
כב
מי שהוא בקי בהן ובשמותיהן אוכל והצייד נאמן עליהן כעוף ומי שאינו בקי בהן בודק בסימנין ושלשה סימנין יש בהן:
כל שיש לו ארבע רגלים וארבע כנפים שחופות רוב אורך גופו ורוב הקף גופו ויש לו שני כרעים לנתר בהם הרי זה מין טהור ואף על פי שראשו ארוך ויש לו זנב אם היה שמו חגב טהור:
23
When [a locust] does not have wings or extended legs at present, or its wings do not cover the majority [of its body], but it will grow them later when it grows larger, it is permitted [to be eaten] at present.
כג
מי שאין לו עכשיו כנפים או כרעים או שאין לו כנפים החופין את רובו ועתיד לגדל אותן אחר זמן כשיגדיל הרי זה מותר מעתה:
24
There are two signs of [kosher] fish: fins and scales. Fins are used by the fish to swim and scales are those which cling48 to its entire body. Any fish that possesses scales will have fins.49 If it does not have them at present, but when it grows, it will have them or if it has scales while in the sea, but when it emerges it sheds its scales,50 it is permitted.
When a fish does not have scales that cover its entire body, it is permitted. Even if it has only one fin and one scale,51 it is permitted.
כד
ובדגים שני סימנין:
סנפיר וקשקשת וסנפיר הוא שפורח בו וקשקשת היא הדבוקה בכל גופו וכל שיש לו קשקשת יש לו סנפיר אין לו עכשיו וכשיגדיל יהיה לו או שיש לו קשקשת כשהוא בים וכשיעלה ישיר קשקשיו הרי זה מותר ומי שאין לו קשקשים החופין את כולו מותר אפילו אין בו אלא סנפיר אחת וקשקשת אחת הרי זה מותר:
FOOTNOTES
1.
The Rambam includes these four among the Torah's 613 mitzvot in his Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandments 149-152). The Ra'avad (in his hasagot to the listing of the mitzvot at the beginning of the Mishneh Torah) and the Ramban (in his hasagot to general principle 6 in Sefer HaMitzvot) differ and maintain that they should not be counted as mitzvot. According to their view, the mitzvot involve the observance of the prohibitions, but there is no positive act involved that could be considered as the observance of a commandment. [The Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 153, 470, 158, and 155) mentions these mitzvot, but explains that he personally subscribes to the opinion of the Ramban that they should br not included among the 613 mitzvot.]
In his Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam explains his position. Leviticus 11:2 states: "This is the living creature that you may eat...." The Sifri commenting on that verse describes it as a positive commandment. Now there is no positive commandment to eat kosher meat. The commandment is to know which species are kosher and to make a distinction between them and those which are not kosher meat as implied by the verse the Rambam cites here: "And you shall distinguish...." For it is only in this way, that one will be able to eat kosher meat. See also the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh. And see Chapter 2, Halachah 1, where the Rambam explains how he derives the idea that both a positve mitzvah and a negative mitzvah are involved.
3.
The Ra'avad questions why the Rambam does not mention a rabbit or a hare. The Torah specifically mentions that they chew their cud. The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam does not mention them because they have teeth on their upper jaw.
The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 79:1) also mention that a camel has two teethlike growths on its upper jaw, but they do not in any way resemble teeth.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam's intent is that any kosher domesticated animal or wild beast that chews its cud will not have teeth on its upper jaw and every such animal will have a split hoof.
4.
I.e., if one sees that the domesticated animal is not a camel, one can assume that it is kosher, for a camel is the only non-kosher animal without teeth on its upper jaw.
5.
For a pig is the only non-kosher animal with split hooves.
6.
For before slaughtering it, such an inspection would be painful for the animal.
7.
Our translation is based on the commentary of the Meiri to Chullin 59a. Rashi interprets that passage slightly differently and his opinion is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah79:1).
8.
The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 79:1) mention another sign for a kosher animal: horns.
9.
