| |||||
- 
- ב"ה - Today in Judaism - Today is Sunday, 13 Tevet, 5778 · December 31, 2017Daily Quote: Two are better than one (Ecclesiastes 4:9)
Daily Torah Study:
Chumash: Shemot, 1st Portion Exodus 1:1-1:17 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation
• Video Class
• Daily Wisdom (short insight)
Exodus Chapter 1
1And these are the names of the sons of Israel who came to Egypt; with Jacob, each man and his household came: אוְאֵ֗לֶּה שְׁמוֹת֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל הַבָּאִ֖ים מִצְרָ֑יְמָה אֵ֣ת יַֽעֲקֹ֔ב אִ֥ישׁ וּבֵית֖וֹ בָּֽאוּ:
And these are the names of the sons of Israel: Although [God] counted them in their lifetime by their names (Gen. 46:8-27), He counted them again after their death, to let us know how precious they are [to Him], because they were likened to the stars, which He takes out [From beyond the horizon] and brings in by number and by name, as it is said: who takes out their host by number; all of them He calls by name (Isa. 40:26). [From Tanchuma Buber, Shemot 2; Exod. Rabbah 1:3]
ואלה שמות בני ישראל: אף על פי שמנאן בחייהן בשמותן, חזר ומנאן במיתתן [אחר מיתתן], להודיע חבתן שנמשלו לכוכבים, שמוציאן ומכניסן במספר ובשמותם, שנאמר (ישעיהו מ כו) המוציא במספר צבאם לכולם בשם יקרא:
2Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah. ברְאוּבֵ֣ן שִׁמְע֔וֹן לֵוִ֖י וִֽיהוּדָֽה:
3Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin. גיִשָּׂשכָ֥ר זְבוּלֻ֖ן וּבִנְיָמִֽן:
4Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher. דדָּ֥ן וְנַפְתָּלִ֖י גָּ֥ד וְאָשֵֽׁר:
5Now all those descended from Jacob were seventy souls, and Joseph, [who] was in Egypt. הוַיְהִ֗י כָּל־נֶ֛פֶשׁ יֹֽצְאֵ֥י יֶֽרֶךְ־יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב שִׁבְעִ֣ים נָ֑פֶשׁ וְיוֹסֵ֖ף הָיָ֥ה בְמִצְרָֽיִם:
and Joseph, [who] was in Egypt: Now were not he and his sons included in the seventy? What then does this teach us? Did we not know that he was in Egypt? But [this clause comes] to inform you of Joseph’s righteousness. He, the Joseph who tended his father’s flocks, is the same Joseph who was in Egypt and became a king, and he retained his righteousness. [From Sifrei, Ha’azinu 334]
ויוסף היה במצרים: והלא הוא ובניו היו בכלל שבעים, ומה בא ללמדנו, וכי לא היינו יודעים שהוא היה במצרים, אלא להודיעך צדקתו של יוסף, הוא יוסף הרועה את צאן אביו, הוא יוסף שהיה במצרים ונעשה מלך ועומד בצדקו:
6Now Joseph died, as well as all his brothers and all that generation. ווַיָּ֤מָת יוֹסֵף֙ וְכָל־אֶחָ֔יו וְכֹ֖ל הַדּ֥וֹר הַהֽוּא:
7The children of Israel were fruitful and swarmed and increased and became very very strong, and the land became filled with them. זוּבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל פָּר֧וּ וַיִּשְׁרְצ֛וּ וַיִּרְבּ֥וּ וַיַּֽעַצְמ֖וּ בִּמְאֹ֣ד מְאֹ֑ד וַתִּמָּלֵ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ אֹתָֽם:
and swarmed: They bore six children at each birth.
וישרצו: שהיו יולדות ששה בכרס אחד:
8A new king arose over Egypt, who did not know about Joseph. חוַיָּ֥קָם מֶֽלֶךְ־חָדָ֖שׁ עַל־מִצְרָ֑יִם אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹֽא־יָדַ֖ע אֶת־יוֹסֵֽף:
A new king arose: [There is a controversy between] Rav and Samuel. One says: He was really new, and the other one says: His decrees were new. [From Sotah 11a, Exod. Rabbah 1:8] Since the Torah does not say: The king of Egypt died, and a new king arose, it implies that the old king was still alive, only that his policies had changed, and he acted like a new king. [Rashi on Sotah 11a]
ויקם מלך חדש: רב ושמואל חד אמר חדש ממש. וחד אמר, שנתחדשו גזרותיו:
and who did not know: [means that] he acted as if he did not know about him.
אשר לא ידע: עשה עצמו כאלו לא ידע:
9He said to his people, "Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more numerous and stronger than we are. טוַיֹּ֖אמֶר אֶל־עַמּ֑וֹ הִנֵּ֗ה עַ֚ם בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל רַ֥ב וְעָצ֖וּם מִמֶּֽנּוּ:
10Get ready, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they increase, and a war befall us, and they join our enemies and wage war against us and depart from the land." יהָ֥בָה נִתְחַכְּמָ֖ה ל֑וֹ פֶּן־יִרְבֶּ֗ה וְהָיָ֞ה כִּֽי־תִקְרֶ֤אנָה מִלְחָמָה֙ וְנוֹסַ֤ף גַּם־הוּא֙ עַל־שׂ֣נְאֵ֔ינוּ וְנִלְחַם־בָּ֖נוּ וְעָלָ֥ה מִן־הָאָֽרֶץ:
Get ready, let us deal shrewdly with them: Heb. הָבָה. Every הָבָה [found in the Torah] is an expression of preparation and readiness. That is to say: Prepare yourselves for this.
הבה נתחכמה לו: כל הבה לשון הכנה והזמנה לדבר הוא, כלומר הזמינו עצמכם לכך:
let us deal shrewdly with them: With the people [of Israel]. Let us act shrewdly regarding what to do to them. Our Rabbis, however, interpreted [that Pharaoh said], Let us deal shrewdly with the Savior of Israel [thus interpreting לוֹ as to him] by afflicting them [to die] with water, for He has already sworn that He would not bring a flood to the world. (But they [the Egyptians] did not understand that upon the whole world He would not bring [a flood] but He would bring it upon one nation In an old Rashi manuscript.) from Sotah 11a]
נתחכמה לו: לעם. נתחכמה מה לעשות לו. ורבותינו דרשו נתחכם למושיען של ישראל לדונם במים, שכבר נשבע שלא יביא מבול לעולם (והם לא הבינו שעל כל העולם אינו מביא, אבל הוא מביא על אומה אחת):
and depart from the land: against our will. Our Rabbis, however, interpreted [i. e., depicted Pharaoh] as a person who curses himself but ascribes his curse to others. And it is as if it were written: and we will depart from the land, and they will take possession of it. [From Sotah 11a]
ועלה מן הארץ: על כרחנו. ורבותינו דרשו כאדם שמקלל עצמו ותולה קללתו באחרים, והרי הוא כאלו כתב ועלינו מן הארץ והם יירשוה:
11So they appointed over them tax collectors to afflict them with their burdens, and they built store cities for Pharaoh, namely Pithom and Raamses. יאוַיָּשִׂ֤ימוּ עָלָיו֙ שָׂרֵ֣י מִסִּ֔ים לְמַ֥עַן עַנֹּת֖וֹ בְּסִבְלֹתָ֑ם וַיִּ֜בֶן עָרֵ֤י מִסְכְּנוֹת֙ לְפַרְעֹ֔ה אֶת־פִּתֹ֖ם וְאֶת־רַֽעַמְסֵֽס:
over them: Over the people.
עליו: על העם:
tax collectors: Heb. שָׂרֵי מִסִּים, lit., tax officers. מִסִּים denotes an expression of a tax (מַס), [so מִסִּים denotes] officers who collect the tax from them. Now what was the tax? That they build store cities for Pharaoh.
מסים: לשון מס, שרים שגובין מהם המס. ומהו המס, שיבנו ערי מסכנות לפרעה:
to afflict them with their burdens: [I.e., with the burdens] of the Egyptians.
למען ענתו בסבלתם: של מצרים:
store cities: Heb. מִסְכְּנֹתעָרֵי. As the Targum renders: קִרְוֵי בֵיתאוֹצָרָא, cities of storehouses], and similarly, Go, come to this treasurer (הַסּוֹכֵן) (Isa. 22:15), to the treasurer appointed over the storehouses. [From Exod. Rabbah 1:10]
ערי מסכנות: כתרגומו. וכן (ישעיהו כב טו) לך בא אל הסוכן הזה, גזבר הממונה על האוצרות:
Pithom and Raamses: which were originally unfit for this, and they strengthened them and fortified them for storage.
את פתם ואת רעמסס: שלא היו ראויות מתחלה לכך ועשאום חזקות ובצורות לאוצר:
12But as much as they would afflict them, so did they multiply and so did they gain strength, and they were disgusted because of the children of Israel. יבוְכַֽאֲשֶׁר֙ יְעַנּ֣וּ אֹת֔וֹ כֵּ֥ן יִרְבֶּ֖ה וְכֵ֣ן יִפְרֹ֑ץ וַיָּקֻ֕צוּ מִפְּנֵ֖י בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:
But as much as they would afflict them: In whatever [way] they set their heart to afflict [them], so was the heart of the Holy One, blessed be He, to multiply [them] and to strengthen [them].
וכאשר יענו אתו: בכל מה שהם נותנין לב לענות, כן לב הקב"ה להרבות ולהפריץ:
so did they multiply and so did they gain strength: Heb. כֵּן יִרְבֶּה וְכֵן יִפְרֹץ, lit., so will they multiply and so will they gain strength. [It means, however,] so did they multiply and so did they gain strength. Its midrashic interpretation is, however: The Holy Spirit says this: You [Pharaoh] say, Lest they multiply, but I say, So will they multiply. [From Sotah 11a]
כן ירבה: כן רבה וכן פרץ. ומדרשו רוח הקודש אומרת כן אתם אומרים פן ירבה, ואני אומר כן ירבה:
and they were disgusted: They were disgusted with their lives. (Others explain: And the Egyptians were disgusted with themselves, and it is easy to understand why.) Our Rabbis, however, interpreted it to mean that they [the Israelites] were like thorns (כקוצים) in their eyes -[from Sotah 11a].
ויקצו: קצו בחייהם. ורבותינו דרשו כקוצים היו בעיניהם:
13So the Egyptians enslaved the children of Israel with back breaking labor. יגוַיַּֽעֲבִ֧דוּ מִצְרַ֛יִם אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בְּפָֽרֶךְ:
with back-breaking labor: Heb. בְּפָרֶ. With hard labor that crushes the body and breaks it.
בפרך: בעבודה קשה המפרכת את הגוף ומשברתו:
14And they embittered their lives with hard labor, with clay and with bricks and with all kinds of labor in the fields, all their work that they worked with them with back breaking labor. ידוַיְמָֽרֲר֨וּ אֶת־חַיֵּיהֶ֜ם בַּֽעֲבֹדָ֣ה קָשָׁ֗ה בְּחֹ֨מֶר֙ וּבִלְבֵנִ֔ים וּבְכָל־עֲבֹדָ֖ה בַּשָּׂדֶ֑ה אֵ֚ת כָּל־עֲבֹ֣דָתָ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־עָֽבְד֥וּ בָהֶ֖ם בְּפָֽרֶךְ:
15Now the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, one who was named Shifrah, and the second, who was named Puah. טווַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרַ֔יִם לַֽמְיַלְּדֹ֖ת הָֽעִבְרִיֹּ֑ת אֲשֶׁ֨ר שֵׁ֤ם הָֽאַחַת֙ שִׁפְרָ֔ה וְשֵׁ֥ם הַשֵּׁנִ֖ית פּוּעָֽה:
to the midwives: Heb. לַמְיַלְּדֹת. This is an expression similar מוֹלִידוֹת, [meaning] causing to give birth, but there is a light form and there is a heavy form, similar to שׁוֹבֵר, breaks, and מְשַׁבֵּר, shatters, דּוֹבֵר, says, and מְדַבֵּר, speaks. So are מוֹלִיד and מְיַלֵּד. Rashi classifies the Hebrew conjugations, those that have a dagesh in the second root letter, and those that do not. Of the seven conjugations, three have a dagesh, and four do not. Since it is more difficult to pronounce the letters with the dagesh, those conjugations are referred to as the heavy form, and those without the dagesh are referred to as the light (קַלִּים) [Sefer Hazikkaron]
למילדת: הוא לשון מולידות, אלא שיש לשון קל ויש לשון כבד, כמו שובר ומשבר, דובר ומדבר, כך מוליד ומילד:
Shifrah: This was Jochebed, [called Shifrah] because she beautified [מְשַׁפֶּרֶת] the newborn infant. [From Sotah 11b]
שפרה: זו יוכבד על שם שמשפרת את הולד:
Puah: This was Miriam, [called Puah] because she cried (פּוֹעָה) and talked and cooed to the newborn infant in the manner of women who soothe a crying infant. פּוֹעָה is an expression of crying out, similar to “Like a travailing woman will I cry (אֶפְעֶה) " (Isa. 42:14). Rashi on Sotah 11b explains that she played with the infant to soothe and amuse him.
פועה: זו מרים שפועה ומדברת והוגה לולד כדרך הנשים המפייסות תינוק הבוכה. פועה לשון צעקה, כמו (ישעיהו מב יד) כיולדה אפעה:
16And he said, "When you deliver the Hebrew women, and you see on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall put him to death, but if it is a daughter, she may live." טזוַיֹּ֗אמֶר בְּיַלֶּדְכֶן֙ אֶת־הָ֣עִבְרִיּ֔וֹת וּרְאִיתֶ֖ן עַל־הָֽאָבְנָ֑יִם אִם־בֵּ֥ן הוּא֙ וַֽהֲמִתֶּ֣ן אֹת֔וֹ וְאִם־בַּ֥ת הִ֖וא וָחָֽיָה:
When you deliver: Heb. בְּיַלְדְכֶן, like בְּהוֹלִידְכֶן. See Rashi on preceding verse.
בילדכן: כמו בהולידכן:
on the birthstool: Heb. הָאָבְנָיִם, the seat of the woman in childbirth, but elsewhere (Isa. 37:3) it is called מַשְׁבֵּר Similar to this, [we find] who does work on the אָבְנָיִם (Jer. 18:3), the seat [i.e., place] of the tools of a potter. (Compare commentary digest in Judaica Press Jer. 18.3.)
על האבנים: מושב האשה היולדת, ובמקום אחר קוראו משבר, וכמוהו (ירמיהו יח ג) עושה מלאכה על האבנים, מושב כלי אומנות יוצר חרס:
if it is a son, etc: Pharaoh cared only about the males, because his astrologers told him that a son was destined to be born who would save them. [From Exod. Rabbah 1:18]
אם בן הוא וגו': לא היה מקפיד אלא על הזכרים, שאמרו לו אצטגניניו שעתיד להוולד בן המושיע אותם:
she may live: Heb. וָחָיָה, וְתִחְיֶה, she may live.
וחיה: ותחיה:
17The midwives, however, feared God; so they did not do as the king of Egypt had spoken to them, but they enabled the boys to live. יזוַתִּירֶ֤אןָ הַֽמְיַלְּדֹת֙ אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֔ים וְלֹ֣א עָשׂ֔וּ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר דִּבֶּ֥ר אֲלֵיהֶ֖ן מֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרָ֑יִם וַתְּחַיֶּ֖יןָ אֶת־הַיְלָדִֽים:
but they enabled the boys to live: They provided water and food for them. [From Sotah 11b] [The word וַתְּחַיֶּיןָ is found in verse 17 and again in verse 18.] The first is translated וְקַיָּמָא, and they enabled to live, and the second וְקַיֵּמְתִּין, and you enabled to live, because in Hebrew, for the feminine plural, this word and others like it are used as the third person past tense and the second person past tense, e.g. “And they said (וַתֹּאמַרְןָ), ‘An Egyptian man מִצְרִי) (אִישׁ ’” (Exod. 2:19), the past tense, like וַיֹּאמְרוּ for the masculine plural; you have spoken (וַתְּדַבֵּרְנָה) with your בְּפִיכֶם (Jer. 44:25), an expression like וַתְּדַבֵּרְנָה, the equivalent of דִבַּרְךְתֶּם for the masculine plural. Similarly, You have profaned (וַתְּחַלֶּלְנָה) Me before My people (Ezek. 13:19), the past tense, an expression like חִלַּלְךְתֶּם, the equivalent of וַתְּחַלּלוּ for the masculine plural. If it was necessary to supply the infants with food, Ohr Hachayim asks why the midwives did not do it prior to Pharaoh’s decree. He answers that the Torah means that despite Pharaoh’s decree, the midwives continued their previous practice, that is, supplying needy children with nourishment. He suggests further that they particularly sustained the male children lest one die and they be suspected of being responsible for his death. Rashi explains that in the Hebrew, there is a conversive vav, (turning past into future and future into past). Therefore, since the future forms of the feminine plural, both in the second person and in the third person, are identical, the same is true for the past forms with the conversive vav. [Mizrachi] In Aramaic, however, since there is no conversive vav, the two past forms are different. [Divrei David]
ותחיין את הילדים: מספקות להם מים ומזון. תרגום הראשון וקיימא והשני וקיימתין, לפי שלשון עברית לנקבות רבות, תיבה זו וכיוצא בה, משמשת לשון פעלו ולשון פעלתן, כגון (שמות ב יט) ותאמרנה איש מצרי, לשון עבר, כמו ויאמרו לזכרים, ותדברנה בפיכם (ירמיהו מד כה) לשון דברתן, כמו ותדברו לזכרים. וכן (יחזקאל יג יט) ותחללנה אותי אל עמי, לשון עבר חללתן, כמו ותחללו לזכרים:
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 69 - 71
• Hebrew text
• English text
Chapter 69
1. For the Conductor, on the shoshanim,1 by David.
2. Deliver me, O God, for the waters have reached until my soul!
3. I have sunk in muddy depths without foothold; I have come into deep waters, and the current sweeps me away.
4. I am wearied by my crying, my throat is parched; my eyes pined while waiting for my God.
5. More numerous than the hairs on my head are those who hate me without reason. Mighty are those who would cut me off, those who are my enemies without cause. What I have not stolen, I will then have to return.