As indicated by the Rambam's statements in the following halachah, the matter is dependent on the species and not the presence of distinguishing signs in and of themselves.
10.
The Ra'avad qualifies the Rambam's ruling, stating that it applies only when the person possesses a non-kosher animal in his herd. If that is not the case, we do not suspect that a non-kosher newborn came from elsewhere. The Maggid Mishneh and the Siftei Cohen 79:6 do not accept this addition.
11.
See also the beginning of ch. 3.
12.
I.e., a calf born with a Siamese twin.
13.
The hoof, however, need not be split as indicated by Halachah 4. See also Rama (Yoreh De'ah 13:5) and Siftei Cohen 13:20 who rule more leniently.
14.
The translation of the names of these seven species is a matter of debate among both Torah commentaries and zoologists. Our translation is taken from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah. Consult the notes there for a detailed discussion of the matter. See also Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 80:3; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 28:4 who discuss these issues. In practice, we partake of the meat of an animal only when there is an established tradition that it is permitted (Siftei Cohen 80:1).
15.
The Maggid Mishneh and others interpret t'o as referring to a wild ox.
16.
To see whether or not they have teeth on their upper jaw, as stated in Halachah 3.
17.
As stated in Hilchot Shechitah, ch. 14.
18.
See Chapter 7.
19.
See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 3:6) for a definition of these terms. The Ra'avad, the Rashba, and Rashi offer slightly different definitions for these terms.
20.
Although it is not domesticated and lives like a wild beast, it is still placed in this category.
21.
This was not a mythical beast, but a species of antelope known to exist during the Talmudic period (Chullin 59b).
22.
And all other kosher wild beasts have two.
23.
I.e., we accept the stringencies resulting from both positions. The Turei Zahav 80:3 adds that since we are not certain that this is required, we do not cover its blood on a festival. Similarly, the Siftei Cohen 80:4 states that a blessing is not recited before covering its blood.
24.
See also Hilchot Nazirut 2:10-11 which states that in certain ways it is like a domesticated animal (its fat is forbidden). In others, it is like a wild beast (its blood must be covered). Still in others it is like neither a domesticated animal or a wild beast (for it is considered as a mixed species with either of them) and in others (that it must be slaughtered), it resembles both.
25.
I.e., even if they are mated, they will not produce offspring.
26.
Leviticus 11:13-19; Deuteronomy 14:12-18.
27.
In this instance as well, the translation of the names of these species is a matter of debate among both Torah commentaries and zoologists. Our translation is taken from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah. Consult the notes there for a detailed discussion of the matter. In practice, we only partake of those species of fowl concerning which we have an established tradition that they are acceptable.
28.
See the Kessef Mishneh and others who state that there is a difference of opinion whether this species is acceptable or not.
29.
As mentioned, there is a difference of opinion regarding the species associated with these names and there are few if any individuals who can claim the desired level of familiarity (see Siftei Cohen 82:1).
30.
As indicated by Chapter 3, Halachah 18, the knowledge of the names of the species is important. Otherwise, the hunter's word is not accepted.
31.
For these are the only ones forbidden by the Torah.
32.
If there is such a tradition, there is no necessity to check the signs mentioned in the following halachah.
33.
Chullin 63b states that this refers to a person who taught hunting and not a teacher of Torah, for it is possible that the Torah teacher will not be able to actually identify the species. Nevertheless, if a Rabbinical authority testifies that he has received the tradition that a species is acceptable, we follow his ruling (Siftei Cohen, loc. cit.).
34.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 3:6), the Rambam defines this as meaning "place its claws on the object that it desires to eat and eats it."
35.
I.e., a claw that is positioned higher and behind the fowl's row of claws (Rashi, Chulin 62a). Although most species of fowl possess such a claw, it is called "extra," because it is not positioned in the row of claws. Alternatively, the Hebrew term yeterah can be translated not as "extra," but as "larger," i.e., a claw that is larger than the others (Rabbenu Nissim).
36.