6. O God, You know my folly, and my wrongs are not hidden from You.
7. Let not those who hope in You be shamed through me, O my Lord, God of Hosts; let not those who seek You be disgraced through me, O God of Israel,
8. because for Your sake I have borne humiliation, disgrace covers my face.
9. I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's sons,
10. for the envy of Your House has consumed me, and the humiliations of those who scorn You have fallen upon me.
11. And I wept while my soul fasted, and it was a humiliation to me.
12. I made sackcloth my garment, and became a byword for them.
13. Those who sit by the gate speak of me, and [of me] are the songs of drunkards.
14. May my prayer to You, Lord, be at a gracious time; God, in Your abounding kindness, answer me with Your true deliverance.
15. Rescue me from the mire, so that I not sink; let me be saved from my enemies and from deep waters.
16. Let not the current of water sweep me away, nor the deep swallow me; and let not the pit close its mouth over me.
17. Answer me, Lord, for Your kindness is good; according to Your abundant mercies, turn to me.
18. Do not hide Your face from Your servant, for I am in distress-hurry to answer me.
19. Draw near to my soul and liberate it; redeem me, so that my enemies [not feel triumphant].
20. You know my humiliation, my shame, and my disgrace; all my tormentors are before You.
21. Humiliation has broken my heart, and I have become ill. I longed for comfort, but there was none; for consolers, but I did not find.
22. They put gall into my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
23. Let their table become a trap before them, and [their] serenity, a snare.
24. Let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and let their loins continually falter.
25. Pour Your wrath upon them, and let the fierceness of Your anger overtake them.
26. Let their palace be desolate, let there be no dweller in their tents,
27. for they persecute the one whom You struck, and tell of the pain of Your wounded ones.
28. Add iniquity to their iniquity, and let them not enter into Your righteousness.
29. May they be erased from the Book of Life, and let them not be inscribed with the righteous.
30. But I am poor and in pain; let Your deliverance, O God, streng-then me.
31. I will praise the Name of God with song, I will extol Him with thanksgiving!
32. And it will please the Lord more than [the sacrifice of] a mature bull with horns and hooves.
33. The humble will see it and rejoice; you seekers of God, [see] and your hearts will come alive.
34. For the Lord listens to the needy, and He does not despise His prisoners.
35. Let heaven and earth praise Him, the seas and all that moves within them,
36. for God will deliver Zion and build the cities of Judah, and they will settle there and possess it;
37. and the seed of His servants will inherit it, and those who love His Name will dwell in it.
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument shaped like a shoshana, a rose (Metzudot).
Chapter 70
David prays that his enemies be shamed and humiliated for their shaming him and reveling in his troubles. Then the righteous will rejoice, and chant songs and praises always.
1. For the Conductor, by David, to remind.
2. O God, [come] to rescue me; O Lord, hurry to my aid.
3. Let those who seek my life be shamed and disgraced; let those who wish me harm retreat and be humiliated.
4. Let those who say, "Aha! Aha!" be turned back in return for their shaming [me].
5. Let all who seek You rejoice and delight in You, and let those who love Your deliverance say always, "May God be exalted!”
6. But I am poor and needy; hurry to me, O God! You are my help and deliverer; O God, do not delay!
Chapter 71
In this awe-inspiring prayer, David speaks of his enemies' desire to kill him, declaring him deserving of death.
1. I have taken refuge in You, O Lord; I will never be shamed.
2. Rescue me and deliver me in Your righteousness; incline Your ear to me and save me.
3. Be for me a sheltering rock, to enter always. You have ordered my salvation, for You are my rock and my fortress.
4. O my God, rescue me from the hand of the wicked, from the palm of the scheming and violent.
5. For You are my hope, O my Lord, God, my security since my youth.
6. I have relied on You from the womb; You drew me from my mother's innards; my praise is of You always.
7. I became an example to the masses, yet You were my mighty refuge.
8. Let my mouth be filled with Your praise, all day long with Your glory.
9. Do not cast me aside in old age; do not forsake me when my strength fails;
10. for my enemies say of me, and those who watch my soul conspire together,
11. saying, "God has forsaken him. Give chase and catch him, for there is no rescuer.”
12. O God, do not distance Yourself from me; my God, hurry to my aid.
13. Let the adversaries of my soul be shamed and consumed; let those who seek my harm be enwrapped in disgrace and humiliation.
14. But as for me, I will always hope; I will add to all Your praises.
15. My mouth will tell of Your righteousness, all day long of Your deliverance, for I do not know their number.
16. I come with the strength of my Lord, God; I mention Your righteousness, Yours alone.
17. O God, You have taught me since my youth, and to this day I tell of Your wonders.
18. Even into old age and hoariness, O God, do not abandon me, until I tell of Your might to the generations, and of Your strength to all who are to come.
19. Your righteousness, O God, reaches the high heavens, for You do great things; O God, who is like You!
20. You, Who has shown me many and grievous troubles, You will revive me again; You will lift me again from the depths of the earth.
21. You will increase my greatness; You will turn and console me.
22. I too1 will thank You on the lyre for Your faithfulness, My God; I will sing to You on the harp, O Holy One of Israel.
23. My lips will rejoice when I sing to you, as well as my soul which You have redeemed.
24. My tongue will also utter Your righteousness all day, for those who seek my harm are shamed and disgraced.
FOOTNOTES
1.As you increase my greatness, so will I increase your praise (Metzudot).
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, Chapter 11
• English Text (Lessons in Tanya)
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
Sunday, Tevet 13, 5778 · December 31, 2017
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, Chapter 11
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Yehoshua B. Gordon Watch • Listen
• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Manis Freidman Listen • Download MP3
Having described in ch. 9 the ongoing battle between the divine and animal souls to capture and dominate the body, the Alter Rebbe proceeds, in ch. 10, to define the term tzaddik within the context of this struggle.
He explains there that tzaddikim are classified in two general categories. The first is that of the “complete tzaddik,” also known as the “ tzaddik who possesses (only) good.” Such a tzaddik has succeeded in completely transforming the evil of his animal soul to good and holiness. A tzaddik of the second category, that of the “incomplete tzaddik,” or the “ tzaddik who possesses evil,” is one who has not yet completely converted his animal soul to good; he still retains a vestige of its native evil. This remaining fragment of evil, however, is completely nullified within the far greater proportion of good.
In ch. 11, the Alter Rebbe now addresses himself to the definition of the rank that is the antithesis of the tzaddik — that of the wicked person, the rasha. In direct contrast to the tzaddik, whose divine soul overpowers his animal soul, the rasha is one whose animal soul overwhelms his divine soul.
The rank of rasha, too, is divided into two general categories: the “complete rasha,” or the “rasha who possesses only evil,” and the “incomplete rasha,” or the “rasha who possesses some good.” These categories will be defined in this chapter.
(Note: Following the Talmudic expressions which the Alter Rebbe employs, these terms are henceforth translated as the “rasha who knows (only) evil,” and the “rasha who knows good,” respectively.)
וזה לעומת זה, רשע וטוב לו לעומת צדיק ורע לו
1“One is the opposite of the other”: the “rasha who knows good” is the antithesis of the “tzaddik who knows evil.”
דהיינו שהטוב שבנפשו האלקית שבמוחו ובחלל הימני שבלבו
This means, that the good that is in [this rasha’s] divine soul, which is in his brain and in the right part of his heart (these being the chief dwelling places of the divine soul, as explained in ch. 9),
כפוף ובטל לגבי הרע מהקליפה שבחלל השמאלי
is subservient to, and nullified within, the evil of the animal soul which stems from the kelipah,which is in the left part [of the heart], as explained in ch. 9.
Thus, in the “rasha who knows good” the evil of the animal soul overpowers the good of the divine soul, to the extent that the good is subservient to the evil and is nullified within it.
וזה מתחלק גם כן לרבבות מדרגות
This rank, too, is subdivided into myriads of degrees.
Just as the rank of the “tzaddik who knows evil” is subdivided into myriads of degrees with respect to the nullification within him of the evil to good, so too are there numerous subdivisions within the rank of the “rashawho knows good” with respect to the nullification of good to evil, as the Alter Rebbe continues:
חלוקות בענין כמות ואיכות הביטול וכפיפת הטוב לרע חס ושלום
[The difference between these myriad sublevels lies] in the quantity i.e., the extent and the quality of the nullification and subservience of the good to the evil, G‑d forbid.
The “quantitative” difference between one “rasha who knows good” and another is indicated by whether the good is merely outweighed by a majority of evil, or whether the evil is (say) sixty times more prevalent than the good, and so on. The “qualitative” classification hinges on what aspect of the divine soul is subservient to its evil counterpart: in one rasha the divine soul’s holy capacity for affection may be subservient to the animal soul’s affection for forbidden matters, while in another rasha the subservience may lie in another area. The Alter Rebbe now provides practical illustrations of different levels within the ranks of the “rasha who knows good.”
יש מי שהכפיפה והביטול אצלו מעט מזער
There is one in whom the subservience and nullification of good to evil are exceedingly minor,
ואף גם זאת אינו בתמידות, ולא תדיר לפרקים קרובים
and even these minor degrees are not permanent, nor recurrent at frequent intervals.
אלא לעתים רחוקים מתגבר הרע על הטוב, וכובש את העיר קטנה הוא הגוף
Rather, only on infrequent occasions does the evil prevail over the good, conquering the “small city,” i.e., the body which, as mentioned in ch. 9, is likened to a small city, whose conquest is the objective of both the divine and animal souls.
אך לא כולו אלא מקצתו לבד
Furthermore, even when the evil does conquer the body, yet not all of the body falls under its dominion, but only part of it,
שיהיה סר למשמעתו ונעשה לו מרכבה
subjecting it — that part of the body — to its discipline, and causing it to be a “chariot” to the evil, i.e., as subservient to the evil as is a chariot to its driver,
ולבוש להתלבש בו אחד משלשה לבושיה הנ״ל
and further causing that part of the body to serve as a “garment” wherein one of the animal soul’s aforementioned three garments will be clothed.
As mentioned in ch. 6, the garments of the animal soul are sinful thought, speech and action. In the case of therasha now described the evil of the animal soul, even on those rare occasions when it does prevail over the good, can do no more than express itself in one of these areas or “garments”.
Furthermore, even in this restricted field of expression, the evil is further limited in that it can motivate this rasha to commit only minor transgressions, as the Alter Rebbe now continues:
דהיינו או במעשה לבד, לעשות עבירות קלות, ולא חמורות חס ושלום
Namely, the animal soul prevails either in deed alone, in the commission of minor transgressions [only], not major ones, G‑d forbid — for his animal soul has not the power to prevail to such an extent;
או בדיבור לבד, לדבר אבק לשון הרע וליצנות וכהאי גוונא
or it may prevail in speech alone, [but merely] in the utterance of that which borders on slander or scoffing, the evil being too weak to cause him to engage in actual slander or scoffing and the like;
או במחשבה לבד, הרהורי עבירה הקשים מעבירה
or the evil may prevail in thought alone, in contemplations of sin which are in certain respects worse than actual sin.2
Thought is more refined than speech and action, and of the soul’s three garments, it is the one most intimately connected with the soul itself. Therefore, contemplations of sin can befoul the the soul even more than the sinful deed itself.
וגם אם אינו מהרהר בעבירה לעשותה, אלא בענין זיווג זכר ונקיבה בעולם
[This is the case] even where one does not actually contemplate committing a sin, but merely indulges in contemplation on the carnal union of male and female in general,
שעובר על אזהרת התורה: ונשמרת מכל דבר רע, שלא יהרהר ביום כו׳
whereby he violates the admonition of the Torah,3 “You shall guard yourself from every wicked thing,” which our Sages interpret as an injunction that4 “one must not harbor impure fancies by day so that he will not become polluted at night”; thus, contemplation on such matters violates a command of the Torah.
או שהיא שעת הכושר לעסוק בתורה, והוא מפנה לבו לבטלה
or another area in which the evil may prevail in the case of such a partial rasha: when, at a time fitting for Torah study, he turns his heart to inane matters,
כדתנן באבות: הניעור בלילה כו׳ ומפנה לבו כו׳
as stated in the Mishnah, Tractate Avot:5 “He who awakens at night when he has time to study Torah. and turns his heart to vanity, is guilty against his own soul.”
In the latter two instances, then, the animal soul’s garment of thought has prevailed and manifested itself in his body.
שבאחת מכל אלה וכיוצא בהן נקרא רשע בעת ההיא
In any one of all these instances, or their like, i.e., whenever one commits even a minor transgression in thought, speech or action, he is called rasha, wicked, at that time;
שהרע שבנפשו גובר בו ומתלבש בגופו, ומחטיאו ומטמאו
the term rasha meaning that the evil of his animal soul prevails within him, clothing itself in his body, inducing it to sin and defiling it.
ואחר כך גובר בו הטוב שבנפשו האלקית, ומתחרט
Afterwards, after this person has transgressed in any of the above-mentioned matters, the good that is in his divine soul asserts itself, and he is filled with remorse over his transgression in thought, word or action;
ומבקש מחילה וסליחה מה׳, וה׳ יסלח לו, אם שב בתשובה הראויה על פי עצת חכמינו זכרונם לברכה בשלשה חלוקי כפרה שהיה רבי ישמעאל דורש כו׳, כמו שכתוב במקום אחר
he will seek pardon and forgiveness of G‑d for his transgression, and if he repents with the appropriate penitence, in accordance with the counsel of our Sages of blessed memory, G‑d will indeed forgive him, with [one of] the three forms of pardon expounded by Rabbi Yishmael,6 as explained elsewhere.7
The three forms of pardon: (a) If one transgresses a positive precept and repents, he is pardoned at once; (b) if he transgresses a prohibitive commandment and repents, the Day of Atonement together with his repentance atones; (c) if his transgression carries the penalty of karet (spiritual excision) or execution at the hands of the court, then after having repented and undergone the spiritual cleansing of Yom Kippur, suffering brings about full atonement.
However, as the Rebbe notes, the divine pardon elicited by this person’s repentance does not change his status of rasha in the true sense of the term, but only in the borrowed sense of the terms rasha and tzaddik as applied to reward and punishment. Indeed, when weighed on the scales of merits and sins, such a person — who sins rarely, only in minor matters, and then repents immediately — is deemed a tzaddik and deserves reward, since the overwhelming majority of his deeds are good.
But this usage of tzaddik is merely a borrowed term, as explained in ch. 1. As true definitive terms, tzaddikand rasha describe the quality of the good or evil in one’s soul. Viewed in this perspective the person described above is classified as a rasha even after he repents and is pardoned, for he still retains his predisposition toward sin, and his animal soul still tends to dominate him.
Thus far the Alter Rebbe has discussed a higher-level rasha — the “rasha who knows good” — one in whom the animal soul rarely prevails, and then only in one of the three soul-garments of thought, speech and action.
ויש מי שהרע גובר בו יותר
There is, however, another [type of “rasha who knows good”], in whom the evil prevails more strongly.
ומתלבשים בו כל שלשה לבושים של הרע, ומחטיאו בעבירות חמורות יותר, ובעתים קרובים יותר
All three garments of evil clothe themselves in him — he transgresses in thought, in speech, as well as in action; also, the evil causes him to commit more heinous sins, and [to sin] more frequently.
אך בינתיים מתחרט, ובאים לו הרהורי תשובה מבחינת הטוב שבנפשו, שמתגבר קצת בינתיים
Yet he, too, is nevertheless described as a “rasha who knows good,” for intermittently between one sin and the next he experiences remorse, and thoughts of repentance enter his mind, arising from the aspect of good that is still in his soul, that gathers a degree of strength in the interim.
אלא שאין לו התגברות כל כך לנצח את הרע
However, the good within him does not strengthen itself sufficiently to vanquish the evil
לפרוש מחטאיו לגמרי, להיות מודה ועוזב
so that he can rid himself entirely of his sins, and be as one who confesses his sins and abandons them once and for all.
ועל זה אמרו רז״ל: רשעים מלאים חרטות
Concerning such a person, the Rabbis of blessed memory have said,8 “The wicked are full of remorse,” i.e., between sins. It is also possible that even while sinning they regret their actions, but feel themselves unable to master their desires.
שהם רוב הרשעים, שיש בחינת טוב בנפשם עדיין
These represent the majority of the wicked, in whose soul there still lingers some good — and it is this good which causes these feelings of vexation and remorse in their mind and heart.
We thus see that there are many levels within the rank of the “rasha who knows good,” ranging from one who sins only rarely, only in minor matters, and with the involvement of only one soul-garment, to him who sins often, grievously, and with all three soul-garments. Yet they all come under the same heading of the “rasha who knows good,” the difference between them being to what degree the good within them is dominated by the evil — in direct contrast to the rank of the “tzaddik who knows evil,” where there are various degrees of dominance of the evil by the good.
Having defined the “rasha who knows good,” the Alter Rebbe now turns to consider the “rasha who knows (only) evil”:
אבל מי שאינו מתחרט לעולם, ואין באים לו הרהורי תשובה כלל, נקרא רשע ורע לו
But he who never feels contrition, and in whose mind no thoughts of repentance at all ever enter, is called a “rasha who knows (only) evil.”
שהרע שבנפשו הוא לבדו נשאר בקרבו, כי גבר כל כך על הטוב עד שנסתלק מקרבו
For only the evil in his soul has remained in him, having so prevailed over the good that the latter has departed from within him,
ועומד בבחינת מקיף עליו מלמעלה
and the good now stands in a manner of makkif over him, i.e., the good hovers over him, so to speak, in an aloof and external manner, so that he has no conscious awareness of it.
Yet, since he still possesses good, albeit as a makkif, for after all, he possesses a divine soul —
ולכן אמרו רז״ל: אכל בי עשרה שכינתא שריא
Therefore have the Sages said,9 “Over every gathering of any ten Jews rests the Shechinah (the Divine Presence).”
That is to say, even if they are all in the category of the “rasha who knows (only) evil,” the Shechinah still hovers over them; for they too possess good in a manner of makkif. Since at such a gathering the Shechinah is present only in the externally encompassing way of makkif, not entering the consciousness of those assembled, therefore their correspondingly makkif level of good is sufficient to enable them to receive this revelation.
With regard to the subject of the Jew whose animal soul prevails over his divine soul, the following story bears mention.
A certain freethinker once asked of the Tzemach Tzedek: The word Yehudim (“Jews”) is normally spelled in the Book of Esther with one letter yud before the final letter. Why is it that when the word is used there in connection with the harsh decree against the Jews, it is spelled with two letters yud?
The Tzemach Tzedek answered: Yud is numerically equivalent to ten; it represents the ten soul-powers possessed by both the divine and animal souls. There are Jews who conduct their lives solely according to the dictates of the divine soul’s ten powers, while in other Jews the animal soul prevails, and their conduct is dictated also by the animal soul’s ten powers. Haman planned to exterminate all the Jews, even those who were of two yuds, i.e., those ruled by the ten evil soul-powers as well.
But the man persisted: Why then is the word spelled several times with two yuds even after the decree was repealed? To which the Tzemach Tzedek responded: After suffering under Haman’s evil decree and ultimately witnessing G‑d’s salvation, even those Jews repented and became equals of their brethren whose lives were led by the dictates of the divine soul and good inclination. Thus, concluded the Tzemach Tzedek, the two yuds (yud, or yid, is also Yiddish for “Jew”) became equal.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Kohelet 7:14. |
| 2. | Yoma 29a. Cf. Chiddushei Aggadot of Maharsha, ad. loc.; Netivot Olam of Maharal, Netiv HaPerishut. |
| 3. | Devarim 23:10. |
| 4. | Ketubbot 46a. |
| 5. | 3:4. |
| 6. | Yoma 86a. |
| 7. | Tanya, Iggeret HaTeshuvah, ch. 1. |
| 8. | Nedarim 9b. (So cited in early sources, though not to be found in current editions of the Talmud). |
| 9. | Sanhedrin 39a. |
• Sefer Hamitzvot:
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassSunday, Tevet 13, 5778 · December 31, 2017
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Mendel Kaplan Watch • Listen
• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Berel Bell Listen • MP3 Download
Negative Commandment 173
Non-Kosher Fish
"And they shall be a detestable thing to you, you shall not eat from their meat, and their carcasses you shall hold in abomination"—Leviticus 11:11.
It is forbidden to eat any non-kosher fish.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Non-Kosher Fish
Negative Commandment 173
Translated by Berel Bell
The 173rd prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating non-kosher fish.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 regarding those species of fish [that do not have both fins and scales], "They shall be repulsive to you. You must avoid them by not eating their flesh."
The punishment for eating a kezayis [about 1 oz.] of their meat is lashes.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 11:11.
Negative Commandment 175
Flying Insects
"And every creeping flying thing is unclean to you: they shall not be eaten"—Deuteronomy 14:19.
It is forbidden to eat any flying insect, such as flies, bees or hornets.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Flying Insects
Negative Commandment 175
Translated by Berel Bell
The 175th prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating insects that fly,1 such as flies, bees, hornets, and similar species.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement in Deuteronomy,2 "All flying insects are unclean to you. They may not be eaten."
In the words of the Sifri, "The verse 'All flying insects...' constitutes a negative commandment."
The punishment for eating one3 [of these insects] is lashes.
FOOTNOTES
1.See Kapach, 5731, note 70.
2.Deut. 14:19.
3.One gets lashes only for eating an entire insect. If the insect is in pieces, one receives lashes only for eating a kezayis. The same applies to the other prohibitions involving insects.
Negative Commandment 176
Creeping Land Creatures
"And every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten"—Leviticus 11:41.
It is forbidden to eat any creature that creeps on the ground, such as bugs or worms.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Creeping Land Creatures
Negative Commandment 176
Translated by Berel Bell
The 176th prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating insects [that breed] on the ground, such as worms, beetles, and benas vardan.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "Every small creature which breeds on land is repulsive to you. It may not be eaten."
The punishment for eating any of them is lashes.
FOOTNOTES
1.The Arabic name for a type of beetle known to live in damp places.
2.Lev. 11:41.
Negative Commandment 177
Insects that are Born from Decay
"You shall not defile yourselves [by eating] any creeping creature that creeps upon the earth"—Leviticus 11:44.
It is forbidden to eat any species of creature that is born from rotted matter (as opposed to creatures conceived from a male and female).
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Insects that are Born from Decay
Negative Commandment 177
Translated by Berel Bell
The 177th prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating an insect which is created from decayed matter,1 even though it is not a particular species and is not created from a male-female relationship.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "Do not defile your souls [by eating] any small creature that lives on land."
In the words of the Sifri, "The verse, 'any small creature that lives on land' [comes to include an insect] even if it does not multiply."3
This is the difference between the phrase, "a small creature that is shoretz on land," and "a small creature that is romeis [on land]." "A small creature that is shoretz" refers to something that has the ability to produce offspring like itself and reproduces on land. "A small creature that is romeis" refers to something which is created from decayed matter and does not produce a creature like itself.
The punishment for eating any of these is also lashes.
FOOTNOTES
1.See N (and the footnotes) for further discussion of this topic.
2.Lev. 11:44.
3.I.e. coming from the decaying matter, rather than from a parent insect.
Negative Commandment 178
Insects that Develop inside Fruit or Seeds
"Among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, you shall not eat them for they are an abomination"—Leviticus 11:42.
It is forbidden to eat any living creature that is born within fruits or seeds—once they have exited the fruit or seed (even if they have now reentered).
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Insects that Develop inside Fruit or Seeds
Negative Commandment 178
Translated by Berel Bell
The 178th prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating creatures that come into existence within seeds and fruit. [They are prohibited only] after they emerge and crawl on the surface of the seed or fruit. Even if they are found later within the food,1 they may not be eaten, and the punishment for eating them is lashes.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "All small creatures which breed on land may not be eaten, for they are repulsive."
In the words of the Sifri, "This comes to include [an insect that] emerged to the ground3 and then returned."
FOOTNOTES
1.I.e. after emerging once, the insect returned to its original place.
2.Lev. 11:42.
3.I.e. from inside the food to the surface.
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter A Day: Berachot Berachot - Chapter Six
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassBerachot - Chapter Six
1
Anyone who eats bread over which the blessing hamotzi is recited must wash his hands before and after partaking of it.This applies even when the bread one eats is not sacred food.
Although a person's hands are not dirty, nor is he aware that they have contracted any type of ritual impurity, he should not eat until he washes both his hands. Similarly, before [partaking of] any food dipped in liquid, one must wash one's hands.
א
כל האוכל הפת שמברכין עליו המוציא צריך נטילת ידים תחלה וסוף ואע"פ שהיא פת חולין ואף על פי שאין ידיו מלוכלכות ואינו יודע להן טומאה לא יאכל עד שיטול שתי ידיו וכן כל דבר שטיבולו במשקין צריך נטילת ידים תחילה:
Commentary on Halachah 1
2
Whenever a person washes his hands - whether before eating, before the recitation of the Shema, or before prayer - he should recite the following blessing beforehand: "[Blessed are You...] who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the washing of hands."
This is a Rabbinic mitzvah that we have been commanded by the Torah to follow, as [Deuteronomy 17:11] states: "[Do not stray...] from all the laws that they direct you." A blessing should not, however, be recited before washing after eating, for this was instituted only as a protective measure. This rationale, however, obligates a person to be more careful in the observance of this practice.
ב
כל הנוטל ידיו בין לאכילה בין לקריאת שמע בין לתפלה מברך תחלה אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על נטילת ידים שזו מצות חכמים שנצטוינו מן התורה לשמוע מהן שנאמר על פי התורה אשר יורוך ומים אחרונים אין מברכין עליהן שאינם אלא מפני הסכנה ולפיכך חייב אדם להזהר בהן ביותר:
Commentary on Halachah 2
3
Washing hands between one course and another is a matter of choice. If one desires, one may wash; if not, one need not.
There is no obligation to wash before partaking of unconsecrated fruit, whether before eating or afterward. [On the contrary,] whoever washes his hands before partaking of fruit is considered among the haughty.
Whenever bread [is eaten] with salt, it is necessary to wash one's hands afterward, lest it contain Sodomite salt or salt that resembles Sodomite salt, and [after eating,] one [inadvertently] pass one's hands over one's eyes and blind them. This - [the possibility of acrid] salt - is the reason why we are obligated to wash after eating.
In an army camp, [the soldiers] are not obligated to wash before eating, because they are involved in the war. They are, however, obligated to wash afterwards because of the danger involved.
ג
נטילת ידים בין תבשיל לתבשיל רשות רצה נוטל רצה אינו נוטל ופירות של חולין אינן צריכין נטילת ידים בין בתחלה בין בסוף וכל הנוטל ידיו לפירות הרי זה מגסי הרוח כל פת שהמלח בו צריך נטילת ידים באחרונה שמא יש בו מלח סדומית או מלח שטבעו כמלח סדומית ויעביר ידיו על עיניו ויסמא מפני זה חייבין ליטול ידים בסוף כל סעודה מפני המלח ובמחנה פטורים מנטילת ידים בתחלה מפני שהן טרודים במלחמה וחייבין באחרונה מפני הסכנה:
4
To what point should one's hands be washed? To the wrist. How much water should be used? A [minimum of a] revi'it for each pair of hands.
Anything that is considered an intervening substance [and thus invalidates] a ritual immersion is also considered an intervening substance with regard to washing hands. All liquids that may be included in the measure of a mikveh may be included in the measure of the revi'it [necessary for the washing of hands].
ד
עד היכן היא נטילת ידים עד הפרק וכמה שיעור המים רביעית לכל שתי ידים וכל שחוצצים בטבילה חוצץ בנטילת ידים וכל העולה למדת מקוה עולה לשיעור רביעית:
Commentary on Halachah 4
5
Whoever had to wash his hands and [instead] immersed them in the water of a mikveh need not do anything else. If he immersed them in a body of water that does not have the required measure of a mikveh, or in water that has been poured onto the ground, he has not accomplished anything. Water that is poured [by man] can purify hands only when it is poured over them.
ה
כל הצריך נטילת ידים והטביל ידיו במי מקוה אינו צריך דבר אחר ואם הטבילן במים שאין בהם שיעור מקוה או במים שאובין שבקרקע לא עשה כלום שאין המים שאובין מטהרין את הידים אלא בנטילה:
6
Everyone who washes his hands must show concern for four matters:
the water itself - that it not be unacceptable for washing hands,
its measure - that there be a revi'it for each pair of hands,
the container - that one wash from a container,
the individual pouring - that the water come from the power of a person who pours it.
ו
כל הנוטל ידיו צריך להזהר בארבעה דברים:
במים עצמן שלא יהיו פסולין לנטילת ידים ובשיעור שיהיה בהן רביעית לכל שתי ידים ובכלי שיהיו המים שנוטלין בהן בכלי ובנוטל שיהיו המים באין מכח נותן:
7
There are four matters that render water unacceptable: a change in its color, its being left open, its having been used for work, and its becoming spoiled to the point that an animal would not drink from it.
What is implied? Water whose color changes becomes unacceptable whether it is contained [in a pool] in the ground or in a container, or whether it changed because of something that fell into it or because of the place where it is contained.
Similarly, if the water was left uncovered in a manner that causes it to become forbidden to be drunken, it is unacceptable for washing hands.
ז
ארבעה דברים פוסלין את המים שינוי מראה וגלוי ועשיית מלאכה בהן והפסד שמונע את הבהמה מלשתות מהן כיצד מים שנשתנו מראיתן בין בכלים בין בקרקעות בין מחמת דבר שנפל לתוכן בין מחמת מקומן הרי אלו פסולין וכן אם נתגלו גלוי האוסר אותן משתייה נפסלו לנטילת ידים:
8
Any water that was used for a task is considered as sewage water and is unfit to use for washing hands. What is implied? Water that has been drawn from its source, which was used to wash utensils, to dip one's bread in, or the like, whether [it was stored] in a container or [in a pool] in the ground, becomes unacceptable for washing hands.
If one uses the water to wash clean utensils or new ones, it does not becomes unacceptable. Water in which a baker dips crackers is unacceptable. In contrast, water from which [he removes some] to baste the dough when kneading it is acceptable. It is the water that he removes that was used for a task; the water from which he removed it remains acceptable [as before].
ח
כל מים שנעשה בהן מלאכה נעשו שופכין ופסולין לנטילת ידים כיצד מים שאובין שהדיח בהן כלים או ששרה בהם פתו וכיוצא בזה בין בכלים בין בקרקעות פסולין לנטילת ידים הדיח בהן כלים מודחין או חדשים לא פסלן מים שהנחתום מטבל בהן את הכעכים פסולין ושהוא חופן מהן בשעת לישה כשרים שהמים שבחפניו הן שנעשו בהן מלאכה אבל המים שחפן מהם הרי הן בכשרותן:
9
All water that becomes unfit for a dog to drink - e.g., bitter [water], salty [water], very murky [water], foul-smelling [water] - which is contained in a vessel may not be used for washing hands. If [such water] is [contained in a pool] in the ground, one may immerse one's hands in it.
[The following rules apply to] the hot springs of Tiberias. In their [natural] place, one may immerse one's hands in them. If, however, one removed them with a container or diverted a stream of them into another place, they may not be used for either the first or the final washing of the hands, because they are not fit for an animal to drink.
ט
וכל מים שנפסלו משתיית כלב כגון שהיו מרים או מלוחים או עכורין או ריח רע עד שלא ישתה מהן הכלב בכלים פסולין לנטילת ידים ובקרקעות כשרים להטביל חמי טבריא במקומן מטבילין בהם את הידים אבל אם נטל מהן בכלי או שהפליג מהן אמה למקום אחר אין נוטלין מהן לא ראשונים ולא אחרונים מפני שאינן ראויין לשתיית בהמה:
10
One may pour water over one's hands a little at a time until one has poured out the entire amount. If, however, one poured out the entire revi'it at one time, it is acceptable.
Four or five people may wash with a single pouring while they are standing next to each other or with their hands above each other's, provided:
a) they leave space between their hands for the water to enter, and
b) there is enough water in that pouring to provide each one with a revi'it.
י
יש לנוטל ליתן על ידיו מעט מעט עד שיתן כשיעור ואם נתן הרביעית כולה בשטיפה אחת כשר נוטלין ארבעה או חמשה זה בצד זה או יד זה על גבי זה בשטיפה אחת ובלבד שירפו ידיהן כדי שיבא ביניהן המים ויהיה באותה השטיפה כדי רביעית לכל אחד ואחד:
11
One may not use the following to wash one's hands: the sides of vessels, the base of a samovar, pieces of earthenware, or the covering of a jug. Should one modify such a covering to use for washing, it is acceptable. Similarly, a wine-pouch that was modified may be used for the washing of hands.
In contrast, a sack or a basket - [although] they have been modified - may not be used to wash hands. One may not hold water in one's hands and pour it over a colleague's [hands], because one's hands are not a vessel.
Vessels that have been broken to the extent that the laws of ritual impurity no longer apply to them may not be used to wash hands, because they are considered to be broken vessels.
יא
אין נוטלין מים לידים לא בדפנות הכלים ולא בשולי המחץ ולא בחרסים ולא במגופת החבית ואם תיקן המגופה לנטילה נוטלין ממנה לידים וכן החמת שתיקנה נוטלין ממנה לידים אבל שק וקופה שנתקנו אין נוטלין מהן לידים ולא יתן לחבירו בחפניו שאין חפניו כלי וכלים שנשברו שבירה המטהרת אותן מידי טומאה אין נותנין בהם לידים מפני שהן שברי כלים:
Commentary on Halachah 11
12
All vessels, even those made from cow dung or earth, may be used to wash hands, provided they are whole.
A vessel that cannot contain a revi'it or a vessel that does not contain a revi'it may not be used for the washing of hands.
יב
בכל הכלים נוטלים לידים ואפילו כלי גללים וכלי אדמה והוא שיהיו שלמים כלי שאינו מחזיק רביעית או אין בו רביעית אין נותנין ממנה לידים:
Commentary on Halachah 12
13
All people are acceptable to pour water over one's hands, even a deaf-mute, a mentally incapable person, or a minor. If no one else is present, one should hold the vessel between one's knees, and thus pour it out over one's hands; lean a jug over so that the water will fall out over one's hands; or pour the water over each of one's hands individually.
It is acceptable if a monkey pours water over one's hands.
יג
הכל כשרין ליתן לידים אפילו חרש שוטה וקטן אם אין שם אחר מניח הכלי בין ברכיו וצק על ידיו או יטה החבית על ידיו ויטול או נוטל ידו אחת וצק בזו על זו וחוזר וצק בראשונה על השנייה והקוף נוטל לידים:
14
When a person pours water into a trough by hand or by using a pulley, and afterwards the water flows out from it through an irrigation channel that brings the water to vegetables or to animals, it is not acceptable for one to place one's hands in the trough and have the water pass over them, because the water is not coming from "the power of a giver." If one's hands were close to the place where the bucket is poured out so that the water passes over one's hands because of the power of a human being, the washing is acceptable.
יד
השוקת שדולה אדם בידו או בגלגל ונותן לתוכה והמים נמשכין ממנה באמה והולכין ומשקין הירקות או הבהמה והניח ידיו בשוקת ועברו המים ושטפו על ידיו לא עלתה לו נטילה שהרי אין כאן נותן על ידיו ואם היו ידיו קרובות לשפיכת הדלי עד שנמצאו המים שטפו על ידיו מכח נתינת האדם עלתה לו נטילה:
15
When there is a doubt with regard to the water [used to wash one's hands] - e.g., whether it had been used for other tasks or not, whether it contained the required quantity or not, whether it [the water itself] is ritually pure or not, and, similarly, when a person has a doubt whether he washed his hands or not, [in all these instances,] his hands are considered to be pure. In all instances where doubt arises concerning the ritual purity of hands, the hands are considered to be pure.
טו
מים שנסתפק לו אם נעשה מהן מלאכה או לא נעשה אם יש בהן כשיעור או שאין בהן אם הן טהורין או טמאין ספק נטל ידיו ספק לא נטל ידיו ספיקו טהור שכל ספק שבטהרת ידים טהור:
16
When washing before eating, a person should raise his hands upward so that that water will not flow past the wrist, and then return and make the hands impure. In contrast, when washing after eating, a person should hold his hands downward so that all the power of the salt should be rinsed away off one's hands.
Before eating, one may wash into a container or onto the ground. After eating, one should wash only into a container. Before eating, one may wash with hot water or with cold water. After eating, one should not wash with hot water - i.e., water that will scald one's hands. It will not [serve the purpose of] removing filth, because one cannot rub one's hands together with it. If the water is merely warm, it may be used for washing after eating.
טז
מים הראשונים צריך שיגביה ידיו למעלה עד שלא יצאו מים חוץ לפרק ויחזרו ויטמאו את הידים ואחרונים צריך שישפיל ידיו למטה כדי שיצא כל כח המלח מעל ידיו מים ראשונים ניטלים בין על גבי כלי בין על גבי קרקע ואחרונים אינן ניטלין אלא על גבי כלי מים ראשונים ניטלין בין בחמי האור בין בצונן ואחרונים אינן ניטלין בחמין והוא שיהיו חמים שהיד סולדת בהן מפני שאין מעבירין את הזוהמא שאינו יכול לשפשף בהן אבל היו פושרין נוטלין מהן באחרונה:
17
A person may wash his hands in the morning and stipulate that [the washing will be effective] for the entire day. Thus, he will not have to wash before each time he eats. [This rule applies] only when he does not divert his attention from his hands. If, however, he diverts his attention from them, he must wash them whenever it is required.
יז
נוטל אדם ידיו שחרית ומתנה עליהן כל היום ואינו צריך ליטול את ידיו לכל אכילה ואכילה והוא שלא יסיח דעתו מהן אבל אם הסיח דעתו מהן צריך ליטול ידיו בכל עת שצריך נטילה:
18
A person may wrap his hands in a cloth and eat bread or food dipped in liquid although he did not wash his hands.
A person who feeds others need not wash his hands. The person who eats, however, must wash his hands, although another person puts food into his mouth and he does not touch the food at all. Similarly, a person who eats with a fork must wash his hands.
יח
לט אדם את ידיו במפה ואוכל בהן פת או דבר שטיבולו במשקה אע"פ שלא נטל ידיו המאכיל לאחרים אינו צריך נטילת ידים והאוכל צריך נטילת ידים אף על פי שאחר נותן לתוך פיו ואינו נוגע במאכל והוא הדין לאוכל במגריפה שצריך נטילת ידים:
19
It is forbidden to feed someone who did not wash his hands even if one puts the food directly into his mouth.
It is forbidden to treat the washing of hands with disdain. Our Sages have authored many commands and warnings about this manner. Even when one has a minimum amount of water to drink, one should wash one's hands with a portion, eat, and drink the remainder.
יט
אסור להאכיל מי שלא נטל ידיו ואף על פי שהוא נותן לתוך פיו ואסור לזלזל בנטילת ידים וצוויים הרבה צוו חכמים והזהירו על הדבר אפילו אין לו מים אלא כדי שתייה נוטל ידיו במקצתן ואחר כך אוכל ושותה מקצתן:
20
[After washing,] a person must dry his hands before eating. Anyone who eats without drying his hands is considered to have eaten impure bread.
Similarly, whenever a person washes his hands after eating, he should dry them and then recite grace. One should recite grace directly after washing one's hands. No interruptions should be made. It is even forbidden to drink water after washing one's hands after eating until one recites grace.
כ
צריך אדם לנגב את ידיו ואח"כ יאכל וכל האוכל בלא ניגוב ידים כאוכל לחם טמא וכל הנוטל ידיו באחרונה מנגב ואח"כ מברך ותכף לנטילת ידים ברכת המזון לא יפסיק ביניהם בדבר אחר אפילו לשתות מים אחר שנוטל ידיו באחרונה אסור עד שיברך ברכת המזון:
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters A Day: Ma'achalot Assurot Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 5, Ma'achalot Assurot Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 6, Ma'achalot Assurot Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 7
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassMa'achalot Assurot - Chapter 5
1
According to the Oral Tradition, we learnt1 that [the intent of] the Torah's statement "Do not partake of the soul together with the meat" [is to] forbid a limb cut off from a living animal.2 With regard to a limb cut off from a living animal, it was said to Noah [Genesis 9:4]: "But flesh, together with its soul, its blood, you may not eat."3
The prohibition against [partaking of] a limb from a living animal applies to kosher domesticated animals, wild beasts, and fowl, but not to non-kosher species.4
א
מפי השמועה למדו שזה שנאמר בתורה לא תאכל הנפש עם הבשר לאסור אבר שנחתך מן החי ועל אבר מן החי הוא אומר לנח אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו ואיסור אבר מן החי נוהג בבהמה חיה ועוף בטהורים אבל לא בטמאים:
2
The term ever [translated as "limb"] applies both to a limb that has flesh, sinews, and bones, e.g., a hand or a foot, and to an organ that does not have a bone, e.g., the tongue, the testicles, the spleen, the kidneys, the heart, and the like.5 [There is, however, one difference.] When an organ does not possess a bone, the prohibition [against partaking of] a limb from a living animal applies whether one cut off the entire organ or only part of it.6 When, by contrast, a limb possesses a bone, a person is not liable [for violating the prohibition against] a limb from a living animal unless he separates it in its complete state, with its flesh, sinews, and bones. If, however, he only removes flesh from the living animal, he is liable for [the prohibition against partaking of] a trefe [animal] as explained,7 and not because of a limb from a living animal.
ב
אחד אבר שיש בו בשר וגידים ועצמות כגון היד והרגל ואחד אבר שאין בו עצם כגון הלשון והביצים והטחול והכליות וחלב וכיוצא בהן אלא שהאבר שאין בו עצם בין שחתך כולו בין שחתך מקצתו הרי זה אסור משום אבר מן החי והאבר שיש בו עצם אינו חייב עליו משום אבר מן החי עד שיפרוש כברייתו בשר וגידים ועצמות אבל אם פרש מן החי הבשר בלבד חייב עליו משום טריפה כמו שביארנו לא משום אבר מן החי:
3
One is liable for lashes only for partaking of an olive-sized portion of a limb from a living animal. Even if one eats an entire limb or organ, if it is the size of an olive, one is liable;8 if not he is exempt.
If one cut off a olive-sized portion of flesh, sinews, and bones from the limb according to its natural form and ate it, one is liable, even if it possessed only the smallest amount of meat.9 If, however, one separated a limb which he tore off from a living animal and detached the flesh from the sinews and the meat, he is not liable for lashes unless he eats an olive-sized portion of the meat alone. The bones and the sinews are not included in the olive-sized portion since he changed [the limb's] natural form.
ג
האוכל מאבר מן החי כזית לוקה ואפילו אכל אבר שלם אם יש בו כזית חייב פחות מכזית פטור חתך מן האבר כברייתו בשר וגידים ועצמות כזית ואכלו לוקה אע"פ שאין בו בשר אלא כל שהוא אבל אם הפריד האבר אחר שתלשו מן החי והפריד הבשר מן הגידים ומן העצמות אינו לוקה עד שיאכל כזית מן הבשר לבדו ואין העצמות והגידים מצטרפין בו לכזית מאחר ששנה ברייתו:
4
When one divides this organ and eats it bit by bit, he is liable if there is an olive-sized portion of meat in what he ate.10 If not, he is exempt. If he took an olive-sized portion of a limb with flesh, sinews, and bones according to its natural form and ate it, he is liable, even though it became divided inside his mouth before he swallows it.
ד
חלקו לאבר זה ואכלו מעט מעט אם יש במה שאכל כזית בשר חייב ואם לאו פטור לקח כזית מן האבר כברייתו בשר וגידים ועצמות ואכלו אף על פי שנחלק בפיו בפנים קודם שיבלענו חייב:
5
When a person rips a limb from a living animal and causes it to become trefe when doing so, he is doubly liable for partaking of it: once for [partaking of] a limb from a living animal and once for [partaking of] a trefe. Both of these prohibitions take effect at the same time.11 Similarly, if one rips fat from a living animal and partakes of it, he is doubly liable: for [partaking of] a limb from a living animal and for [partaking of] fat.12 If he rips fat from a trefe [animal], he is liable for [the violation of] three [negative commandments].13
ה
תלש אבר מן החי ונטרפה בנטילתו ואכלו חייב שתים משום אבר מן החי ומשום טריפה שהרי שני האסורין באין כאחת וכן התולש חלב מן החי ואכלו לוקה שתים משום אבר מן החי ומשום חלב תלש חלב מן הטריפה ואכלו לוקה שלש:
6
[The following rules apply when] meat is disjoined from an animal and an organ is hanging from it. If it is impossible that this meat will again become a living part of the body, it is forbidden,14 but one is not liable for lashes for it. [This applies] even though it was not separated [from the animal] until after it was slaughtered. If the animal dies, we consider [the limb] as if it fell off while [the animal] was alive.15 Therefore one receives lashes for [partaking] of it, because of the prohibition against [partaking of] a limb from a living animal. If, however, the limb could again become a living part of the body and the animal is ritually slaughtered, it is permitted.16
ו
בשר המדולדל בבהמה ואבר המדולדל בה אם אינו יכול לחזור ולחיות אע"פ שלא פרש אלא אחר שנשחטה אסור ואין לוקין עליו ואם מתה הבהמה רואין אותו כאילו נפל מחיים לפיכך לוקין עליו משום אבר מן החי אבל היכול לחזור ולחיות אם נשחטה הבהמה הרי זה מותר:
7
If one pulled an organ [from its natural position],17 crushed it, ground it, e.g., one crushed testicles or pulled them from their place [and then slaughtered the animal, the organ] is not forbidden according to Scriptural Law. [The rationale is] that it possesses a trace of life - as evidenced by the fact that it does not decay. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to partake of it as a result of a custom followed by the entire Jewish people from previous generations. For it resembles a limb separated from a living animal.
ז
שמט אבר או מעכו או דכו כגון הביצים שמעך אותן או נתקן הרי זה אינו אסור מן התורה שהרי יש בו מקצת חיים ולפיכך אין מסריח ואעפ"כ אסור לאכלו ממנהג שנהגו כל ישראל מקדם שהרי הוא דומה לאבר מן החי:
8
[The following laws apply when an animal's] bone was broken:18 If the flesh or the skin covers the majority of the thickness of the broken bone and the majority of the circumference of the fracture, it is permitted. If the bone emerged outside [the skin], the limb is forbidden. When the animal or the fowl is slaughtered, one should cut off [the limb] at the place where it is broken and discard it. The remainder of the limb is permitted.
We rule that [the limb] is forbidden until the flesh is healed [in all the following situations]: the bone broke, the flesh covers the bone, but that flesh was crushed or decayed like flesh which a doctor would remove, it is scattered in many different places,19 there were many perforations within the flesh,20 the flesh was cracked or pierced like a ring, the flesh was rubbed off from above until only a [thin] peel remained, or the flesh decayed from below around the broken bone to the extent that the flesh surrounding the bone does not touch it.21 If a person partook [of the limb] in any of these [circumstances], he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.
ח
עצם שנשבר אם היה הבשר או העור חופה רוב עוביו של עצם הנשבר ורוב הקף השבר הרי זה מותר ואם יצא העצם לחוץ הרי האבר אסור וכשישחוט הבהמה או העוף יחתוך ממקום השבר וישליכו והשאר מותר נשבר העצם והבשר חופה את רובו אבל היה אותו בשר מרוסס או נתאכל כבשר שהרופא גוררו או שהיה מתלקט הרוב ממקומות הרבה או שהיה הבשר שעליו נקבים נקבים או שנסדק הבשר או שנקדר כמין טבעת או שנגרר הבשר מלמעלה עד שלא נשאר מן הבשר אלא כקליפה או שנתאכל הבשר מלמטה מעל העצם שנשבר עד שנמצא הבשר החופה אינו נוגע בעצם בכל אלו מורין לאיסור עד שיתרפא הבשר ואם אכל מכל אלו מכין אותו מכת מרדות:
9
When a person inserts his hand into the inside of an animal, cuts off the spleen, one of the kidneys, or the like,22 but leaves [the severed organ] inside the animal, and then slaughters it, the pieces cut off are forbidden as organs from a living animal although they remained within the animal's womb. If, however, he cut away [a portion of] a fetus within the womb, but did not remove it, and then slaughtered [the mother], the pieces or limbs of the fetus are permitted because they did not emerge [outside the mother].23
When a fetus sticks its foreleg or hind leg out of the womb, that limb is forbidden forever, whether one cuts off [the limb] before he slaughters the mother or afterwards.24 Even if it returns the limb to the womb of the mother and afterwards, [the mother] was slaughtered or the fetus was born and lived for several years,25 that limb is forbidden as a trefe. [The rationale is that] all meat that emerged from its natural position is forbidden as flesh that was separated from a living animal.
[This is derived from the phrase (Exodus 22:30):] "Meat [from an animal that was] mortally wounded (trefe) in the field." [Our Rabbis extrapolated:] When meat comes out to a place that is like a field for it,26 it becomes trefe, as we explained.27
ט
המושיט ידו למעי הבהמה וחתך מן הטחול ומן הכליות וכיוצא בהן והניח החתיכות בתוך מעיה ואח"כ שחטה הרי אותן החתיכות אסורות משום אבר מן החי ואף על פי שהוא בתוך מעיה אבל אם חתך מן העובר שבמעיה ולא הוציאו ואחר כך שחטה הרי חתיכת העובר או אברו מותר הואיל ולא יצא עובר שהוציא ידו או רגלו נאסר אותו אבר לעולם בין שחתכו קודם שתשחט אמו בין שחתכו אחר שנשחטה אמו ואפילו החזיר אותו אבר למעי אמו ואח"כ נשחט או נולד הולד וחיה כמה שנים הרי אותו האבר אסור משום טריפה שכל בשר שיצא חוץ למחיצתו נאסר כבשר שפרש מן החי שנאמר ובשר בשדה טרפה כיון שיצא למקום שהוא לו כשדה נעשה טריפה כמו שביארנו:
10
[When the fetus] sticks out a portion of a limb and a portion remains within, even if it is only the minority of it, the portion which emerged is forbidden and that which remained within is permitted.
If he cuts off the portion of the limb that emerged after it was returned within the animal and the animal was slaughtered, only that portion is forbidden, the remainder of the limb is permitted. If he did not return it to the womb and it remained outside and he cut it off there, the place where he cut it off - i.e., the place on the limb open to the air after the limb was cut off - is forbidden. He must afterwards cut off this portion as well. [This applies] whether he [originally] cut off the portion of the limb before [the mother] was slaughtered or afterwards.
י
הוציא מקצת האבר ונשאר מקצתו בפנים אפילו לא נשאר אלא מיעוטו היוצא אסור ושבפנים מותר ואם חתך היוצא מן האבר אחר שהחזירו ונשחטה אותו שיצא בלבד אסור ושאר האבר מותר ואם לא החזירו וחתכו והוא בחוץ בין שחתכו קודם שחיטה או אחר שחיטה מקום החתך אסור והוא המקום שנגד האויר אחר שיחתך היוצא חוזר וחותך מקום החתך:
11
Whenever a limb emerges and is cut off before the animal is slaughtered while it is outside, it is considered as a limb from a living animal28 and one is worthy of lashes for partaking of it. [This applies] even if the fetus dies before [the mother] is slaughtered.29 If it is cut off after ritual slaughter, one who partakes of it is not liable for lashes,30 even if it dies. If [the mother] dies and then one cuts off this limb, one who partakes of it is liable for lashes for the prohibition against partaking of a limb from a living animal.31
יא
כל אבר עובר שיצא וחתכו קודם שחיטה והוא בחוץ הרי זה אבר מן החי ולוקין עליו ואפילו מת העובר קודם שחיטה ואם נחתך אחר שחיטה האוכלו אינו לוקה ואפילו מת ואם מתה הבהמה ואחר כך חתכו האוכלו לוקה משום אבר מן החי:
12
[The following rule applies when] a fetus sticks out a limb and that limb becomes forbidden and then the fetus is born.32 If it is female, we are forbidden to drink its milk because of an unresolved halachic question.33 For the milk comes from all of the animal's limbs and it has a limb which is forbidden. Hence, it is comparable to milk from a trefe animal that becomes mixed with milk from a kosher animal.
יב
עובר שהוציא אבר ונאסר האבר ואח"כ נולד והרי היא נקבה החלב שלה אסור לשתותו מספק הואיל והוא בא מכלל האיברין ויש בה אבר אחד אסור והרי זה כחלב טריפה שנתערב בחלב טהורה:
13
When a person slaughters a kosher animal that is pregnant and discovers a fetus - whether live or dead - within it, the fetus is permitted to be eaten.34 Even the placenta is permitted to be eaten.35
[The following rules apply if] a portion of the placenta emerged and then one slaughtered the mother. If the placenta was attached to the fetus, the portion which emerged is forbidden36 and the remainder is permitted. If it is not attached to the fetus, it is forbidden in its entirety, for perhaps the fetus that was in this placenta disappeared37 and maybe the placenta of the fetus that is found in the womb disappeared. Needless to say, if a fetus is not found in the womb at all, the placenta is forbidden in its entirety.
יג
השוחט בהמה מעוברת ומצא בה שליל בין חי בין מת הרי זה מותר באכילה ואפילו שליא מותרת באכילה ושליא שיצאת מקצתה ושחט את הבהמה אם היתה שליא זו קשורה בולד מה שיצא ממנה אסור והשאר מותר ואם לא היתה קשורה בו כולה אסורה שמא שליא זו שיצאת מקצתה הלך לו ולד שהיה בה וולד זה שנמצא בבטן הלכה שליא שלו ואין צריך לומר שאם לא נמצא בבטן ולד כלל שהשליא כולה אסורה:
14
If one finds a living fetus [in the womb of a slaughtered animal] - even though it has been carried for nine months,38 and it is possible that it will live, it does not require ritual slaughter.39 Instead, it is acceptable because of the slaughter of its mother. If it steps on the ground, it requires ritual slaughter.40
יד
מצא בה עובר חי אע"פ שהוא בן תשעה חדשים גמורין ואפשר שיחיה אינו צריך שחיטה אלא שחיטת אמו מטהרתו ואם הפריס על גבי קרקע צריך שחיטה:
15
If a person ripped open an animal41 or slaughtered an animal that was trefe and found a live fetus that had been carried for nine months, [that fetus] must be ritually slaughtered to be permitted.42 The slaughter of its mother is not effective.43
If the period [of gestation] was not completed, it is forbidden even though it is alive in the womb of the trefe animal. [The rationale is that] it is considered as one of the mother's limbs.44 Whenever an animal thrust its head [out of the womb] and then returned it and [only] afterwards its mother was slaughtered, the slaughter of its mother has no bearing on it, it is considered as if it was born and it must be ritual slaughtered [to be permitted].
טו
קרע את הבהמה או שחט בהמה טריפה ומצא בה בן תשעה חי צריך שחיטה להתירו ואין שחיטת אמו מועלת לו ואם לא גמרו לו חדשיו אף על פי שהוא חי במעי הטריפה הרי זה אסור מפני שהוא כאבר מאמו כל עובר שהוציא ראשו והחזירו ואחר כך שחט את אמו אין שחיטת אמו מועלת לו והרי הוא כילוד וצריך שחיטה:
FOOTNOTES
1.
Chullin 102b.
2.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 182) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 452) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
3.
This prohibition is also one of the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants (Hilchot Melachim 8:10).
4.
Since the species is forbidden, no additional prohibitions apply.
5.
The Merkevat HaMishneh notes that this represents a difference between this prohibition and the prohibition against ritual impurity stemming from a limb where the limb must possess a bone. He explains that there a bone is necessary, for the source of the impurity is that of a corpse, and a corpse possesses bones.
6.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and does not accept this distinction. He maintains that partaking of part of an organ is also included in the prohibition against partaking of a trefe.
7.
Chapter 4, Halachah 10.
8.
We do not consider an organ or limb as a distinct creature and hold him liable, as he is liable for partaking of an ant, even if it is smaller than an olive. Chulin 102a explains that we require an olive-sized portion for the verse that states the prohibition speaks of "partak[ing] of the soul." The term partaking is appropriate only when one eats an olive-sized portion.
9.
Since one did not alter its natural form, one is liable for the bones and sinews as well.
10.
Even though he did not detach the meat from the sinews and the bones, since he cut the limb and distorted its natural form, we consider only the meat and not the other elements of the limb.
11.
This explains why the person is liable for the prohibition against partaking of a trefe, for seemingly, we should follow the principle "a prohibition does not fall on a substance which is already forbidden." This principle does not apply in this instance, for here, both prohibitions take effect at the same time. Hence, one does not take precedence over the other and the transgressor is liable for both. (See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:8-10; Chapter 14, Halachah 18, for explanation regarding these principles.)
12.
He is liable for both prohibitions, because the prohibition against partaking of a limb from a living animal is of a wider scope (issur mosif; i.e., it is forbidden to gentiles as well as Jews) than the prohibition against partaking of forbidden fat (Lechem Mishneh).
Kin'at Eliyahu asks why a limb taken from a forbidden species is not forbidden. Here also, the prohibition against taking a limb from a living animal is of a wider scope than that against partaking of a forbidden species.
13.
The two mentioned in the previous clause and the prohibition against partaking of a trefe.
He is liable for all three prohibitions, because the prohibition against partaking of forbidden fat is of a wider scope than the prohibition against partaking of a trefe and the prohibition against partaking of limb of a living animal is of a wider scope than the other two (ibid.).
14.
From a comparison to the following halachah, it appears that this prohibition is of Scriptural origin.
15.
Chullin 74a makes this distinction between an animal that dies naturally and one which is ritually slaughtered.
16.
For it is considered as part of the animal.
17.
Without detaching it.
18.
In Hilchot Shechitah 8:11-12, the Rambam mentions instances where a broken bone causes an animal to be designated as trefe. Here the Rambam is speaking of instances where the broken bone does not cause the animal to be trefe and the question involves merely the broken limb. May the meat from that limb be eaten or not?
19.
I.e., when one would calculate the entire amount of the flesh, it would be large enough to cover the majority of the bone. Nevertheless, it is not located in large sections, but is instead, made up of many small pieces.
20.
None of these perforations, however, caused a decrease in the mass of the flesh.
21.
Chullin 76b mentions all these circumstances without reaching a final ruling regarding them. Hence we rule stringently.
22.
I.e., organs that do not cause an animal to be considered as a trefe.
23.
This distinction is made on the basis of Chulin 68a, 69a. The rationale is that the animal's organs are an integral part of it. On the basis of Deuteronomy 14:5, "You shall eat it," our Sages explain when it's whole, you may eat everything within it, but not when it is lacking. The fetus, however, is not considered an integral part of the animal. Hence, as long as its limbs have not emerged outside the womb, they are permitted with the slaughter of the mother.
24.
From this halachah and Halachah 11, we see that there are two prohibitions involved: partaking of a limb considered trefe and partaking of a limb from a living animal. At times, one applies, and in other situations, the other applies.
25.
The Maggid Mishneh and Kessef Mishneh interpret this as referring to a situation where the fetus was not born before the mother was ritually slaughtered (see also Halachah 12). Instead, the mother was slaughtered while the fetus was still in its womb. Afterwards, the fetus was taken out and it survived. If, however, the fetus is born before the mother is slaughtered, the leg which emerged is not forbidden. When the calf is slaughtered, all of its legs are permitted. There are authorities who differ whether this is the Rambam's intent. Most, however, agree that this ruling should be followed in practice [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 14:2)].
26.
I.e., it is not its natural place.
27.
See Chapter 4, Halachah 10.
28.
As evident from a comparison to Halachah 9, the prohibition against partaking of a trefe applies only when the limb was cut off following the ritual slaughter of the mother.
29.
For the ruling is dependent on the mother's condition, not that of the fetus. Even if the fetus dies, it is permitted to partake of it after the slaughter of the mother (see Tosafos, Chullin 72a).
30.
I.e., he is not liable for lashes for transgressing the prohibition against partaking of a limb of a living animal. As reflected by Halachah 9, he violates the prohibition against partaking of a trefe. The Ra'avad maintains that he is liable for lashes for this violation. The Maggid Mishneh maintains that this situation is comparable to a maimed limb as described in Halachah 6 in which instance a Scriptural prohibition is involved, but one is not liable for lashes.
31.
And not for either the prohibition against partaking of a trefe or a nevelah. The death of the mother causes the limb to be considered as if it fell off during the animal's lifetime. See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 2:9 which explains the parallels that apply with regard to the laws of ritual impurity.
32.
The Maggid Mishneh states that this also refers to a situation where the fetus was born after the mother was slaughtered.
33.
Chullin 69a asks whether this milk can be compared to milk from a kosher animal or not. The distinction is that a kosher animal will become permitted if it is slaughtered in the ritual manner and this limb will never become permitted.
34.
With regard to a live fetus, see the following halachah. With regard to a dead fetus, the Rambam is emphasizing that it is not considered as a separate entity (in which case it would be forbidden as a nevelah), but instead as one of the limbs of the mother.
35.
Chapter 4, Halachah 5, states that a placenta that is expelled together with the newborn is forbidden to be eaten. In this instance, however, since the placenta has not been expelled, it is still considered part of the mother's body and permitted.
36.
Like the limb of a fetus that emerged before ritual slaughter (Maggid Mishneh).
The Ra'avad states that the placenta is comparable to an animal's waste products and therefore is not forbidden at all. The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling.
37.
Which was not permitted because of the slaughter of the mother.
38.
I.e., the period of gestation was full term.
39.
And can be killed in any manner.
40.
Because of the impression that might be created (Chullin 75b).
41.
Without slaughtering it according to Torah law.
42.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 13:3) states that at present, we do not permit any fetus found in the womb of a trefe even if it was ritually slaughtered.
43.
Since the slaughter of the mother does not cause the mother to be permitted, it is not effective with regard to the fetus.
44.
Since the period of gestation has not been completed, it is not considered as an independent entity. Even if it is taken from the womb and lives for a brief time, ritual slaughter does not cause it to be permitted.
Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 6
1
When a person partakes of an olive-sized1 portion of blood intentionally, he is liable for karet.2 If he does so inadvertently, he is liable to bring a fixed sin-offering.3
It is explicitly stated in the Torah that he is liable for partaking of blood from all domesticated animals, wild beasts, and fowl alone. This applies whether they are from a non-kosher or kosher species,4 as [Leviticus 7:26] states: "You may not partake of any blood from a fowl or an animal in all your dwellings." A wild beast is considered as an animal as [Deuteronomy 14:4-5] states: "These are the animals that you may eat: an ox... a gazelle and a deer...."5
One is not, [by contrast,] liable for transgressing of the prohibition against partaking of blood6 for partaking of the blood of fish, locusts, creeping animals, teeming animals, or humans. Therefore it is permitted to partake of the blood of kosher fish and locusts. Even if one collects it in a container and drinks it, it is permitted.7 The blood of non-kosher fish and locusts is forbidden because it comes from their bodies like the milk of a non-kosher animal.8 The blood of creeping animals is comparable to their bodies, as we explained.9
א
האוכל כזית מן הדם במזיד חייב כרת בשוגג מביא חטאת קבועה ודבר מפורש בתורה שאינו חייב אלא על דם בהמה חיה ועוף בלבד בין טמאין בין טהורין שנאמר וכל דם לא תאכלו בכל מושבותיכם לעוף ולבהמה וחיה בכלל בהמה שנאמר זאת הבהמה אשר תאכלו שור וגו' איל וצבי וגו' אבל דם דגים וחגבים ושקצים ורמשים ודם האדם אין חייבין עליו משום דם לפיכך דם דגים וחגבים טהורים מותר לאכלו ואפילו כנסו בכלי ושתהו מותר ודם חגבים ודגים טמאים אסור משום שהוא תמצית גופן כחלב בהמה טמאה ודם שקצים כבשרן כמו שביארנו:
2
The blood of a human is forbidden according to Rabbinic law if it departed [from the person's body]. One is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct for [partaking] of it. When, by contrast, one's teeth bleed, he may swallow it; he need not hold himself back. If one bit into bread and found blood upon it,10 he must scrape away the blood before partaking of it, for the blood has departed [from the body].
ב
דם האדם אסור מדברי סופרים אם פירש ומכין עליו מכת מרדות אבל דם השינים בולעו ואינו נמנע הרי שנשך בפת ומצא עליה דם גורר את הדם ואחר כך אוכל שהרי פירש:
3
One is liable for karet only for blood that flows out [from the animal] when it is slaughtered, killed, or decapitated as long as it is tinted red, blood that is collected within the heart,11 and blood that is let, i.e., blood that flows forcefully [from the body]. One is not, however, liable for blood that drips at the beginning of bloodletting before it begins to flow forcefully or blood that drips at the ending of bloodletting when the bleeding begins to cease. It is like "blood within the limbs." [The reason for the distinction is that] blood that flows forcefully is bleeding through which the soul may expire.
ג
אין חייבין כרת אלא על דם היוצא בשעת שחיטה ונחירה או התזת הראש כל זמן שיש בו אדמומית ועל הדם הכנוס בתוך הלב ועל דם הקזה כל זמן שהוא מקלח ויוצא אבל הדם השותת בתחלת הקזה קודם שיתחיל לקלח ודם השותת בסוף הקזה כשיתחיל הדם לפסוק אין חייבין עליו והרי הוא כדם האיברים שדם הקלוח הוא הדם שהנפש יוצאה בו:
4
One is not liable for kerat for concentrated blood12 or the blood within the limbs, i.e., the blood of the spleen, the kidneys, the testicles, the blood that collects in the heart at the time the animal is slaughtered, and the blood found in the liver.13 A person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of it, however, is liable for lashes, as it is written: "You may not partake of any blood."14 With regard to one's liability for kerat [Leviticus 17:11] states: "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood." [Implied is that] one is liable for kerat only for blood that causes the soul to expire.
ד
דם התמצית ודם האיברין כגון דם הטחול ודם הכליות ודם ביצים ודם המתכנס ללב בשעת שחיטה ודם הנמצא בכבד אין חייבין עליו כרת אבל האוכל ממנו כזית לוקה שנאמר וכל דם לא תאכלו ובחיוב כרת הוא אומר כי נפש הבשר בדם היא אינו חייב כרת אלא על הדם שהנפש יוצאה בו:
5
When a fetus is found in an animal's womb, its blood is like the blood of an animal that has been born.15 Therefore one is liable for the blood that is collected in its heart.16 The remainder of its blood, by contrast, is considered as the blood of the limbs.17
ה
השליל הנמצא במעי הבהמה הרי דמו כדם הילוד לפיכך הדם הנמצא כנוס בתוך לבו חייבין עליו כרת אבל שאר דמו הרי הוא כדם האברין:
6
Whether one [desires to] roast or cook a heart, one must cut it open, remove its blood, and then salt it.18 If one cooks a heart without cutting it open, one may cut it open after it was cooked. It is then permitted.19 If one did not cut it open and partook of it, one is not liable for kerat.
When does the above apply? With regard to the heart of a fowl, because it does not contain an olive-sized portion of blood.20 If, by contrast, one [partakes] of the heart of an animal, one is liable for kerat. For there is an olive-sized portion of blood within the heart and therefore one is liable for kerat.21
ו
הלב בין לצלי בין לקדרה קורעו ומוציא את דמו ואח"כ מולחו ואם בשל הלב ולא קרעו קורעו אחר שבשלו ומותר ואם לא קרעו ואכלו אינו חייב עליו כרת בד"א בלב העוף שאין בו כזית דם אבל אם היה לב בהמה חייב כרת שהרי יש בו כזית מדם שבתוך הלב שחייבין עליו כרת:
7
If one cuts open the liver22 and casts it into vinegar or boiling water until it turns white, it is permitted to cook it afterwards.23 It has already become universal Jewish custom to singe it over a fire24 and then cook it. [This applies] whether one cooks it alone or one cooks it with other meat.25
Similarly, it is a common custom that the brains are not cooked nor roasted until they are singed over a fire.26
ז
הכבד אם חתכה והשליכה לתוך החומץ או לתוך מים רותחין עד שתתלבן הרי זו מותרת לבשל אותה אחר כן וכבר נהגו כל ישראל להבהבה על האור ואחר כך מבשלין אותה בין שבשלה לבדה בין שבשלה עם בשר אחר וכן מנהג פשוט שאין מבשלין המוח של ראש ולא קולין אותו עד שמהבהבין אותו באור:
8
When a liver was cooked without being singed over a fire or cast into vinegar or hot water, the pot in which it was cooked is forbidden entirely: the liver and everything cooked with it.27
It is permitted to roast a liver together with other meat on one spit, provided the liver is positioned below [the other meat].28 If one transgressed and roasted it while it was positioned above the meat, [after the fact,] one may eat it.
ח
הכבד שבשלה ולא הבהבה על האור ולא חלטה בחומץ או ברותחין הרי הקדרה כולה אסורה הכבד וכל שנתבשל עמה ומותר לצלות כבד עם הבשר בשפוד אחד והוא שתהיה הכבד למטה ואם עבר וצלאה למעלה מבשר הרי זה אוכלו:
9
It is permitted to cook a spleen29 together with meat, because it is not blood, but meat that resembles blood.
When one breaks the neck of an animal before its soul expires, the blood is absorbed into the limbs.30 It is forbidden to eat raw meat from it even if one causes the blood to be sealed.31 What should be done? One should cut open32 the piece and salt it thoroughly and afterwards, cook it or roast it.33
We have already explained34 that when a person slaughters a domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl and no blood emerges, they are permitted.
ט
הטחול מותר לבשלו אפילו עם הבשר שאינו דם אלא בשר הדומה לדם השובר מפרקת בהמה קודם שתצא נפשה הרי הדם נבלע באברים ואסור לאכול ממנה בשר חי ואפילו חלטו אלא כיצד יעשה יחתוך החתיכה וימלח יפה יפה ואח"כ יבשל או יצלה וכבר ביארנו שהשוחט בהמה חיה ועוף ולא יצא מהן דם שהן מותרין:
10
Meat does not release [all] the blood it contains unless it is salted thoroughly and washed thoroughly. What should one do? One should wash the meat first35 and afterwards, salt it thoroughly. One should leave it in the salt for the time it takes to walk a mil36 and then wash it thoroughly, [continuing] until clean water emerges.37 Immediately afterwards, one should cast it into boiling water - warm water is not [sufficient] - so that it will become white immediately and [no further] blood will be released.38
י
אין הבשר יוצא מידי דמו אא"כ מולחו יפה יפה ומדיחו יפה יפה כיצד עושה מדיח הבשר תחלה ואחר כך מולחו יפה יפה ומניחו במלחו כדי הילוך מיל ואח"כ מדיחו יפה יפה עד שיצאו המים זכים ומשליכו מיד לתוך מים רותחין אבל לא לפושרין כדי שיתלבן מיד ולא יצא דם:
11
When we salt meat, we salt it only in a utensil that has holes.39
We salt it only with thick salt that resembles coarse sand. [The rationale is that] salt that is thin like flour will be absorbed by the meat and will not extract the blood.40
One must shake the salt from the meat before washing it.41
יא
כשמולחין הבשר אין מולחין אותו אלא בכלי מנוקב ואין מולחין אלא במלח עבה כחול הגס שהמלח דק כקמח יבלע בבשר ולא יוציא דם וצריך לנפץ הבשר מן המלח ואחר כך ידיחנו:
12
All of the above procedures apply with regard to meat that one must cook. For roasting, by contrast, one may salt the meat and roast it immediately.42
When a person desires to eat raw meat, he should salt it thoroughly43and wash it thoroughly. If he causes the blood to be sealed [by casting the meat into] vinegar, it is permitted to eat the meat while raw.44 And it is permitted to drink the vinegar which sealed it, for vinegar does not extract blood.
יב
כל הדברים האלו לבשר שצריך לבשלו אבל לצלי מולח וצולה מיד והרוצה לאכול בשר חי מולחו יפה יפה ומדיחו יפה יפה ואח"כ יאכל ואם חלטו בחומץ מותר לאכלו כשהוא חי ומותר לשתות החומץ שחלטו בו שאין החומץ מוציא הדם:
13
Vinegar in which meat was sealed should not be used to seal meat a second time.45 When a piece of meat turns red within vinegar,46 it and the vinegar are forbidden. [It can be permitted by] salting it thoroughly and roasting it.
When meat turns red,47 similarly, the testicles of an animal or beast and their membranes,48 and similarly the neck which contains large blood vessels that are filled with blood, it is permitted to cook them if they are cut open and salted as required. If one did not cut them open and instead roasted them on a spit, they are permitted if he roasted the neck with its opening facing downward or he roasted all of them on the coals themselves.
יג
חומץ שחלט בו בשר לא יחלוט בו פעם שניה וחתיכה שהאדימה בתוך החומץ היא והחומץ אסורין עד שימלח אותה יפה יפה ויצלה בשר שהאדים וכן ביצי בהמה וחיה בקליפה שעליהן וכן העורף שבו המזרקים שהן מלאים דם אם חתכן ומלחן כדת מותר לבשלן ואם לא חתכן וצלאן בשפוד וצלה העורף ופיו למטה או שצלאן כולן על הגחלים הרי אלו מותרין:
14
[The following rules apply when one] roasts the head of an animal in an oven or a furnace. If one hangs the head with the opening to its neck49 hanging downward, it is permitted, for the blood will emerge and flow outward.50 If the opening to the neck is positioned to the side, the brain is forbidden, because the blood collects in it.51 The remainder of the meat on the external surface of the bones is permitted.52
Should he [roast it] with its nose positioned downward, if he places a straw or a reed in its nose so that it will remain open and the blood can flow out through it, [the brain] is permitted. If not, it is forbidden.
יד
ראש הבהמה שצלהו בתנור או בכבשן אם תלהו ובית שחיטתו למטה מותר שהדם יוצא ושותת ואם היה בית השחיטה מן הצד מוחו אסור שהדם מתקבץ לתוכו ושאר הבשר שעל העצמות מבחוץ מותר הניח חוטמו למטה אם הניח בו גמי או קנה כדי שישאר פתוח ויצא דמו דרך חוטמו מותר ואם לאו מוחו אסור:
15
One should not place a utensil beneath meat53 that is being roasted to collect the juice [dripping from it] until no red color remains in the juice. What should be done?54 One places a small amount of salt55 in the utensil and leaves the utensil there until the meat roasts. He then removes the fat resting on top. The liquid below the fat is forbidden.56
טו
אין מניחין כלי תחת הצלי לקבל מימיו עד שתכלה כל מראה אדמומית שבו וכיצד עושין משליכין לתוך הכלי מעט מלח ומניח הכלי עד שיצלה ולוקח השמנונית של מעלה והמים של מטה שתחת השמנונית אסורה:
16
When roasted meat is sliced over a piece of bread, it is permitted to eat the bread, for [the liquid] which exudes is only fat.57
When fish and fowl are salted together, even in a utensil with holes, the fish are forbidden. [The rationale is that] the fish is soft and will absorb the blood which is being exuded by the fowl.58 Needless to say, [this law applies] if one salted fish together with the meat of an animal or beast.
טז
פת שחתך עליה בשר צלי מותר לאכלה שאינה אלא שמנונית דגים ועופות שמלחן זה עם זה אפילו בכלי מנוקב הדגים אסורין שהדג רפה ובולע דם היוצא מן העוף ואין צריך לומר אם מלח דג עם בשר בהמה או חיה:
17
When one leaves fowl whole, stuffs their cavity with meat and eggs, and cooks them, they are forbidden, for the blood flows into them.59 This applies even if one salted them thoroughly,60 and even if the meat inside them was cooked or roasted. If one roasted [the fowl], they are permitted.61 [This applies] even if the meat inside them was raw and even if their opening was pointed upward.62
יז
עופות שהניחן שלמים ומלא חללן בשר וביצים ובשלן אסורות שהרי דם יוצא לתוכן ואע"פ שמלחן יפה יפה ואפילו היה הבשר שבתוכן שלוק או צלוי ואם צלאן הרי אלו מותרות אע"פשהבשר שבתוכן חי ואפילו פיהן למעלה:
18
When one filled intestines [that were not salted] with roasted or cooked meat in this manner or with eggs and cooked them or roasted them, they are permitted. [The rationale is that] we do not presume that there is blood in the intestines.63 The Geonim ruled in this manner.
יח
בני מעיים שמלאן על דרך זו בבשר צלוי או שלוק או שמלאן בביצים ושלקן או קלאן הרי אלו מותרין שאין מחזיקין דם בבני מעים וכן הורו הגאונים:
19
[The following rules apply when] one coated fowl64 with flour and roasted them, whether whole or cut in portions. If they were coated with coarse flour, one may partake of the coating, even if it became reddish. [The rationale is that] coarse flour will crumble65 and the blood will flow outward. When they are coated with wheat flour that was moistened [before being ground],66 it is permitted to eat from the coating if it is white like silver. Otherwise, it is forbidden. If they were coated with other flours, they are forbidden if they turn red. Otherwise,67 they are permitted.
יט
עופות שטפלן בבצק וצלאן בין שלמים בין מחותכין אם טפלן בסולת גסה אפילו הסמיקה הטפלה אוכל את הטפילה מפני שסלת גסה מתפררת ויוצא הדם ואם טפלן בקמח חטים שלתתן אם היתה הטפלה לבנה כמו הכסף מותר לאכול ממנה ואם לאו אסורה טפלן בשאר קמחין אם האדימו אסורין ואם לא האדימו מותרין:
20
It is forbidden to use a knife that was used for ritual slaughter to cut hot meat68 unless the knife was exposed to fire until it turned white, sharpened in a sharpener or inserted into hard earth ten times. [After the fact,] if one cut hot meat with it, it is permitted.
Similarly, one should not cut radishes or other sharp foods69 with it at the outset. If one washed the knife or cleaned it with a utensil, it is permitted to cut radish and the like with it, but not hot meat.
כ
סכין ששחט בה אסור לחתוך בה רותח עד שילבן הסכין באור או ישחיזנה במשחזת או ינעצנה בקרקע קשה עשר פעמים ואם חתך בה רותח מותר וכן אינו חותך בה צנון וכיוצא בו מדברים החריפים לכתחלה ואם הדיח הסכין או שקנחה בכלי מותר לחתוך בו צנון וכיוצא בו אבל לא רותח:
21
When meat has been salted in a bowl,70 one is forbidden to eat hot food71 in it for all time,72 for the blood has already been absorbed in its clay.73 [This applies] even if [the utensil] is coated with lead.74
כא
קערה שמלח בה בשר אפילו היתה שועה באבר אסור לאכול בה רותח לעולם שכבר נבלע הדם בחרסיה:
FOOTNOTES
1.
Although blood is a liquid, the Rambam mentions an olive-sized portion, i.e., a measure of mass, rather than a fourth of a lug, a liquid measure. It is possible to explain that since the Torah uses the word "eat" while stating the prohibition, the intent is the same measure that applies with regard to other prohibitions involving "eating," an olive-sized portion.
2.
The soul is cut off in this world (i.e., the person dies prematurely) and in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1). Whenever a person is liable for karet, he is punished by lashes if he was warned before committing the transgression. If lashed, he is absolved from karet.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 184) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 148) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
3.
This term is used to differentiate this offering from a guilt offering whose value is adjusted according to the person's means.
4.
In contrast to the prohibition against partaking of cheilev, forbidden fat, which applies only with regard to kosher species of domesticated animals.
5.
I.e., the verse uses the term behemah which more specifically refers to domesticated animals and mentions both domesticated animals and wild beasts.
6.
One may, however, be liable for another prohibition as the Rambam continues to explain.
7.
The Ra'avad and the Maggid Mishneh note that Keritot 21a states that it is permitted to partake of fish blood that has been collected only when fish scales are placed in it. Otherwise, it is forbidden because of the impression that may be created. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 66:9) quotes this view.
8.
As apparent from Chapter 3, Halachot 1 and 6, although this prohibition is of Scriptural origin, it is not punishable by lashes. See also Chapter 3, Halachah 22.
9.
Chapter 2, Halachot 9-10.
10.
I.e., the same blood that he is permitted to swallow.
11.
See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 5:1) where he states that this is the blood of fundamental importance. See also Halachot 5-6.
12.
I.e., blood that flows slowly after the majority of the animal's blood has already been discharged. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).
13.
There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if the prohibition against the blood of the liver is Scriptural or Rabbinic in origin. See the gloss of Rav Moshe HaCohen.
14.
The term "blood within the limbs" appears to refer to blood that is absorbed within the meat and organs of the animal. As indicated later in this chapter and as stated in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 67:1, this blood is forbidden only when it emerges from the meat or moves from place to place within the meat. See the notes to Halachah 12.
15.
There is a distinction between the blood of a fetus and its fat (which is permitted in certain circumstances, see Chapter 7, Halachah 3). The rationale is that the verse forbidding blood prohibits "any blood" (Lechem Mishneh).
16.
As stated in Halachah 3.
17.
According to the Maggid Mishneh, even if one slaughters the fetus after removing it from its mother's womb, he is not liable for partaking of its blood.
18.
As stated in Halachah 12, the Rambam maintains that even when one roasts meat, he must salt it first. As stated in the notes to that halachah, there are other Rabbis who differ with that point and require salting only when one cooks meat. See also the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 72:1) which quotes certain authorities that forbid eating a cooked heart, even if it was cut open and salted.
19.
Pesachim 74b states that the meat of the heart is smooth and hard and will not absorb the blood. Other substances that are cooked with it, however, are forbidden (Maggid Mishneh in the name of the Rashba). The Ra'avad and others differ with the Rambam and consider a heart cooked with its blood as forbidden. This is the view cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 72:2).
20.
The heart of a fowl is not large enough for there to be an olive-sized portion of blood absorbed within its meat before slaughter. And it is only that blood for which one is liable for kerat. If an olive-sized portion of blood collects there when the animal is slaughtered, one is liable for lashes.
21.
This indicates that according to the Rambam, even when one cooks blood, one is liable for kereit for partaking of it (Lechem Mishneh). Other authorities differ and maintain that if blood has been cooked or salted, one is not liable according to Scriptural Law (Siftei Cohen 87:15).
22.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 73:1) states: "The liver has an abundance of blood. Therefore at the outset, it is not a sufficient measure to prepare it for cooking by salting."
The liver must be cut open thoroughly so that the blood contained in the blood vessels inside of it will flow out. Afterwards, placing it in vinegar or hot water causes the blood to be sealed in its place and not to flow into other portions of the liver. It is only blood that flows from place to place within the meat itself that is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
23.
Implied is that if one desires to roast it, there is no difficulty (Maggid Mishneh).
Many opinions maintain that we are not knowledgeable with regard to the process of casting a liver in vinegar or boiling water in the present age and should not rely on this practice. This view is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 73:2).
24.
See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 10:11) where the Rambam mentions ordinary roasting and not singeing for the liver to be permitted.
25.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 73:1) states that it must be roasted to the extent that it is fit to be eaten. The Siftei Cohen 73:2 explains that this means that it must be roasted at least half the extent to which one would normally roast it.
26.
The Maggid Mishneh states that this custom is not as widespread as the custom of singeing the liver. Instead, he writes that it is customary to cut open the membrane surrounding it and then to salt it thoroughly. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 71:3).
27.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 73:2) follows the opinion that the liver itself is permitted if it is cooked after being salted, though everything cooked with it is forbidden. The Rama, however, states that the Rambam's view should be followed.
28.
For then the blood will not flow from the liver to the other meat. Hence, even at the outset, this is permitted. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 73:4) states that this ruling applies with regard to the ovens that existed in the Talmudic era. In the present era, however, it is common to turn the spit upside down. Hence, one should not roast the liver together with other meat.
29.
That has been salted [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 74:1)].
30.
I.e., the animal suffers internal bleeding when its neck is broken. Since it is in the midst of expiring, it does not have the potential to expel this blood from its system. Instead, it becomes absorbed in its meat [Tur (Yoreh De'ah 67)].
31.
By casting it into vinegar or boiling water.
To explain the difficulty the Rambam is addressing: There is a certain amount of blood absorbed in the meat of an animal. It is forbidden to partake of blood that has moved from place to place within an animal's body and cooking meat will certainly cause such movement. To avoid this difficulty, we salt meat, for this removes the blood. Casting meat in vinegar or boiling water does not remove blood, but instead causes it to be sealed in its place without moving even when the meat is cooked. Hence, according to the Rambam, this process is effective for ordinary meat. It is not, however, effective in this instance, for the internal bleeding that resulted from the breakage of the neck leaves blood that is not in its natural place (Kessef Mishneh, see also his gloss to Halachah 12).
32.
Our translation follows the gloss of the Lechem Mishneh who states that one should cut open the meat to allow its blood to flow out. The Maggid Mishneh states that it is unnecessary to cut open the meat and his view is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 67:3). The Rama, however, states that at the outset, one should be stringent.
33.
It is then permitted, because the salting removes all the blood.
34.
Chapter 4, Halachah 13. In that chapter, the emphasis was that the animal was not dead when slaughtered. Here the Rambam is restating the law to emphasize that we do not fear that the blood became absorbed within the meat and will not be released through salting.
35.
Among the reasons given for this initial washing are:
a) it removes the blood on the external surface of the meat;
b) it softens the meat and enables the blood inside to flow out more easily;
c) it enables the salt to adhere well to the surface of the meat.
36.
A mil is a Talmudic measure equivalent to approximately a kilometer. According to many Rabbinic opinions, it takes 18 minutes to walk a mil. [This view is cited in the present context by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:6).] The Rambam, however, follows a more stringent view [see his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 3:2)] and requires 24 minutes.
The Rama states that these measures are acceptable only after the fact or when there is an urgent need to prepare meat quickly. Otherwise, meat should be allowed to soak in water for at least half an hour.
37.
This washing removes the salt and blood from the meat. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:7) states that the meat should be washed twice and the Rama requires a third washing.
38.
This follows the Rambam's view that we are knowledgeable in the process of casting meat into hot water to seal it in its place. (As mentioned above, there are many who maintain that we lack that knowledge.) Moreover, in this instance, once the meat has been salted, there is no need for this measure, because all its blood has been released. For this reason, the Ra'avad and the Maggid Mishneh object to the Rambam's ruling. It is, however, mentioned by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:19).
39.
So that the blood will drain out and not be reabsorbed by the meat. If one salted meat in utensil that did not have holes, all the meat lying in the brine is forbidden. Moreover, the outer surface of the meat above the brine becomes forbidden [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:18)]. The Rama maintains that the entire piece of meat becomes forbidden.
40.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:3) states that one should be careful not to use salt with overly large crystals for they will not adhere to the meat. The Rama adds that if one has only thin salt, it is permitted to salt meat using it.
41.
For the water will stop the meat from releasing blood. Afterwards, the salt may cause the blood on the surface to be reabsorbed into the meat (Siftei Cohen 69:27).
42.
When meat is cooked, the blood will enter the pot in which it is being cooked and cause the meat and any other substances to become forbidden. When it is being roasted, the blood will flow down from the spit without being absorbed.
The Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam's words imply that he maintains that one must salt meat before roasting it. There are other Rabbinic opinions that do not accept that approach. (They are favored by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 76:1).
The Rashba emphasizes that if one salts meat and does not roast it immediately, he should wash off the salt and the blood. Otherwise, the blood may become reabsorbed. The Rama rules that one should wash meat and salt it slightly before roasting it and should roast it directly after salting it.
43.
The Rambam's statements have attracted the attention of the commentaries, for they appear to contradict his approach in Halachah 9 and in the latter clause of this halachah. To explain: From Halachah 9, it would appear that it is forbidden to eat raw meat that is not salted only when there is internal bleeding while the animal is being slaughtered. For although the meat contains blood, that blood is forbidden only when it moves from one part of the meat to another while cooking. If one eats the meat raw, such a transfer will not take place.
Similarly, the latter clause of this halachah permits meat when it is cast into vinegar because the blood becomes sealed in its place. Implied is that the blood itself is permitted.
This clause, by contrast, states that one must salt the meat to remove the blood even when one eats the meat without cooking it. Implied is that the blood is forbidden even though it has not moved from place to place within the meat. The Kessef Mishneh resolves the contradiction, explaining that since the blood is fit to move from place to place, it is forbidden. Hence, the latter clause which speaks about blood that is sealed in its place does not represent a contradiction. Similarly, this interpretation allows Halachah 9 to be understood in a manner that does not produce a contradiction.
It must be emphasized that the Ra'avad and many other authorities object to the Rambam's ruling and maintain that as long as the blood has not actually moved from place to place, it is not forbidden. Therefore it is permitted to partake of raw meat without salting it. It must, however, be washed thoroughly to remove all blood on its surface. This view is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 67:2).
44.
As mentioned previously, in the Ashkenazic community (and also among many Sefardim), the custom of sealing blood by casting meat into vinegar is no longer practice. See Rama (Yoreh De'ah 67:6).
45.
For its power has been weakened (Rashi, Chulin 33a).
46.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that it is based on an improper interpretation of Chulin 93b. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 67:4-5 appears to think that the interpretations are not mutually exclusive, for it accepts both of them.
47.
An indication that it has absorbed additional blood.
48.
For they also contain large quantities of blood. See Chulin 93a.
49.
Literally, the place where the animal was slaughtered.
50.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 68:1) states that, as an initial and preferred measure, it is customary to be stringent and not to roast the head while it is hole at all, even if the opening to the neck is positioned downward.
51.
If, however, a hole is made in the skull and its membranes so that the blood can drain off, the brain is permitted [Rashba, as quoted by the Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 68:1)].
52.
The brain must, however, be removed from the skull, before the skull is cooked (Maggid Mishneh in the name of the Ramban).
53.
That has not been salted and left to let the blood drain off.
54.
For if one waits until there is no trace of the blood, the fat that one wishes to collect will also have drained off.
55.
One should use only a small amount of salt. If one uses a large amount, the blood will become mixed with the fat (Maggid Mishneh).
56.
Because it is mixed with blood. Since the fat does not mix with the other liquids but instead floats above them, it remains a distinct entity and is permitted.
The Maggid Mishneh writes that there are opinions that we are not familiar with the details of this process. Hence one should not rely on this leniency. This approach is followed by the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 76:6) which state that one should not place a utensil under the meat until the meat is roasted to the extent that it can be eaten.
57.
I.e., once the meat is roasted to the extent that it is fit to be eaten, we assume that all the forbidden blood has drained off.
58.
Generally, when pieces of meat are being salted together and the utensil has holes so that the blood can run off, the meat is permitted even if the blood from other meat flows over it. The rationale is that since it is expelling its own blood and/or other juices, it will not absorb blood. Fish, however, will expel its blood and juices far faster than meat or fowl and will complete that process before the meat completes expelling its blood. Hence, we fear that it will absorb the blood from the meat or fowl (Maggid Mishneh).
All that is forbidden is the external surface of the fish (kedai kelipah). Once that is cut off, the remainder of the fish is permitted [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 70:1)]. The Rama rules that all the fish are forbidden. This stringency applies when the fishes' scales have been removed. If they have not been removed, the fish are permitted.
59.
I.e., into the stuffings. Afterwards, the blood will become reabsorbed into the fowl itself and cause it to become forbidden.
60.
The Maggid Mishneh interprets the Rambam's ruling as being dependent on his ruling in Halachah 10 that after being salted, meat must be placed in hot water. In this instance, the fowl's stuffing prevents the boiling water from having the desired effect on the fowl.
Alternatively, the Rambam's ruling can be understood according to the statements of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 77:1) who rules that initially one must salt both sides of the fowl. If the fowl was already stuffed, salting just the exterior is not sufficient, because it will not effect the blood on the inside. See also the Rama who rules that at the outset, fowl must be salted properly and any meat placed within it must be salted properly. Only in such a situation should one cook a fowl with stuffing.
61.
For the fire will cause all the blood to drain out.
62.
Even in such a position, the power of the fire will cause the blood to drain downward.
63.
Hence salting is not required.
64.
The Maggid Mishneh interprets this halachah as referring to fowl that were salted, but were not placed in water after the salting. According to the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 78:1), it applies to fowl that were not salted. The Shulchan Aruch continues, stating that according to the present custom, one should not coat meat that is being roasted unless it has been salted and washed first.
65.
I.e., it will not stick thoroughly to the sides of the fowl. Thus there will be space for the blood to drain through.
66.
In which instance, the flour is very thin and hence, clings tightly to the fowl.
67.
Even if they are not white like silver.
68.
The Rambam's ruling is based on the following points. There is a difference of opinion among our Sages (Chullin 8b) whether the portion of the animal's neck where it is slaughtered is considered as "hot" at the time of slaughter, in which instance, when the animal is slaughtered some of its blood would be absorbed into the knife. Or it is not hot, in which instance, there is no such absorption.
From the Rambam's ruling (here and in Chapter 17, Halachah 7), it appears that he maintains that the animal's neck is not "hot." Nevertheless, he requires certain safeguards in consideration of the other views.
This issue is a matter of concern only when the meat being cut itself is hot. For otherwise, the blood absorbed in the knife will not be transferred to it.
The Maggid Mishneh mentions that there is another opinion which maintains that even though the animal's neck is cold, the pressure of cutting causes the knife to absorb some blood. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 10:2) and commentaries.
69.
Since these foods are sharp, they produce an effect similar to actual heat and have the potential to affect forbidden foods absorbed in a knife. Therefore safeguards should be taken.
70.
Seemingly this refers to a bowl that does not have holes. Nevertheless, there are authorities who also forbid using a bowl that has holes. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 69:17) states that at the outset, one should not use even a bowl that has holes, but after the fact, the food is permitted.
71.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:16) also quotes an opinion that forbids using the bowl for cold food at the outset if it has not been washed.
72.
One of the fundamental principles of the laws of kashrut is that an earthenware vessel can never be kashered. Once it absorbs forbidden matter, it will never be dislodged from it (see Chapter 17, Halachah 2). Hence once the bowl has absorbed the blood, there is no way that the earthenware utensil will be permitted again.
73.
And will be released when the hot food is placed in it, causing that food to become forbidden.
74.
Were the utensil to be made of lead alone, it could be kashered by boiling water in it (hagalah), as is the law with regard to metal utensils. In this instance, however, the metal is just a coating and the blood will penetrate to the earthenware base. Hence, it remains forbidden.
Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 7
1
When a person willfully eats an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat,1he is liable for kerat. If he partakes of it inadvertently, he must bring a fixed sin-offering.
It is explicitly stated in the Torah that he is liable for partaking2 [of the fat] of the three species of kosher domesticated animals alone, as [Leviticus 7:23] states: "Do not partake of any fat from an ox, lamb, or goat."3 [This applies] whether one partakes of fat from an animal that is ritually slaughtered or one partakes of fat from a nevelah or a trefe [from a kosher species].4 With regard to other domesticated animals and wild beasts, whether non-kosher or kosher, their fat is comparable to their meat.5 Similarly, the fat of a stillborn fetus of the three species of kosher animals is comparable to its flesh. When one partakes of an olive-sized portion of it, one is liable for lashes for partaking of a nevelah.6
א
האוכל כזית חלב במזיד חייב כרת בשוגג מביא חטאת קבועה ובפירוש אמרה תורה שאינו חייב אלא על שלשה מיני בהמה טהורה בלבד שנאמר כל חלב שור וכבש ועז לא תאכלו בין שאכל מחלב שחוטה בין שאכל מחלב נבלה וטריפה שלהן אבל שאר בהמה וחיה בין טמאה בין טהורה חלבה כבשרה וכן נפל של שלשה מיני בהמה טהורה חלבו כבשרו והאוכל מחלבו כזית לוקה משום אוכל נבילה:
2
When a person partakes of the fat of a nevelah or a trefe, he is liable for partaking of fat and for partaking of a nevelah or a trefe. [The rationale]7 is that since a prohibition is added to its meat - for it was permitted beforehand - it is also added to its fat.8 Hence one is liable for two sets of lashes.
ב
האוכל מחלב נבילה וטריפה חייב משום אוכל חלב ומשום אוכל נבלה וטרפה מתוך שנוסף האיסור בבשרה שהיה מותר נוסף על החלב ולפיכך לוקה שתים:
3
When a person slaughters an animal and finds a fetus in its womb, all of its fat is permitted.9 [This applies] even if the fetus is alive, because it is considered as a limb of [the mother]. If it was carried for the full period of gestation and discovered to be alive, its fat is forbidden and one is liable for kerat for partaking of it. [This applies] even if [the fetus] never stepped on the ground and does not require ritual slaughter.10 [Instead,] we must remove all the forbidden strands of tissue and membranes from it as [is required] with regard to other animals.
ג
השוחט בהמה ומצא בה שליל כל חלבו מותר ואפילו מצאו חי מפני שהוא כאבר ממנה ואם שלמו לו חדשיו ומצאו חי אף על פי שלא הפריס על הקרקע ואינו צריך שחיטה חלבו אסור וחייבין עליו כרת ומוציאין ממנו כל החוטין והקרומות האסורין כשאר הבהמות:
4
When a person inserts his hand into an animal's womb and cuts off and takes out the fat of a fetus that has undergone a full period of gestation, he is liable11 for it in the same way as if he cut off the fat of the animal itself. [The rationale is that the fulfillment of the gestation period] is what causes the prohibition against fat.12
ד
הושיט ידו למעי בהמה וחתך מחלב העובר שכלו לו חדשיו והוציאו הרי זה חייב עליו כאילו חתכו מחלב האם עצמה שהחדשים הן הגורמין לאסור החלב:
5
There are three types of forbidden fat for which one is liable for kerat: the fat on the digestive organs, on both kidneys, and on the flanks. The fat-tail, by contrast, is permitted to be eaten.13 It is called fat only with regard to the sacrifices, just as the kidneys and the large lobe of the liver are referred to as "fat" with regard to the sacrifices.14 Similarly, we find the expressions15 "the fat of the land," and "wheat as fat as kidneys" [where the intent is not "fat,"] but "choice."
Since these entities are being raised up from the sacrifice to be consumed with fire for God, they are called "the fat," i.e., the choice portion, for there is nothing more choice than the portion consumed with fire for God. For this reason, with regard to terumat ma'aser16 [Numbers 18:30] states: "When you raise up its fat from it."17
ה
שלשה חלבים הן שחייבין עליהן כרת:
חלב שעל הקרב ושעל שתי הכליות ושעל הכסלים אבל האליה מותרת באכילה לא נקראת חלב אלא לענין קרבן בלבד כמו שנקראו חלבים כליות ויותרת הכבד לענין קרבן כמו שאתה אומר חלב הארץ וחלב כליות חטה שהוא טובם ולפי שמרימין דברים אלו מן הקרבן לשריפה לשם נקראו חלב שאין שם דבר טוב אלא המורם לשם ולכך נאמר בתרומת מעשר בהרימכם את חלבו ממנו:
6
The fat on the abdomen18 and on the gut is what is meant by the term "the fat on the digestive organs." One is liable for the fat at the joints of the thighs on the inside. This is what is meant by the term "the fat on the flanks." There is also fat on the maw which is bent like an arch; it is forbidden. There is a ligament that extends like a lobe; it is permitted. The strands [stemming from] the fat are forbidden, but one is not liable for kerat for them.
ו
חלב שעל המסס ושעל בית הכוסות הוא החלב שעל הקרב וחלב שבעיקרי הירכות מבפנים חייבין עליו כרת והוא החלב שעל הכסלים ויש שם חלב על הקיבה עקום כמו קשת והוא האסור וחוט משוך כמו יתר והוא מותר חוטין שבחלב אסורין ואין חייבין עליהן כרת:
7
Fat which is covered by meat is permitted. Scripture forbids "fat on the flanks," but not within the flanks. Similarly, "fat on the kidneys" is forbidden, but not fat within the kidneys. Nevertheless, a person should remove the white matter within the kidney and only then, partake of it. It is not necessary, however, to remove all traces of it.19
ז
חלב שהבשר חופה אותו מותר שעל הכסלים אסר הכתוב לא שבתוך הכסלים וכן חלב שעל הכליות נאסר ולא שבתוך הכליות ואף על פי כן נוטל אדם לובן שבתוך הכוליא ואחר כך אוכל אותה ואינו צריך לחטט אחריו:
8
There are two cords of fat in the primary loin area, near the top of the thigh. While an animal is alive, this fat can be seen on the intestines.20 When, however, it dies, one portion of meat will cling to another and cover this fat. It will not be visible until the portions of meat will be separated from each other. Nevertheless, it is forbidden, because this is not fat that is covered by meat.21
[In contrast,] wherever you find fat under meat, with the meat covering it and surrounding it in its entirety [so that] it will not be seen until the meat is cut away, it is permitted.
ח
יש כמו שתי פתילות של חלב בעיקרי המתנים סמוך לראש הירך כשהבהמה חיה חלב זה נראה במעים וכשתמות ידבק בשר בבשר ויתכסה חלב זה ואינו נראה עד שיתפרק הבשר מן הבשר ואעפ"כ הרי זה אסור שאין זה חלב שהבשר חופה אותו וכל מקום שתמצא בו החלב תחת הבשר והבשר מקיף אותו מכל סביביו ולא יראה עד שיקרע הבשר הרי זה מותר:
9
The fat of the heart and the fat of all of the small intestines are permitted. They are considered like shuman which is permitted fat with the exception of the top of the intestine that is next to the maw and is the beginning of the small intestines. The fat must be scraped off it.22 This is the fat of the small intestines that is forbidden. There are some of the Geonim who say that the top of the intestine from which the fat must be scraped off is the large intestine,23i.e., the colon from which feces are excreted which is the last of the digestive organs.
ט
חלב הלב וחלב המעים הן הדקין המלופפין כולן מותרין והרי הם כשומן שהוא מותר חוץ מראש המעי שסמוך לקיבה שהוא תחלת בני מעים שצריך לגרור החלב שעליו וזהו חלב שעל הדקין שאסור ויש מן הגאונים שאומר שראש המעי שצריך לגררו הוא המעי שיצא בו הרעי שהוא סוף המעים:
10
In the body of an animal, there are strands of tissue and membranes that are forbidden. Some are forbidden because of the prohibition against partaking of fat and others because of that against blood.24 Whenever a strand of tissue or a membrane is forbidden because of the prohibition [Leviticus 3:17]: "Do not partake of any blood," one must remove it, and only then salt the meat as we explained.25If one cut [the forbidden blood vessel], it does not have to be removed.26Similarly, if one roasts [the meat], it does not have to be removed.27
Whenever a strand of tissue or membrane is forbidden because of the prohibition, "Do not partake of any fat," it must be removed from the animal whether one's intent is to cut it or roast it.28
י
יש בגוף הבהמה חוטין וקרומות שהן אסורין מהם משום חלב ומהן משום דם וכל חוט או קרום שאסור משום כל דם לא תאכלו צריך לנטלו ואח"כ ימלח ויבשל הבשר כמו שאמרנו ואם חתכו ומלחו אינו צריך לנטלו וכן לצלי (אינו צריך לנטלו) וכל חוט או קרום שהוא אסור משום כל חלב בין לצלי בין לבשול צריך לנטלו מן הבהמה:
11
There are five strands of tissue in the flanks:29 three on the right and two on the left. Each of the three on the right splits into two and each of the two on the left splits into three. All are [forbidden] as fat.
The strands of tissue from the spleen and from the kidneys are forbidden as fat. Similarly, the membrane on the spleen, the membrane above the flanks, and the membrane on the kidneys are forbidden as fat. One is liable for kerat for the membrane on the thick side30 of the spleen. The remainder of the membrane is forbidden, but one is not liable for it.
יא
חמשה חוטין יש בכסלים שלשה מן הימין ושנים מן השמאל השלשה שמן הימין מתפצל כל אחד מהם לשנים שנים והשנים שמן השמאל מתפצלין לשלשה שלשה וכולן משום חלב וחוטי הטחול וחוטי הכליות משום חלב וכן קרום שעל הטחול וקרום שעל הכסלים וקרום שעל הכליות אסורין משום חלב וקרום שעל דד הטחול חייבין עליו כרת ושאר הקרום אסור ואין חייבין עליו:
12
The kidney has two membranes. One is liable for kerat for [partaking of] the upper one as one is for [partaking of] the fat of the kidney itself. The lower one is like other membranes.31 The strands of tissue in them are forbidden, but one is not liable for kerat for them.
יב
ושני קרומות יש לכוליא העליון חייבין עליו כרת כחלב שעל הכוליא והתחתון הרי הוא כשאר קרומות וחוטין שבהן אסורין ואין בהן כרת:
13
The strands of tissue of the heart, of the foreleg, of the end of the spinal cord,32 of the lower jaw, those at either side of the tongue, and those within the fat of the small intestines which are interwoven like spiderwebs,33 and the membrane above the brain in the cranium and the membrane on the testicles are all forbidden because [of the prohibition against partaking] of blood.34
יג
חוטי הלב וחוטי היד וחוטי העוקץ וחוטי הלחי התחתון שבצד הלשון מיכן ומיכן וכן החוטין הדקין שהן בתוך חלב הדקין כמו בית עכביש מסובכין זה בזה וקרום שעל המוח שבקדקד וקרום שעל הביצים הכל אסורין משום דם:
14
When a kid or a lamb35 is less than 30 days old, it is permissible to cook its testicles without peeling [the membranes from them].36After 30 days, if thin red lines can be seen within them, it is recognizable that blood has circulated through them and one should not cook [the testicles] until their outer membrane has been removed or until they have been cut open and salted, as we explained.37 If thin red lines have not yet been seen within them, they are permitted.
יד
ביצי גדי או טלה שלא השלים שלשים יום מותר לבשלן בלא קליפה לאחר שלשים יום אם נראה בהן חוטין דקין אדומים בידוע שהלך בהם הדם ולא יבשל עד שיקלוף או עד שיחתך וימלח כמו שביארנו ואם עדיין לא נראו בהן חוטין האדומים מותרין:
15
We do not assume that there is blood in any of the digestive organs38 through which the food passes.
טו
וכל בני מעים שהמאכל סובב בחללן אין מחזיקין בהן דם:
16
It appears to me39 that all of these strands of tissue and membranes are forbidden according to Rabbinic Law. [Even] if one would say that they are forbidden according to Scriptural Law,40 and are included in the prohibitions against partaking against any fat or any blood, one is not liable for lashes for them, only stripes for rebellious conduct. [Partaking of] them is comparable to partaking of half the measure of a forbidden substance. This is forbidden by Scriptural Law, yet one is not liable for lashes for it.41
טז
יראה לי שכל אלו החוטין והקרומות איסורן מדברי סופרים ואם תאמר שהן אסורין מן התורה בכלל כל חלב וכל דם אין לוקין עליהן אלא מכת מרדות ויהיו כחצי שיעור שהוא אסור מן התורה ואין לוקין עליו:
17
We do not salt42 or wash fat together with meat. One should not use a knife used to cut fat to cut meat, nor a container in which fats were washed to wash meat.43
Therefore a butcher should prepare three knives: one with which to slaughter, one to cut the meat,44 and one to cut fat.
יז
אין מולחין חלבים עם הבשר ולא מדיחין חלבים עם בשר וסכין שחתך בה חלבים לא יחתך בה בשר וכלי שהדיח בו חלבים לא ידיח בו בשר לפיכך צריך הטבח להתקין שלש סכינין אחת ששוחט בה ואחת שמחתך בה בשר ואחת שמחתך בה חלבים:
18
If it is local custom for the butcher to wash the meat in his store, he should prepare two containers of water, one in which to wash meat and one in which to wash fat.45
יח
ואם דרך אותו מקום שידיח הטבח הבשר בחנות צריך להתקין לו שני כלים של מים אחד שמדיח בו בשר ואחד שמדיח בו חלבים:
19
It is forbidden for a butcher to spread the fat of the flanks over the meat46 to make it appear attractive. [The rationale is that] the membrane over the fat is thin. It may become crushed by the butcher's hand and the fat will ooze out and saturate through the meat.
[Although] it is forbidden to perform all of these acts, if they are performed, the meat is not forbidden.47 Nor is the person who performs them given corporal punishment. Instead, he is taught not to act in this manner.
יט
ואסור לטבח לפרוש חלב הכסלים על הבשר כדי לנאותו שהקרום שעל החלב דק ויתמעך ביד הטבח ויזוב החלב ויבלע בבשר וכל הדברים האלו אסור לעשותן ואם נעשו לא נאסר הבשר ואין מכין את העושה אלא מלמדין אותו שלא יעשה:
20
Meat should not be salted before the forbidden membranes and strands of tissue are removed.48 If the meat was salted with them, they must be removed after the salting. Even if the gid hanesheh49 was among them, one may remove them after salting and cook [the meat].50
כ
וכן אין מולחין את הבשר קודם שיסיר ממנו את הקרומות ואת החוטין האסורין ואם מלח מסירם אחר שנמלחו ואפילו היה בהן גיד הנשה מסירו אחר שנמלח ומבשל:
21
When a butcher follows the practice of cleaning meat [from forbidden strands of tissue and membranes and] such a strand or membrane is found after he [alleged to have cleaned the meat], we teach him and warn him not to act negligently with regard to prohibitions.51 [More stringent rules apply] if forbidden fat is found after he [alleged to have cleaned the meat]. If it is a barley corn in size, he is removed [from his position]. If an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat is found - even in several places - after he [alleged to have cleaned the meat], he is given stripes for rebellious conduct52 and he is removed from his position. The rationale is that a butcher's word is relied upon with regard to fat.53
כא
וטבח שדרכו לנקות הבשר ונמצא אחריו חוט או קרום מלמדין אותו ומזהירין אותו שלא יזלזל באיסורין אבל אם נמצא אחריו חלב אם היה כשעורה מעבירין אותו ואם נמצא אחריו כזית חלב אפילו במקומות הרבה מכין אותו מכת מרדות ומעבירין אותו מפני שהטבח נאמן על החלב:
FOOTNOTES
1.
The term forbidden fat refers to the Hebrew term cheilev, to distinguish it from shuman which refers to fat that may be eaten. Unless otherwise mentioned, the term "fat" in this text will refer to forbidden fat.
2.
There is, however, no prohibition against benefiting from forbidden fat. See Chapter 8, Halachah 15.
3.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 185) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 147) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
4.
See the following halachah.
5.
I.e., there is no separate prohibition concerning it. If the animal is kosher, its fat is not considered cheilev and is permitted. If the animal is not-kosher, its fat is of course forbidden, but it is not bound by a separate prohibition. This reflects a contrast to the prohibition against partaking of blood mentioned in the previous chapter.
6.
There is not, however, a separate prohibition for partaking of its forbidden fat. From Chulin 75a, it appears that this leniency applies only when the fetus is stillborn before its full period of gestation is completed. If, however, the full period of gestation is completed, the prohibition against cheilev does apply (Maggid Mishneh; Siftei Cohen 64:5). See also Halachot 3-4.
7.
I.e., why we do not follow the principle that one prohibition does not fall upon another.
8.
The fat was forbidden previously and a further prohibition is added when the meat becomes forbidden.
9.
Contrast this to the prohibition against gid hanasheh as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 1.
10.
As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 14. The Ra'avad mentions an opinion which states that one is not liable. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:2) cites both views..
11.
From the Rambam's inclusion of the phrase "takes out," the Kessef Mishneh concludes that the prohibition applies only when the fat is taken out from the mother's womb while the animal is still alive. If the fat is left inside the womb and then the animal is slaughtered, he maintains that the fat is permitted. This conclusion is cited by the Turei Zahav 64:4 and the Siftei Cohen 64:6.
12.
The Maggid Mishneh clarifies that this stringency does not apply when the fetus dies in its mother's womb even if it has completed the nine months of gestation.
13.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:5) states that one must remove the fatty portion on the inner side.
14.
Chulin 117a interprets Leviticus 3:16: "All of the cheilev to God" as referring to the portions of the animal offered on the altar. These include the kidneys and the lobe of the liver although they are not "fat" (see Hilchot Maaseh HaKorbanot 1:18). Instead, the intent of term cheilev in the verse is "choice portions."
15.
Genesis 45:18; Deuteronomy 32:14.
16.
The tenth of the tithe which the Levites who receive the tithe must separate and give the priests.
17.
Here also the intent of the term cheilev is "choice portions."
18.
An animal has four stomachs. We have chosen synonyms arbitrarily to describe them.
19.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:12) cites the Rambam's view, but also that of the Tur which requires one to be stringent and remove all of its traces. The Rama states that, after the fact, even the stringent opinions do not consider the kidney forbidden if it was cooked without the traces of this fat being removed.
20.
For while an animal is alive, its meat hangs loosely (Chulin 93b).
21.
For in its lifetime, it is not covered by meat.
22.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro mentions that some interpret Chulin 93b as stating that a cubit of the intestines are forbidden and he quotes this view as halachah in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:15). The Ramah, however, states that the forbidden measure is not a full cubit, but close to it.
23.
From the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Shechitah 6:10, it is obvious that he favors the first opinion. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the second view should be followed. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:15) states that one should follow the stringencies of both views.
24.
I.e., there is blood absorbed in the tissue or membrane.
25.
The commentaries have cited Chapter 6, Halachot 10-12, as the Rambam's intent, but this point is not explicitly stated there.
26.
For the blood will flow out of it.
27.
For the fire will cause the blood to drain off [see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 65:1)]. As the Maggid Mishneh mentions, there are some authorities who require that the blood vessels be cut open even when one roasts the meat.
28.
Otherwise, the fat will seep through the meat when it is being cooked or roasted.
29.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 64:13) explains that these strands of tissue extend from the lower portion of the backbone. As will be explained in the notes to Halachah 13, there are differences between his interpretation and that of the Rambam.
30.
Our translation follows the commentary of Rashi to Chullin 93a and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:10).
31.
I.e., they are forbidden, but one is not liable for kerat for them.
32.
This follows the Rambam's interpretation of Chullin 93a. Rashi [and his view is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:13)] understands that passage as referred to the strands of fat mentioned in Halachah 11.
33.
The Maggid Mishneh and Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 75:3) write that in the present age, leniency is granted with regard to these blood vessels. Nevertheless, it is customary to remove them.
34.
I.e., these are blood vessels in which blood will be lodged after the slaughter of the animal. Therefore they must be removed or cut open (see Halachah 10) before the animal is cooked or roasted.
35.
The Maggid Mishneh notes that the Rambam (and his source, Chullin 93b) do not mention a calf when stating this leniency. Implied is that even at a younger age, the testicles of a calf are considered as developed.
36.
Until the kid or lamb reaches that age, the blood vessels are not developed and there is not a large quantity of blood flowing through them.
37.
Chapter 6, Halachah 13.
38.
This refers to the organs themselves. Hence they need not be salted (Maggid Mishneh, see Chapter 6, Halachah 18). With regard to the fat on these organs, it is possible for there to be blood vessels within them as mentioned above.
The Maggid Mishneh writes that we do assume that the stomach contains blood. This view is not, however, followed by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 75:1). The Siftei Cohen 75:1 and the Turei Zahav 75:1, however, state that we do assume that the stomach of a fowl contains blood.
39.
This expression indicates a conclusion at which the Rambam arrived through his own powers of deduction without any explicit prior Rabbinic source. It appears that the Rambam did not arrive at a conclusive decision that the prohibition was of Rabbinic origin, but that he did favor this understanding.
40.
The verses mention kol, "any," fat or blood. That term could be understood as an inclusion beyond the ordinary scope of the term and hence, involving these substances as well.
41.
See Chapter 4, Halachah 16, Hilchot Shivitat Esor 2:3, et al.
42.
For we fear that the meat will absorb some of the fat.
43.
If one cleans the knife or the container first, scrubbing it carefully, it is permitted (Maggid Mishneh in the name of the Rashba).
44.
For at the outset, the knife used to slaughter should not be used to cut meat (see Chapter 6, Halachah 20).
45.
The Chulin 8b asks: Why isn't one container sufficient? First he will wash the meat in it and then the fat? The text answers that perhaps he will forget and wash the fat first. In this instance, by contrast, since he has two clearly designated containers, he will not make such a mistake.
46.
The Maggid Mishneh mentions views that maintain that this restriction only applies directly after slaughter when the fat is still warm. Once it has cooled, it hardens. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:18).
47.
Although there are some more stringent views regarding certain particulars, the Rambam's view is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:19).
48.
This is a safeguard against the fat and blood being absorbed by the meat.
49.
See the following chapter.
50.
According to the Rambam, after the fact, we do not say that the fat and/or blood was absorbed in the meat (see also Chapter 15, Halachah 32, and notes). The Rashba differs and maintains that one must remove the surface of the meat with them, because that surface also becomes forbidden. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:20) quotes both views. The Rama also cites a more stringent perspective, but concludes that one may rely on the Rashba's view.
51.
He is not removed from his position, because these prohibitions are Rabbinic in origin (Maggid Mishneh). This ruling is, however, somewhat difficult to understand according to the second view mentioned in Halachah 16.
52.
For he transgresses the prohibition: "Do not place a stumbling block before the blind," which is interpreted as a charge forbidding one to cause others to transgress. Nevertheless, lashes are not given for the violation of this prohibition.
53.
And his customers might cook the meat without checking for fat (or being knowledgeable about the details of the prohibition). Hence, he would cause them to transgress.
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class
Sunday, Tevet 13, 5778 · 31 December 2017
"Today's Day"
Monday, Tevet 13, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vay'chi, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 69-71.
Tanya: It is written, however (p. 35)...to burning coals. (p. 37).
Where a lantern is placed, those who seek light gather around - for light attracts.1
FOOTNOTES
1.See Likutei Sichot, Vol. 10, p. 294.
Daily Thought:
Knowing Imperfection
Do you think G-d created us because He wanted pristine, perfect beings?
G-d breathed Himself into a creature who cries and laughs and dances and bleeds; who fails more often than he succeeds; who chases after fleeting moments and is torn by figments of his own mind.
He desired to live in the world of such a being, and from within that place He will come to know His self that cannot be known.
---
No comments:
Post a Comment