An organ which parallels a human's stomach.
37.
An extra muscular stomach that exists in fowl.
We are speaking about the inner membrane (Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Chulin 3:6). See Chatam Sofer, Yoreh De'ah, Responsum 50.
38.
Although the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 82:2) quotes the Rambam's words, it concludes: "Even though a fowl possesses these three signs, it should not be eaten, because we suspect that it might be a bird of prey unless they have a tradition given to them by their ancestors that this species is kosher." Similarly, the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 82:3) states: "One should not partake of any fowl unless there is a received tradition that it is kosher. This is the accepted custom. One should not deviate from it." Thus even if a species of fowl possesses these three signs, we do not partake of it.
39.
And we do not permit it.
40.
I.e., it stands on a rope or a pole extended for it by gripping the rope or pole with its claws (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Chulin 3:6).
41.
For these actions indicate that it uses its claws to attack other animals.
42.
Chulin 65a states that only species that are themselves impure will dwell together with impure species.
43.
In this instance as well, the translation of the names of these species is a matter of debate among both Torah commentaries and zoologists. Our translation is taken from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah. Consult the notes there for a detailed discussion of the matter. In practice, it is common in most communities not to partake of any species of locusts (Turei Zahav 85:1). In the Yemenite community, however, there are certain species of locusts which are eaten.
44.
The Torah mentions four names of locust species and in connection with each states "according to its family," indicating that a sub-species is also permitted.
45.
Halachah 15.
46.
Chulin 66a speaks of four identifying signs for a kosher locust: a) four wings, 2 long legs, four legs, and the fact that its wings cover the majority of its body..
47.
Note the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishneh (Chullin81, the conclusion of ch. 3) which states that the factor of fundamental importance is that the specis be referred to as a locust. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 85a).
48.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that this term implies that the scales are not an integral part of the fish but can be separated from its body either by hand or with a utensil. If they cannot be separated from the fish, the fish is not kosher [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 83:1)].
49.
Thus if one finds scales on a piece of fish, there is no need to check whether it possessed fins (the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 83:3).
Chulin 66b asks: If so, why did the Torah mention fins and answers that this magnifies and amplifies the Torah.
50.
There are several species of kosher fish which shed their scales in this manner.
51.
The Tur and Rama (loc. cit.) quote the view of certain Rishonim who maintain that in such an instance, the scale must be located under its gills, fins, or tail.
• Tuesday, 26 Tevet, 5777 · 24 January 2017
• "Today's Day"
• Sunday, Tevet 26, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Va'eira, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 119, 97 to end.
Tanya: Ch. 14. The rank of (p. 59)...to deny the truth!" (p. 59).
In the b'racha V'lamalshinim (p. 55, "Let thee..." in English), pause slightly between ut'mageir ("crush") and v'tachnia ("and subdue"), in consonance with the kavana1 that t'akeir ut'shabeir ut'mageir ("uproot, break, crush") refer to the three kelipot2 that must be completely eradicated. V'tachnia ("subdue") refers to kelipat noga3 that must be subdued, but can be purified.
Compiled and arranged by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 5703 (1943) from the talks and letters of the sixth Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, of righteous memory.
FOOTNOTES
1."Inner meaning" of the word.
2."Shells of evil." See Tanya, Ch. 6 (end).
3."Shell of brightness."
• Daily Thought:
Acts of Light
G‑d desires to have a presence in this world, and in each mitzvah we do, however it is done, He is there.
G‑d desires that His light shine in this world, and in every word of divine wisdom and every heartfelt prayer, His light shines.
G‑d desires yet more—that He be found here in all His essence, that which can neither be spoken nor kept silent, neither of heaven nor of earth, neither of being nor of not-being—that which transcends all of these and from which all extends.
And that is how He is found in a simple, physical deed that shines brightly with divine light.[Torat Menachem, vol. 34 (Likkutei Sichot, vol. 4), Parshat Korach; Maamar Hasam Ragleinu 5718.]
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment