| |||||
- 
- ב"ה - Today in Judaism - Today is Monday, 14 Tevet, 5778 · January 1, 2018Torah Reading
Shemot: Exodus 1:1-17
Exodus 1:1 These are the names of the sons of Isra’el who came into Egypt with Ya‘akov; each man came with his household: 2 Re’uven, Shim‘on, Levi, Y’hudah, 3 Yissakhar, Z’vulun, Binyamin, 4 Dan, Naftali, Gad and Asher. 5 All told, there were seventy descendants of Ya‘akov; Yosef was already in Egypt.
6 Yosef died, as did all his brothers and all that generation. 7 The descendants of Isra’el were fruitful, increased abundantly, multiplied and grew very powerful; the land became filled with them.
8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt. He knew nothing about Yosef 9 but said to his people, “Look, the descendants of Isra’el have become a people too numerous and powerful for us. 10 Come, let’s use wisdom in dealing with them. Otherwise, they’ll continue to multiply; and in the event of war they might ally themselves with our enemies, fight against us and leave the land altogether.”
11 So they put slavemasters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built for Pharaoh the storage cities of Pitom and Ra‘amses. 12 But the more the Egyptians oppressed them, the more they multiplied and expanded, until the Egyptians came to dread the people of Isra’el 13 and worked them relentlessly, 14 making their lives bitter with hard labor — digging clay, making bricks, all kinds of field work; and in all this toil they were shown no mercy.
15 Moreover, the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was called Shifrah and the other Pu‘ah. 16 “When you attend the Hebrew women and see them giving birth,” he said, “if it’s a boy, kill him; but if it’s a girl, let her live.” 17 However, the midwives were God-fearing women, so they didn’t do as the king of Egypt ordered but let the boys live.
---
Today in Jewish History:
• Purim Hebron
On this day, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob came to the rescue of the Jewish community of Hebron, after an evil Pasha imprisoned its leaders and threatened to sell the entire Jewish population into slavery.
The Sephardic community of Hebron would celebrate this day to mark the great miracle which occurred.
For the full story, see Purim Hebron.
Daily Quote: When the righteous wish to settle in tranquility, G-d says: "Is it not enough for the righteous what is prepared for them in the World to Come, that they also ask for a tranquil life in this world?"(Rashi's commentary on Genesis 37:1)
Daily Torah Study:
Chumash: Shemot, 2nd Portion Exodus 1:18-2:10 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation
• Video Class
• Daily Wisdom (short insight)
Exodus Chapter 1
18So the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and said to them, "Why have you done this thing, that you have enabled the boys to live?" יחוַיִּקְרָ֤א מֶֽלֶךְ־מִצְרַ֨יִם֙ לַֽמְיַלְּדֹ֔ת וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לָהֶ֔ן מַדּ֥וּעַ עֲשִׂיתֶ֖ן הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֑ה וַתְּחַיֶּ֖יןָ אֶת־הַיְלָדִֽים:
19And the midwives said to Pharaoh, "Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are skilled as midwives; when the midwife has not yet come to them, they have [already] given birth." יטוַתֹּאמַ֤רְןָ הַֽמְיַלְּדֹת֙ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֔ה כִּ֣י לֹ֧א כַנָּשִׁ֛ים הַמִּצְרִיֹּ֖ת הָֽעִבְרִיֹּ֑ת כִּֽי־חָי֣וֹת הֵ֔נָּה בְּטֶ֨רֶם תָּב֧וֹא אֲלֵהֶ֛ן הַֽמְיַלֶּ֖דֶת וְיָלָֽדוּ:
for they are skilled as midwives: Heb. חָיוֹת, as skillful as midwives. The Targum מְיַלְּדֹת is חַייָתָא Our Rabbis (Sotah 11b), however, interpreted it to mean that they [the Israelite women] are compared to beasts (חַיּוֹת) of the field, which do not require midwives. Now where are they compared to beasts? A cub [and] a grown lion (Gen. 49:9), a wolf, he will prey (Gen. 49:27), His firstborn bull (Deut. 33:17), a swift gazelle (Gen. 49:21). Whoever [was not compared to a beast as above] was included by Scriptures in [the expression] and blessed them (Gen. 49:18). Scripture states further: How was your mother a lioness? (Ezek. 19:2). [From Sotah 11b]
כי חיות הנה: בקיאות כמילדות. תרגום מילדות חיתא. ורבותינו דרשו הרי הן משולות לחיות השדה שאינן צריכות מילדות. והיכן משולות לחיות, גור אריה (בראשית מט ט), זאב יטרף (שם כז), בכור שורו (דברים לג יז), אילה שלוחה (בראשית מט כא), ומי שלא נכתב בו הרי הכתוב כללן (בראשית מט כח) ויברך אותם, ועוד כתיב (יחזקאל יט ב) מה אמך לביא:
20God benefited the midwives, and the people multiplied and became very strong. כוַיֵּ֥יטֶב אֱלֹהִ֖ים לַֽמְיַלְּדֹ֑ת וַיִּ֧רֶב הָעָ֛ם וַיַּֽעַצְמ֖וּ מְאֹֽד:
God benefited: Heb. וַיֵּיטֶב, bestowed goodness upon them. This is the difference in a word whose root is two letters and is prefixed by “vav yud” : When it is used in the causative sense, the “yud” is vowelized with a “tzeirei,” which is a “kamatz katan” (or with a “segol,” which is a “pattach katan” ), e.g., God benefited (וַיֵּיטֶב) the midwives ; and He increased (וַיֶרֶב) in the daughter of Judah (Lam. 2:5), He increased pain; And he exiled (וַַיֶּגֶל) the survivors (II Chron. 36:20), referring to Nebuzaradan, he exiled the survivors; and turned (וַיֶּפֶן) tail to tail (Jud. 15:4), he turned the tails one to another. All these are the causative conjugation [lit., causing others to do]. When it is used in the simple, kal conjugation, however, the “yud” is vowelized with a “chirik,” e.g., and it was pleasing (וַיִּיטַב) in his eyes (Lev. 10:20), an expression meaning that it was good; and similarly, and the people multiplied (וַיִּרֶב) (Exod. 1:20), the people increased; And Judah went into exile (וַיִּגֶל) (II Kings 25:21), Judah was exiled; He turned (וַיִּפֶן) this way and that way (Exod. 2:12), he turned here and there. Do not refute me from וַיֵּלֶ, וַיֵּשֶׁב, וַיֵּרֶד, and וַיֵּצֵא, because these are not of the grammatical form of those, for the “yud” is the third radical in them, יָלֹך, יָשׁב, יָרֹד, and יָצֹא, in which the “yud” is the third letter.
וייטב: הטיב להם. וזה חלוק בתיבה שיסודה שתי אותיות ונתן לה וי"ו יו"ד בראשה, כשהיא באה לדבר בלשון ויפעיל הוא נקוד היו"ד בציר"י שהוא קמ"ץ קטן, כגון וייטב א-להים למילדות, וירב בבת יהודה (איכה ב ה), הרבה תאניה, וכן ויגל השארית (דברי הימים ב' לו כ), דנבוזראדן הגלה את השארית, ויפן זנב אל זנב (שופטים טו ד), הפנה הזנבות זו לזו, כל אלו לשון הפעיל את אחרים. וכשהוא מדבר בלשון ויפעל, הוא נקוד היו"ד בחיר"ק, כגון (ויקרא י כ) וייטב בעיניו, לשון הוטב, וכן וירב העם (פסוק כ), נתרבה העם, ויגל יהודה (מלכים ב' כה כא) הגלה יהודה, ויפן כה וכה (ב יב), פנה לכאן ולכאן. ואל תשיבני וילך, וישב, וירד, ויצא, לפי שאינן מגזרתן של אלו, שהרי היו"ד יסוד בהן, ירד, יצא, ישב, ילך, היו"ד אות שלישית בו:
God benefited the midwives: What was this benefit?
וייטב א-להים למילדת: מהו הטובה:
21Now it took place when the midwives feared God, that He made houses for them. כאוַיְהִ֕י כִּי־יָֽרְא֥וּ הַֽמְיַלְּדֹ֖ת אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֑ים וַיַּ֥עַשׂ לָהֶ֖ם בָּתִּֽים:
He made houses for them: The houses of the priesthood, the Levitic family, and the royal family, which are called houses, as it is written: And he built the house of the Lord and the house of the king, (I Kings 9:1) [sic] 5, the priesthood and the Levitic family from Jochebed and the royal family from Miriam, as is stated in tractate Sotah (11b).
ויעש להם בתים: - בתי כהונה ולויה ומלכות שקרויין בתים. (ויבן) [הבתים] את בית ה' ואת בית המלך (מלכים א' ט א) (לקוטי שיחות חלק כ"א, ע' 2 הערה 29). כהונה ולויה מיוכבד, ומלכות ממרים, כדאיתא במסכת סוטה (סוטה יא ב):
22And Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, "Every son who is born you shall cast into the Nile, and every daughter you shall allow to live." כבוַיְצַ֣ו פַּרְעֹ֔ה לְכָל־עַמּ֖וֹ לֵאמֹ֑ר כָּל־הַבֵּ֣ן הַיִּלּ֗וֹד הַיְאֹ֨רָה֙ תַּשְׁלִיכֻ֔הוּ וְכָל־הַבַּ֖ת תְּחַיּֽוּן:
all his people: He issued this decree upon them as well. On the day Moses was born, his astrologers told him [Pharaoh], Today the one who will save them has been born, but we do not know whether from the Egyptians or from the Israelites, but we see that he will ultimately be smitten through water. Therefore, on that day he issued a decree also upon the Egyptians, as it is said: Every son who is born, and it does not say: who is born to the Hebrews. They did not know, however, that he [Moses] would ultimately suffer because of the water of Meribah (Num. 20:7-13) [i.e., that he would not be permitted to enter the Holy Land]. [From Sotah 12a, Exod. Rabbah 1:18, Sanh. 101b]
לכל עמו: אף עליהם גזר. יום שנולד משה אמרו לו אצטגניניו היום נולד מושיען, ואין אנו יודעין אם ממצרים אם מישראל, ורואין אנו שסופו ללקות במים, לפיכך גזר אותו היום אף על המצרים, שנאמר כל הבן הילוד, ולא נאמר הילוד לעברים, והם לא היו יודעים שסופו ללקות על מי מריבה:
Exodus Chapter 2
1A man of the house of Levi went and married a daughter of Levi. אוַיֵּ֥לֶךְ אִ֖ישׁ מִבֵּ֣ית לֵוִ֑י וַיִּקַּ֖ח אֶת־בַּת־לֵוִֽי:
and married a daughter of Levi: He was separated from her because of Pharaoh’s decree (and he remarried her. This is the meaning of went, that he followed [lit., he went after] his daughter’s advice that she said to him, Your decree is harsher than פַּרְעֹה. Whereas Pharaoh issued a decree [only] against the males, you [issued a decree] against the females as well [for none will be born]. This [comment] is found in an old Rashi ), and he took her back and married her a second time. She too was transformed to become like a young woman [physically], but she was [actually] 130 years old. For she was born when they came to Egypt between the חוֹמוֹת and they stayed there 210 years. When they left, Moses was 80 years old. If so, when she conceived him, she was 130 years old, yet [Scripture] calls her a daughter of Levi. [From Sotah 12a, Exod. Rabbah 1:19] [
ויקח את בת לוי: פרוש היה ממנה מפני גזירת פרעה (וחזר ולקחה. וזהו וילך, שהלך בעצת בתו שאמרה לו גזרתך קשה משל פרעה, אם פרעה גזר על הזכרים, ואתה ג"כ על הנקבות). והחזירה ועשה בה לקוחין שניים. ואף היא נהפכה להיות נערה. ובת מאה שלושים שנה היתה שנולדה בבואה למצרים בין החומות, ומאתים ועשר שנה נשתהו שם, וכשיצאו היה משה בן שמונים שנה. אם כן כשנתעברה ממנו היתה בת מאה שלושים וקורא אותה בת לוי:
2The woman conceived and bore a son, and [when] she saw him that he was good, she hid him for three months. בוַתַּ֥הַר הָֽאִשָּׁ֖ה וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּ֑ן וַתֵּ֤רֶא אֹתוֹ֙ כִּי־ט֣וֹב ה֔וּא וַתִּצְפְּנֵ֖הוּ שְׁלשָׁ֥ה יְרָחִֽים:
that he was good: When he was born, the entire house was filled with light. [From Sotah 12a, Exod. Rabbah 1:20]
כי טוב הוא: כשנולד נתמלא הבית כולו אורה:
3[When] she could no longer hide him, she took [for] him a reed basket, smeared it with clay and pitch, placed the child into it, and put [it] into the marsh at the Nile's edge. גוְלֹא־יָֽכְלָ֣ה עוֹד֘ הַצְּפִינוֹ֒ וַתִּקַח־לוֹ֙ תֵּ֣בַת גֹּ֔מֶא וַתַּחְמְרָ֥ה בַֽחֵמָ֖ר וּבַזָּ֑פֶת וַתָּ֤שֶׂם בָּהּ֙ אֶת־הַיֶּ֔לֶד וַתָּ֥שֶׂם בַּסּ֖וּף עַל־שְׂפַ֥ת הַיְאֹֽר:
[When] she could no longer hide him: because the Egyptians counted her [pregnancy] from the day that he [Amram] took her back. She bore him after [only] six months and one day (Sotah 12a), for a woman who gives birth to a seven-month child may give birth after incomplete [months] (Niddah 38b, R.H. 11a). And they searched after her at the end of nine [months].
ולא יכלה עוד הצפינו: שמנו לה המצריים מיום שהחזירה, והיא ילדתו לששה חדשים ויום אחד, שהיולדת לשבעה יולדת למקוטעין, והם בדקו אחריה לסוף תשעה:
reed: Heb. גֹּמֶא, גִמִי in the language of the Mishnah, and in French jonc, reed grass. This is a pliable substance, which withstands both soft [things] and hard [things]. [From Sotah 12a]
גמא: גמי בלשון משנה ובלעז יונ"ק [גומא]. ודבר רך הוא, ועומד בפני רך ובפני קשה:
with clay and pitch: Pitch on the outside and clay on the inside so that the righteous person [Moses] should not smell the foul odor of pitch. [From Sotah 12a]
בחמר ובזפת: זפת מבחוץ וטיט מבפנים, כדי שלא יריח אותו צדיק ריח רע של זפת:
and put [it] into the marsh: Heb. וַתָּשֶׂם בָּסוּף. This is an expression meaning a marsh, rosei(y)l, in Old French [roseau in modern French], reed. Similar to it is reeds and rushes (קָנֶה וָסוּף) shall be cut off (Isa. 19:6). [From Sotah 12b]
ותשם בסוף: הוא לשון אגם רושי"ל בלעז [סוף], ודומה לו (ישעיה יט ו) קנה וסוף קמלו:
4His sister stood from afar, to know what would be done to him. דוַתֵּֽתַצַּ֥ב אֲחֹת֖וֹ מֵֽרָחֹ֑ק לְדֵעָ֕ה מַה־יֵּֽעָשֶׂ֖ה לֽוֹ:
5Pharaoh's daughter went down to bathe, to the Nile, and her maidens were walking along the Nile, and she saw the basket in the midst of the marsh, and she sent her maidservant, and she took it. הוַתֵּ֤רֶד בַּת־פַּרְעֹה֙ לִרְחֹ֣ץ עַל־הַיְאֹ֔ר וְנַֽעֲרֹתֶ֥יהָ הֹֽלְכֹ֖ת עַל־יַ֣ד הַיְאֹ֑ר וַתֵּ֤רֶא אֶת־הַתֵּבָה֙ בְּת֣וֹךְ הַסּ֔וּף וַתִּשְׁלַ֥ח אֶת־אֲמָתָ֖הּ וַתִּקָּחֶֽהָ:
to bathe, to the Nile: Heb. עַל הַיְאֹר. Transpose the verse and explain it: Pharaoh’s daughter went down to the Nile to bathe in it.
לרחץ על היאר: סרס המקרא ופרשהו ותרד בת פרעה על היאור לרחוץ בו:
along the Nile: Heb. עַל יַד הַיְאֹר, next to the Nile, similar to: See, Joab’s field is near mine (רְאוּ חֶלְקַת יוֹאָב אֶל יָדִי) (II Sam. 14:30). יָדִי is a literal expression for hand, because a person s hand is near himself. [Thus, the word יָד denotes proximity.] Our Sages said (Sotah 12b): הֹלְכֹת is an expression of death, similar to: Behold, I am going (הוֹלֵ) to die (Gen. 25:32). They [her maidens] were going to die because they protested against her [when she wanted to take the basket]. The text supports them [the Sages], because [otherwise] why was it necessary to write: and her maidens were walking?
על יד היאר: אצל היאור, כמו (שמואל ב יד ל) ראו חלקת יואב על ידי, והוא לשון יד ממש, שיד האדם סמוכה לו. ורבותינו דרשו הולכות לשון מיתה, כמו (בראשית כה לב) הנה אנכי הולך למות, הולכות למות לפי שמיחו בה. והכתוב מסייען, כי למה לנו לכתוב ונערותיה הולכות:
her maidservant: Heb. אֲמָתָהּ, her maidservant. Our Sages (Sotah 12b), however, interpreted it as an expression meaning a hand. [The joint from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger is known as אַמָּה, hence the cubit measure bearing the name, אַמָּה, which is the length of the arm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger.] Following [the rules of] Hebrew grammar, however, it should have been vowelized אַמָּתָהּ, with a dagesh in the mem. They, however, interpreted אֶתאֲמָתָהּ to mean her hand, [that she stretched out her hand,] and her arm grew many cubits (אַמוֹת) [so that she could reach the basket]. [From Sotah 12b, Exod. Rabbah 1:23]
את אמתה: את שפחתה. ורבותינו דרשו לשון יד. אבל לפי דקדוק לשון הקודש היה לו להנקד אמתה מ"ם דגושה. והם דרשו את אמתה את ידה, שנשתרבבה אמתה אמות הרבה:
6She opened [it], and she saw him the child, and behold, he was a weeping lad, and she had compassion on him, and she said, "This is [one] of the children of the Hebrews." ווַתִּפְתַּח֙ וַתִּרְאֵ֣הוּ אֶת־הַיֶּ֔לֶד וְהִנֵּה־נַ֖עַר בֹּכֶ֑ה וַתַּחְמֹ֣ל עָלָ֔יו וַתֹּ֕אמֶר מִיַּלְדֵ֥י הָֽעִבְרִ֖ים זֶֽה:
She opened [it], and she saw him: Whom did she see? The child. Its midrashic interpretation is that she saw the Shechinah with him. [From Sotah 12b, Exod. Rabbah 1:23]
ותפתח ותראהו: את מי ראתה, את הילד, זהו פשוטו. ומדרשו שראתה עמו שכינה:
and behold, he was a weeping lad: [Even though he was an infant] his voice was like that of a lad. [From Sotah 12b]
והנה נער בכה: קולו כנער:
7His sister said to Pharaoh's daughter, "Shall I go and call for you a wet nurse from the Hebrew women, so that she shall nurse the child for you?" זוַתֹּ֣אמֶר אֲחֹתוֹ֘ אֶל־בַּת־פַּרְעֹה֒ הַֽאֵלֵ֗ךְ וְקָרָ֤אתִי לָךְ֙ אִשָּׁ֣ה מֵינֶ֔קֶת מִ֖ן הָֽעִבְרִיֹּ֑ת וְתֵינִ֥ק לָ֖ךְ אֶת־הַיָּֽלֶד:
from the Hebrew women: This teaches [us] that she had taken him around to many Egyptian women to nurse, but he did not nurse because he was destined to speak with the Shechinah. [From Sotah 12b, Exod. Rabbah 1:25].
מן העברית: מלמד שהחזירתו על מצריות הרבה לינק ולא ינק, לפי שהיה עתיד לדבר עם השכינה:
8Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Go!" So the girl went and called the child's mother. חוַתֹּֽאמֶר־לָ֥הּ בַּת־פַּרְעֹ֖ה לֵ֑כִי וַתֵּ֨לֶךְ֙ הָֽעַלְמָ֔ה וַתִּקְרָ֖א אֶת־אֵ֥ם הַיָּֽלֶד:
So the girl went: Heb. הָעַלְמָה. She went with alacrity and vigor like a youth. [From Sotah 12b]
ותלך העלמה: הלכה בזריזות ועלמות כעלם:
9Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Take this child and nurse him for me, and I will give [you] your wages." So the woman took the child and nursed him. טוַתֹּ֧אמֶר לָ֣הּ בַּת־פַּרְעֹ֗ה הֵילִ֜יכִי אֶת־הַיֶּ֤לֶד הַזֶּה֙ וְהֵֽינִקִ֣הוּ לִ֔י וַֽאֲנִ֖י אֶתֵּ֣ן אֶת־שְׂכָרֵ֑ךְ וַתִּקַּ֧ח הָֽאִשָּׁ֛ה הַיֶּ֖לֶד וַתְּנִיקֵֽהוּ:
Take: Heb. הֵילִיכִי. She prophesied but did not know what she prophesied. [She said,] This one is yours. [From Sotah 12b, Exod. Rabbah 1:25]
היליכי: נתנבאה ולא ידעה מה נתנבאה הי שליכי:
10The child grew up, and she brought him to Pharaoh's daughter, and he became like her son. She named him Moses, and she said, "For I drew him from the water." יוַיִּגְדַּ֣ל הַיֶּ֗לֶד וַתְּבִאֵ֨הוּ֙ לְבַת־פַּרְעֹ֔ה וַֽיְהִי־לָ֖הּ לְבֵ֑ן וַתִּקְרָ֤א שְׁמוֹ֙ משֶׁ֔ה וַתֹּ֕אמֶר כִּ֥י מִן־הַמַּ֖יִם מְשִׁיתִֽהוּ:
For I drew him from the water: Heb. מְשִׁיתִהוּ. The Targum renders: שְׁחַלְךְתֵּי, which is an Aramaic expression of drawing out, similar to [the expression] שֵׂינֵיתָא מֵחִלָבָא ְמַשְׁחֵל, like one who draws a hair out of milk (Ber. 8a). And in Hebrew, מְשִׁיתִהוּ is an expression meaning I have removed (משׁ), like shall not move away (לֹא יָמוּשׁ) (Josh. 1:8), did not move away (לֹא מָשׁוּ) (Num. 14:44). Menachem classified in this way [i.e., under the root משׁ in Machbereth Menachem, p. 120]. I say, however, that it (מְשִׁיתִהוּ) does not belong in the classification of מָשׁ and לֹא יָמוּשׁ, but [it is derived] from the root מָשֹׁה, and it means taking out and similarly, He drew me out (יַמְשֵׁנִי) of many waters (II Sam. 22:17). For if it were of the classification of [the word] מָשׁ, it would be inappropriate to say מְשִׁיתִהוּ, but הֲמִישׁוֹתִיהוּ, as one says from קָם (to rise), הֲקִימוֹתִי (I set up), and from שָׁב (to return), הֲשִׁיבוֹתִי (I brought back), and from בָּא (to come), הֲבִיאוֹתִי (I brought). Or מַשְׁךְתִּיהוּ, like and I will remove וּמַשְׁךְתִּי ) the iniquity of that land (Zech. 3:9). But מָשִׁיתִי is only from the root of a word whose verb form is formed with a “hey” at the end of the word, like מָשָׁה, to take out בָּנָה, to build; עָשָׂה, to do; צִוָּה, to command; פָּנָה, to turn. When one comes to say in any of these [verbs] פָּעַלְךְתִּי, I did, [i.e., first person past-tense], a “yud” replaces the “hey” : עָשִׂיתִי, I did; בָּנִיתִי, I built; פָּנִיתִי, I turned; צִוִּיתִי, I commanded.
משיתהו: שחילתה והוא לשון הוצאה בלשון ארמי, כמשחל ביניתא מחלבא. ובלשון עברי משיתהו לשון הסירותיו, כמו (יהושע א ח) לא ימוש, לא משו (במדבר יד מד), כך חברו מנחם. ואני אומר שאינו ממחברת מש, וימוש, אלא מגזרת משה ולשון הוצאה הוא, וכן (שמואל ב כב יז) ימשני ממים רבים, שאילו היה ממחברת מש, לא יתכן לומר משיתהו, אלא המישותיהו, כאשר יאמר מן קם הקימותי, ומן שב השיבותי, ומן בא הביאותי, או משתיהו, כמו (זכריה ג ט) ומשתי את עון הארץ, אבל משיתי אינו אלא מגזרת תיבה שפעל שלה מיוסד בה"א בסוף התיבה. כגון משה, בנה, עשה, צוה, פנה, כשיבא לומר בהם פעלתי, תבא היו"ד במקום ה"א, כמו עשיתי, בניתי, פניתי, צויתי:
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 72 - 76
• Hebrew text
• English text
Chapter 72
David composed this psalm for Solomon, praying that he be granted the wisdom to provide justice for the poor.
1. For Solomon. O God, impart Your justice to the king, and Your righteousness to the son of the king.
2. May he judge Your people with righteousness, Your poor with justice.
3. May the mountains bear peace to the nation, also the hills, in [reward for their] righteousness.
4. May he judge the nation's poor, save the children of the destitute, and crush the oppressor,
5. so that they will fear You as long as the sun [shines] and the moon endures, generation after generation.
6. May [his words] descend like rain upon cut grass, like raindrops that water the earth.
7. In his days may the righteous flourish, with much peace until the moon is no more.
8. And may he rule from sea to sea, and from the river until the ends of the earth.
9. May nobles kneel before him, and may his enemies lick the dust.
10. The kings of Tarshish and the islands will return tribute, the kings of Sheba and Seba will offer gifts.
11. All kings will bow to him, all nations will serve him;
12. for he rescues the needy one who cries out, the poor one who has no one to help him.
13. He pities the impoverished and needy, and saves the souls of the destitute.
14. He redeems their soul from deception and violence, and their blood is precious in his eyes.
15. He revives [the poor], and gives him of the gold of Sheba; and so [the poor] pray for him always, and bless him all day.
16. May there be abundant grain in the land, upon the mountaintops; may its fruit rustle like the [cedars of] Lebanon, and may [people] blossom from the city like the grass of the earth.
17. May his name endure forever; may his name be magnified as long as the sun [shines]. And all nations will bless themselves by him, they will praise him.
18. Blessed is the Lord God, the God of Israel, Who alone performs wonders.
19. Blessed is His glorious Name forever, and may the whole earth be filled with His glory, Amen and Amen.
20. The prayers of David, son of Jesse, are concluded1
FOOTNOTES
1.David composed this psalm at the end of his lifetime.
Chapter 73
This psalm addresses the question of why the righteous suffer while the wicked prosper, and prays for an end to our long exile. Read, and you will find repose for your soul.
1. A psalm by Asaph. Truly God is good to Israel, to the pure of heart.
2. But as for me, my feet nearly strayed; in an instant my steps would have been swept aside.
3. For I envied the revelers when I saw the tranquility of the wicked.
4. For there are no bonds1 to their death, and their health is sound.
5. They have no part in the toil of men, nor are they afflicted like other mortals;
6. therefore they wear pride as a necklace; their bodies are enwrapped in violence.
7. Their eyes bulge from fat; they surpassed the fantasies of their heart.
8. They consume [others], and talk wickedly of oppression-from on high do they speak.
9. They set their mouths against Heaven, while their tongues walk upon the earth.
10. Therefore His people return here,2 and suck the full [cup of bitter] waters.
11. And they say, "How can it be that God knows? Is there knowledge in the Most High?”
12. Behold these are the wicked, and they are ever tranquil, they have gained much wealth.
13. Surely in vain have I purified my heart, and washed my hands in cleanliness;
14. for I was afflicted all day, and my rebuke came each morning.
15. Were I to say, "I shall tell it like it is," behold I would turn the generation of Your children to rebels.
16. And when I pondered to understand this, it was unjust in my eyes;
17. until I came to the sanctuaries of God, and perceived their end.
18. Only on slippery places do You set them, You cast them into darkness.
19. How they have become desolate in an instant! They came to an end, they were consumed by terrors,
20. like a dream upon awakening. O my Lord, disgrace their image in the city.
21. When my heart was in ferment, and my mind was sharpened,
22. I was a boor and did not understand, like an animal was I with You.
23. Yet I was always with You; You held my right hand.
24. Guide me with Your counsel, and afterward, receive me with honor.
25. Whom do I have in heaven [besides You]? And when I am with You I desire nothing on earth.
26. My flesh and my heart yearn; God is the rock of my heart and my portion forever.
27. For behold, all those who are far from You perish, You cut down all who stray from You.
28. But as for me, the nearness of God is my good; I have put my trust in my Lord, God, that I may recount all Your works.
FOOTNOTES
1.Their death is not protracted by illness and misery(Radak).
2.To the way of the wicked (Rashi).
Chapter 74
The psalmist mourns and weeps over all the synagogues and study halls that have been burned: the Philistines destroyed the Tabernacle of Shiloh; Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the first Temple. We have been in exile for so long, without seeing any signs of redemption! When will the redemption come? Read, and you will find lamentation and consolation.
1. A maskil1 by Asaph. Why, O God, have You abandoned us forever, does Your wrath fume against the sheep of Your pasture?
2. Remember Your congregation which You acquired long ago, the tribe of Your inheritance whom You redeemed [and brought to] Mount Zion, where You rested Your Presence.
3. Lift Your steps to inflict eternal ruin, because of all the evil done by the enemy in the Sanctuary.
4. Your foes roared in the midst of Your meeting place; they considered their omens to be [genuine] signs.
5. The axes in the thicket of trees2 were reckoned as bringing [an offering] to the Above.
6. And now, all her ornaments together are smashed by hammer and hatchet.
7. They set Your Sanctuary on fire; they desecrated the Abode of Your Name to the ground.
8. Their rulers thought together in their hearts; they burned all the meeting places of God in the land.
9. We have not seen our signs; there is no longer a prophet, and there is none among us who knows how long.
10. How long, O God, will the adversary disgrace, will the enemy blaspheme Your Name forever!
11. Why do You withdraw Your hand, even Your right hand? Cast it out from within Your bosom!
12. For God is my King from long ago, working salvations in the midst of the earth.
13. In Your might, You divided the sea; You shattered the heads of the sea-monsters on the waters.
14. You crushed the heads of the Leviathan,3 leaving him as food for the nation [wandering in] the wilderness.
15. You split [the rock, bringing forth] fountain and brook; You dried up mighty streams.
16. Yours is the day, the night is also Yours; You established the moon and the sun.
17. You set all the boundaries of the earth; summer and winter-You created them.
18. Remember this, how the enemy reviled the Lord, and the vile nation blasphemed Your Name.
19. Do not give the soul of Your turtledove to the wild beast; do not forget the life of Your poor forever.
20. Look to the covenant, for the dark places of the earth are filled with dens of violence.
21. Do not turn back the oppressed in disgrace; [then] the poor and needy will praise Your Name.
22. Arise, O God, champion Your cause; remember Your insults from the perverse all day long.
23. Forget not the voice of Your adversaries; the tumult of Your opponents ascends always.
FOOTNOTES
1.A psalm intended to enlighten and impart knowledge(Metzudot).
2.Chopping wood for the construction of the Temple (Metzudot).
3.Pharaoh and his chieftains
Chapter 75
How great is Israel! During their holidays they do not engage in frivolity, but in song and praise, and the study of the holiday's laws. Also, when they proclaimed (at the giving of the Torah), "We will do and we will hear!" they allowed the world to remain in existence. This psalm also admonishes those who indulge in worldly pleasures and attribute their prosperity to their own efforts.
1. For the Conductor, a plea not to be destroyed. A psalm by Asaph, a song.
2. We gave thanks to You, O God, we gave thanks; and Your Name was near [when] they1 told of Your wonders.
3. When I choose the appointed time, I will judge with fairness.
4. When the earth and all its inhabitants were melting, I established its pillars forever.
5. I said to the perverse, "Do not pervert [Israel]," and to the wicked, "Do not raise your pride.”
6. Do not raise your pride heavenward, nor speak with an arrogant neck
7. For not from the east or the west, nor from the desert does greatness come.
8. For God is Judge; He humbles one, and elevates the other.
9. For there is a cup [of punishment] in the hand of the Lord, with strong wine of full mixture; He pours from this, and all the wicked of the earth will drink, draining even its dregs.
10. But as for me, I will tell of it forever; I will sing to the God of Jacob.
11. I will cut off all glory of the wicked, but the glory of the righteous will be raised up.
FOOTNOTES
1.Our ancestors.
Chapter 76
This psalm contains the prophecy of when the vast army of Sennacherib was seized with a deep slumber that rendered the hands of the soldiers powerless to raise their weapons; thus did they all fall in battle.
1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music, a psalm by Asaph, a song.
2. God is known in Judah, His Name is great in Israel.
3. His Tabernacle was in Shalem,1 and His dwelling place in Zion.
4. There He broke the flying arrows of the bow, the shield, the sword and battle-forever.
5. You are illumination, mightier than the mountains of prey.
6. The stout-hearted were without sense, they slept their sleep, and all the warriors were unable to find their strength.
7. At Your rebuke, O God of Jacob, chariot and horse were stunned.
8. You, awesome are You! Who can stand before You once You are enraged.
9. From heaven You let the verdict be heard; the earth feared and was still,
10. when God rose to pass judgement, to save all the humble of the earth forever.
11. The anger of man will cause us to thank You;2 You will restrain the residue of wrath.
12. Make vows to the Lord your God and fulfill them; all who surround Him will bring tribute to the Awesome One.
13. He cuts down the spirit of nobles; He is awesome to the kings of the earth.
FOOTNOTES
1.Jerusalem.
2.When the wicked are punished for being angry with Israel, Israel acknowledges God (Metzudot).
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 12
• English Text (Lessons in Tanya)
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
Monday, Tevet 14, 5778 · January 1, 2018
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 12
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Yehoshua B. Gordon Watch • Listen
• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Manis Freidman Listen • Download MP3
In the previous chapters, the Alter Rebbe defined the terms tzaddik and rasha. The tzaddik, he explained, is one in whom the good qualities of his divine soul vanquish the evil qualities of his animal soul, to the extent of completely eradicating them. A rasha, conversely, is one in whom the evil qualities of his animal soul overcome the good of his divine soul, causing him to sin in thought, speech or action.
In this, the twelfth chapter, the term Beinoni — the “intermediate man” who is neither tzaddik nor rasha — will be defined. The Beinoni, the Alter Rebbe explains, is one whose practical conduct in thought, speech and action is dictated solely by the divine soul; it has the upper hand over the animal soul. The Beinoni accomplishes this by not allowing himself to be dominated in any way by the animal soul, even for the shortest duration, never thinking, speaking and surely not acting in a sinful manner. The garments of the divine soul alone — namely thought, speech and action in Torah and mitzvot — are those used by the Beinoni.
Nevertheless, with respect to the essence of the divine and animal souls, i.e., their respective faculties of intellect and emotion, the divine soul does not dominate the animal soul, and the latter remains powerful enough to arouse desires for physical matters. However, through constant vigilance the Beinoni keeps these desires in check, never permitting them any practical manifestation.
והבינוני הוא שלעולם אין הרע גובר כל כך לכבוש את העיר קטנה
The Beinoni (“intermediate man”) is he in whom the evil of the animal soul never attains enough power to conquer the “small city” (i.e., the body, which is likened to a small city which the divine and animal soul both wish to dominate),
להתלבש בגוף להחטיאו
so as to clothe itself in the body and make it sin.
דהיינו ששלשת לבושי נפש הבהמית, שהם מחשבה דבור ומעשה שמצד הקליפה
That is to say, the three “garments” of the animal soul — namely thought, speech and action originating in the kelipah — (i.e., forbidden thought, speech and action, which derive their vitality fromkelipah, as explained in previous chapters) are, in the Beinoni, so subdued that they
אין גוברים בו על נפש האלקית להתלבש בגוף
do not prevail within him over the divine soul to the extent of clothing themselves in the body
במוח ובפה ובשאר רמ״ח אברים, להחטיאם ולטמאם חס ושלום
— (neither) in the brain (so that the brain think forbidden thoughts with the animal soul’s garment of thought) nor in the mouth (to speak forbidden words — the garment of speech) nor in any of the other 248 organs (to act in a forbidden manner — the garment of action) — in none of these do the garments of the animal soul clothe themselves to cause them to sin and to defile them, G‑d forbid, (in which case he would be a rasha, not a Beinoni).
רק שלשה לבושי נפש האלקית הם לבדם מתלבשים בגוף, שהם מחשבה דבור ומעשה של תרי״ג מצות התורה
Only the three garments of the divine soul, they alone manifest themselves in the body, these being the thought, speech and action related to the 613 commandments of the Torah.
ולא עבר עבירה מימיו ולא יעבור לעולם
The Beinoni has never committed any transgression, nor will he ever transgress;
ולא נקרא עליו שם רשע אפילו שעה אחת ורגע אחד כל ימיו
the name “rasha” has never been applied to him, however temporarily, not even for a moment, throughout his life.
The Rebbe notes: “The question is well known.”; i.e., with regard to the statement that the Beinoni is one who has never transgressed, the following question is commonly raised:
Is it not possible, through repentance and subsequent divine service, that one attain the rank of Beinoni despite his previous sins? After repenting one can rise even to the level of tzaddik; surely, then, the rank of Beinoni is not beyond his reach!
The Rebbe answers this question in the following manner:
When the Alter Rebbe states that the Beinoni has never transgressed, he does not mean that the Beinoni never sinned in his life as a human being, but that in his life as a Beinoni he has no history of sin. The Beinoni’s present spiritual state is such that sin — in the past as well as in the future — has no place in his life. He would not sin even if he were subject to the same temptations and trials which led him to sin in the past. It is therefore true to state that from the perspective of his present state he has never sinned.
Likewise, the Alter Rebbe’s statement that the Beinoni “will never sin” is to be understood in the same vein. The intention is not that it is impossible for him to sin; he does not, after all, lose his freedom of choice. Rather, as explained above, his present state is such that it precludes his sinning in the future, despite the trials that the future may bring.
To be classified as a true Beinoni, one must fulfill these conditions. For if one’s spiritual state precludes his sinning only under present conditions, but he would succumb to sin were he subject to the temptations of the past or those the future may bring, then he is, in potentia, a rasha; he could and would sin, except that the prevailing circumstances are not sufficiently conducive for him to do so.
In the same vein, the Alter Rebbe concludes, “The name ‘rasha’ (referring to one who sins in thought, speech or action) has never (again, in his state of Beinoni) been applied to him, however temporarily…” For the Beinonihas reached a state where sin is precluded under any circumstances, whether of the past or future.
It remains to be understood, however, why such a lofty person is considered merely a Beinoni, not a tzaddik.This matter is now clarified.
אך מהות ועצמות נפש האלקית, שהן עשר בחינותיה
However, the essence and being of the divine soul, which are its ten faculties,
(The three soul-powers of intellect and the seven emotional faculties are referred to as the “essence” of the divine soul, in contrast with the soul’s “garments” (thought, speech and action), which serve merely as outlets and means of expression for the soul’s essential faculties.)
לא להן לבדן המלוכה והממשלה בעיר קטנה
do not hold undisputed sovereignty and sway over the “small city” — the body.
For, as shall be explained later, the faculties of the animal soul, too, exercise some degree of control over the body, through awakening in one’s heart desires for worldly pleasures, which in turn cause forbidden thoughts to enter his mind.
כי אם בעתים מזומנים כמו בשעת קריאת שמע ותפלה
Only at specific times do the faculties of the divine soul hold undisputed sovereignty over the Beinoni with the animal soul having no effect whatever on him, such as during the recital of the Shema or the Amidah.
שהיא שעת מוחין דגדלות למעלה
At this time [of prayer], the Supernal Intellect above is in a sublime state — it is a time of great spiritual illumination in the higher spiritual worlds;
וגם למטה היא שעת הכושר לכל אדם
likewise below — in this physical world — the time [of prayer] is propitious for every man to ascend to a higher spiritual level.
שאז מקשר חב״ד שלו לה׳
Then, during the recital of Shema or during prayer, [the Beinoni] binds his CHaBaD — his intellectual faculties, consisting of Chochmah, Binah and Daat — to G‑d,
להעמיק דעתו בגדולת אין סוף ברוך הוא
meditating deeply on the greatness of the blessed Ein Sof,
ולעורר את האהבה כרשפי אש בחלל הימני שבלבו
and arousing through this meditation a burning love [of G‑d] in the right part of his heart; for, as explained in previous chapters, meditation on G‑d’s greatness arouses the love of Him within one’s heart.
לדבקה בו בקיום התורה ומצותיה מאהבה
This love, in turn, leads the Beinoni to desire to cleave to Him by means of fulfilling the Torah and its commandments out of love.
The realization that only the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvot will fulfill his desire to become one with G‑d channels the Beinoni’s love into a desire to observe Torah and mitzvot.
שזה ענין המבואר בקריאת שמע דאורייתא
This arousal of love for G‑d, and its accompanying resolve to adhere to Torah and mitzvot and thereby to cleave to Him, is the essential subject of the Shema, which Biblical (deoraysa) commandment enjoins us to recite;
וברכותיה שלפניה ולאחריה שהן מדרבנן הן הכנה לקיום הקריאת שמע, כמו שכתוב במקום אחר
likewise, the Rabbinically ordained (derabbanan) blessings preceding and following [the Shema] are a preparation enabling us to fulfill [that which we recite in] the Shema, as explained elsewhere.1
ואז הרע שבחלל השמאלי כפוף ובטל לטוב המתפשט בחלל הימני מחב״ד שבמוח המקושרים בגדולת אין סוף ברוך הוא
At such time, during the Shema or prayer, when the love of G‑d burns in the heart of the Beinoni, the evil in the left part of his heart (the animal soul’s principal area of manifestation) is subjected to and is nullified before the goodness (i.e.,the love of G‑d) that spreads into the right part of the heart,where the divine soul is manifest, from the CHaBaD faculties in the brain which are bound [in meditation] to the greatness of the blessed Ein Sof.
Contemplating G‑d’s greatness with the three intellectual faculties — Wisdom, Understanding and Knowledge (CHaBaD) — arouses and diffuses a love of G‑d in (the right part of) the heart. This arousal of love causes the evil of the animal soul to be nullified in the good of the divine soul now pervading the heart. During the time of prayer, therefore, when the Beinoni arouses his love of G‑d through meditation, his animal soul is inactive, and he feels no inclination for physical pleasures. Thus, during prayer the Beinoni’s divine soul is his “undisputed sovereign,” as the Alter Rebbe stated above.
אבל אחר התפלה, בהסתלקות המוחין דגדלות אין סוף ברוך הוא, הרי הרע חוזר וניעור בחלל השמאלי, ומתאוה תאוה לתאות עולם הזה ותענוגיו
But this state of affairs lasts only for the duration of the spiritually-charged time of prayer. After prayer, however, when the intellect of the blessed Ein Sof is no longer in a state of sublimity, i.e., when the spiritual illumination engendered by prayer ceases, the evil of the animal soul in the left part of the heart reawakens, and he (the Beinoni) [once again] feels a desire for the lusts of this world and its delights, since the evil of the Beinoni’s animal soul remains undiminished even after prayer (as the Alter Rebbe will explain shortly).
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Generally speaking, the blessings recited over the performance of a mitzvah are a Rabbinic contribution to the Biblical mitzvah. This contribution may be understood as follows.
Every mitzvah is a channel drawing down holiness upon the soul of the Jew performing it. In order that one be a fitting vessel for this sanctity, the Sages ordained that he recite a blessing before performing the mitzvah. The connection between the blessing and the mitzvah is always clear: The blessing actually mentions the particular commandment to be performed and thanks G‑d for sanctifying us by commanding us to perform it. For example, the blessing over the tefillin concludes with the words, “...and He commanded us to don the tefillin.” In the case of the blessings said before reciting the Shema, however, it is not clear what the blessings accomplish. They do not mention the mitzvah of reciting these passages, nor have they any apparent connection with their contents. Why were they ordained to be said at this particular juncture?
In ch. 49, the Alter Rebbe gives the following explanation.
The intention behind the reading of the Shema is that one should come to “love G‑d your L‑rd with all your heart, soul and might” (as the Alter Rebbe states in our text). To achieve this, one must prepare himself by contemplating those matters which evoke the love of G‑d.
To this end, the Sages instituted two blessings. The first describes aspects of the greatness of G‑d — how the loftiest angels are utterly nullified before Him, how He is far removed from them, and so forth. The second berachah speaks of His great love for the Jewish People, how He draws them close to Him, and so on. After meditating on the ideas expressed in these blessings one is indeed ready to fulfill the precept of Shema — to fill his heart with the love of G‑d.
|
• Sefer Hamitzvot:
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassMonday, Tevet 14, 5778 · January 1, 2018
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 179
Creeping Creatures or Insects
"You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creeps, neither shall you make yourselves unclean with them"—Leviticus 11:43.
It is forbidden to eat any creeping creature or insect.
Though there are other prohibitions regarding specific types of insects and creeping creatures (e.g., flying ones, ones that creep on the ground), this prohibition adds a second "encompassing" prohibition on all sorts of creeping creatures, so that one who eats a specific type of creeping creature has transgressed two commandments.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Creeping Creatures or Insects
Negative Commandment 179
Translated by Berel Bell
Negative Commandment 180
[From the beginning of this mitzvah until the words "However, this is not a proper explanation," the Rambam explains the mitzvah according to an opinion he rejects. This mitzvah, he later concludes, prohibits eating a water insect. When quoting such an opinion, the Rambam usually hints at the outset that he disagrees. Kapach (5731, note 88) suggests that this first part was an early draft, and the Rambam later changed his mind.]
The 179th prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating any insect whatsoever, regardless of whether it flies (sheretz ha'of), breeds in the water (sheretz hamayim) or on land (sheretz ha'aretz).
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not make yourselves disgusting [by eating] any small creature that breeds. Do not defile yourselves with them, because it will make you spiritually insensitive."
This constitutes a separate prohibition punishable by lashes, and resembles an issur kolel (inclusive prohibition). Therefore, one who eats an insect which breeds on the ground (sheretz ha'aretz) receives two sets of lashes: once for the prohibition,2 "Every small creature which breeds on land is repulsive to you. It may not be eaten," and once for the prohibition, "Do not make yourselves disgusting [by eating] any small creature that breeds." Similarly, one who eats a flying insect (sheretz ha'of) receives two sets of lashes: once for the prohibition,3 "All flying insects are unclean to you. They may not be eaten," and once for the prohibition, "Do not make yourselves disgusting [by eating] any small creature that breeds." And if one eats a single insect which both flies and breeds on the ground, and therefore qualifies both as a sheretz ha'of and a sheretz ha'aretz, he receives four sets of lashes. If this same insect also breeds in the water (sheretz hamayim), one would receive six sets of lashes. The fifth set is because of the prohibition against eating a non-kosher fish, regarding which it is written,4 "Do not eat from their flesh," and the sixth set because of [this prohibition], "Do not make yourselves disgusting [by eating] any small creature that breeds," since it also includes insects which breed in water (sheretz hamayim) and it is the only verse which prohibits such insects.
In accordance with these principles, our Sages said in tractate Makos,5 "One who eats a potisa receives four sets of lashes; a n'mala — five sets; a tzira — six sets." Every commentary on this passage — "One who eats a potisa..." — that I have heard or seen explains it in this way.
However, this is not a valid explanation, and requires one to contradict the proper principles which are explained in the Talmud. This means as follows: If you think into that which was written above, you will find that three sets of lashes are given for the single prohibition, "Do not make yourselves disgusting [by eating] any small creature that breeds." And this idea has no merit, as our Sages have explained in tractate Chullin6 that one can never receive two sets of lashes for a single prohibition. We have already mentioned and explained this principle many times,7 and will bring other examples as well.8
The proper explanation, regarding which there is no doubt or objection, is that one who eats a creature which qualifies as a sheretz ha'of and a sheretz hamayim and a sheretz ha'aretz receives only three sets of lashes — once for the prohibition of sheretz ha'of [N175]; once for the prohibition of sheretz ha'aretz [N176]; and once because of the statement, "Do not make yourselves disgusting," since insects which breed in the water are also included in the phrase "any small creature" (kol hashoretz), and therefore in the prohibition, "Do not make yourselves disgusting [by eating] any small creature that breeds."
And if one ate an insect which breeds only on the ground, he receives just one set of lashes, for the prohibition of sheretz ha'aretz. So too if it was [just] a flying insect, he receives only one set of lashes — for sheretz ha'of. And if it breeds only in the water, he receives just one set — because of the verse, "Do not make yourselves disgusting [by eating] any small creature that breeds."
But9 just because this prohibition includes a sheretz ha'aretz, one cannot be lashed twice for eating one. The reason is that even if there were a thousand prohibitions — each one specifically prohibiting sheretz ha'aretz — one would still only be lashed once, since they are merely repeating the same prohibition. Even if was repeated, "Do not eat (lo soch'lu) a sheretz ha'aretz," "Do not eat (lo yei'o'cheil) a sheretz ha'aretz" one thousand times, only one set of lashes would be given.
Have you seen those who propose this erroneous principle dictating two sets of lashes for a person who wears shatnez, since there are two10 prohibitions? I have not seen them say such a thing, and they would consider it strange if anyone else did. But they somehow do not find it strange when they rule that one who eats a sheretz ha'aretz or sheretz ha'of receive two sets of lashes — once for the specific prohibition and once for the prohibition, "Do not make yourselves disgusting [by eating] any small creature that breeds." This is totally clear even to the deaf and dumb.
I will now go back and complete the discussion begun previously.11 If a living creature developed inside any type of seed or fruit, and then emerged to the surface, one who eats it receives one set of lashes even though it never touched the ground.12 This is because it is covered by a separate prohibition, as explained in the previous commandment [N178].
If this creature reached the ground and crawled (romas13) on it, one who ate it would receive two sets of lashes — one for "Do not defile your souls [by eating] any small creature that lives on land" [N178], and one for "Do not defile your souls [by eating] any small creature that lives on land" [N177].
If this creature was also capable of reproducing, one would receive three sets of lashes — two as mentioned above, and a third for, "Every small creature which breeds on land is repulsive to you. It may not be eaten." [N176].
If it was also able to fly, one would receive a fourth set of lashes because of the prohibition, "All flying insects are unclean to you. They may not be eaten" [N175]. If it could swim as well as fly — as we see many such species — one would receive a fifth set of lashes for the general prohibition which includes a sheretz hamayim, "Do not make yourselves disgusting [by eating] any small creature that breeds." If this same creature which developed [from inside the food] was also a bird, one would receive a sixth set of lashes, for,14 "These are the flying animals that you must avoid. Do not eat..." [N174].
Do not be surprised that a bird could develop from decayed fruit, since we often see birds develop from decaying matter which are larger than a hazelnut.15 You should also not find it strange that the same creature is considered a non-kosher bird and an insect (sheretz ha'of), since it can have the characteristics of a bird and also display the actions and characteristics of an insect. You see that all the early explanations16 include in the six sets of lashes the prohibitions of non-kosher fish [N173] and sheretz hamayim (water insects). This is reasonable and I don't disagree, since it is possible for a creature to be both a fish and a sheretz hamayim.
Similarly, the same creature can be both a bird and a sheretz ha'of. This is the potisa, which is a bird, a sheretz ha'of, a sheretz ha'aretz, and a sheretz hamayim, and one therefore receives four sets of lashes for eating one. The n'mala referred to is one which flies, develops from decaying fruit, and doesn't reproduce. For eating it one receives lashes for an insect which came from food [N178], was shoretz on land [N176], was romeis on land [N177], a sheretz ha'of, and a sheretz hamayim. The tzira, which also develops from decayed matter,17 has the additional quality of being both a bird and a sheretz ha'of.
The development of a tzira or n'mala or other flying or crawling creature from decayed matter or from inside fruit only seems impossible to the uneducated, who are ignorant in natural science.18 They think it impossible for anything to come into existence except through male-female reproduction, since they see that this is so in the majority of cases.
Remember these principles and understand this subject well, since19 "Everything is explained in the proper way." I've explained the ways in which to determine that eating one type of creature is punishable by a certain number of sets of lashes, and another type by a lesser number.
It can be understood from the previous quotes that one if eats an entire creature we do not investigate its size and require a kezayis. Even eating a ba'utz20 is punishable by three sets of lashes — for sheretz hashoretz [N176], romeis [N177], and sheretz ha'of [N175].
Our Sages also said,21 "One who holds himself in from defecating transgresses the prohibition, 'Do not make yourselves disgusting.' " Similarly, "One who drinks water from a karna d'umna — which is a vessel used for bloodletting — transgresses the prohibition, 'Do not make yourselves disgusting.' " The same applies for eating filth or disgusting things or drinking anything repulsive which most people find revolting — they are all prohibited. One does not receive lashes for them, however, since the plain meaning of the verse refers to insects. One is administered makos mardus.22
From everything explained above about this verse, "Do not make yourselves disgusting," we see that it comes to prohibit only the a sheretz hamayim, which is not covered by any other prohibition. You should understand this well.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 11:43.
2.Lev. 11:41 (N176).
3.Deut. 14, 15 (N175).
4.Lev. 11:11 (N173).
5.16b.
6.102b.
7.See N26, N60, N94, N98, N143, N161, N170.
8.See N195, N318, N319.
9.The Rambam now comes to answer the following claim, which is part of the opinion which he already rejected: Since the phrase kol hashoretz ("any small creature") includes both insects which breed in the water and those which breed on land, one would think that eating a sheretz ha'aretz would merit two sets of lashes — one for being a sheretz ha'aretz and one for kol hashoretz.
10.
Lev. 19:19. Deut. 22:11.
11.I.e. the explanation of the passage in Makos, "One who ate a potisa..."
12.Apparently the Rambam explains the phrase, "All small creatures which breed on land," as referring to the surface of the seed or fruit. However, see Hilchos Macholos Asuros 2:16, where he rules that it is only a doubtful prohibition, and therefore lashes are not given.
13.See N177, where the Rambam explained that the term romeis is used to refer to an insect which comes into existence from decayed matter and cannot reproduce, and shoretz refers to an insect which does reproduce.
14.Lev. 11:13.
15.See Kapach, 5731, note 97.
16.Of the passage in Makos, quoted above and rejected by the Rambam.
17.Apparently the Rambam means decaying fruit, for otherwise the tzira would also have only five sets of lashes.
18.Some commentaries point out that an insect which is invisible to the naked eye is not considered halachically to exist. For this reason we are allowed to drink tap water even though it is full of microscopic organisms which obviously do not qualify as kosher fish.
For this same reason, an organism which developed from a microscopic stage is not considered by halachah to be an offspring of its "parent," but from the material it came from at the moment it became visible. Some use this idea to reconcile the Rambam's statement with today's scientific views.
19.A paraphrase of Proverbs 25:11.
20.Arabic for the Hebrew yatush or yavchush.
21.Makos 16a. (b?)
22.Lashes for a Rabbinic prohibition.
Negative Commandment 180
Creatures that were not Properly Slaughtered
"You shall not eat any carcass "—Deuteronomy 14:21.
It is forbidden to eat any [kosher animal, beast or bird] that has died [without being ritually slaughtered].
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Creatures that were not Properly Slaughtered
Negative Commandment 180
Translated by Berel Bell
The 180th prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating an animal which died [by itself].
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not eat any neveilah."
One who eats a kezayis of neveilah is punished by lashes.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 14:21.
Negative Commandment 188
The Flesh of a Condemned Ox
"And his flesh shall not be eaten"—Exodus 21:28.
It is forbidden to eat of the flesh of an ox [or any other animal] condemned to death by the courts [e.g., for killing a human].
This prohibition holds even if the ox was properly slaughtered before the sentence was carried out.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
The Flesh of a Condemned Ox
Negative Commandment 188
Translated by Berel Bell
The 188th prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating the flesh of a shor ha'nis'kal,1 even if it was slaughtered in a kosher manner before being stoned to death.2 Since the final judgment was issued, it is prohibited even if it was slaughtered with a valid shechita.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,3 "Do not eat its flesh."
In the words of the Mechilta, "If an ox was on its way to be stoned to death and its owners slaughtered it first, its flesh may not eaten. For this case, the Torah said, 'Do not eat its flesh.' "
One who eats a kezayis of its flesh is punished by lashes.
FOOTNOTES
1.Literally, "an ox which is stoned," i.e. which was judged worthy of execution for killing a person, for example.
2.The Rambam adds this explanation, for if it was stoned to death, it would already be prohibited since it wasn't killed with a kosher slaughter.
3.Ex. 21.28.
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter A Day: Berachot Berachot - Chapter Seven
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassBerachot - Chapter Seven
1
The Sages of Israel were wont to follow many customs at meals. All these are included in the realm of mannered behavior. Among them:
When entering for a meal, the man of greatest stature should wash his hands first. Afterwards, all should enter enter and sit down, reclining on couches. The man of greatest stature reclines at the head of the company, and the person who is second in prominence reclines below him. If there are three couches, the man of greatest stature reclines at the head of the company, the person who is second in prominence reclines above him, and the person who is third in prominence reclines below him.
א
מנהגות רבות נהגו חכמי ישראל בסעודה וכולן דרך ארץ ואלו הן:
כשנכנסין לסעודה הגדול שבכולן נוטל את ידיו תחלה ואחר כך נכנסין ויושבין מסובין וגדול מיסב בראש ושני לו למטה הימנו היו שלשה מטות גדול מיסב בראש ושני לו למעלה הימנו ושלישי לו למטה הימנו:
2
The host should recite the blessing hamotzi. When he completes the blessing, he should break bread. A guest should recite grace, so that he will bless the host. If they are all members of the household, the person of greatest stature should break bread and recite grace.
ב
בעל הבית מברך המוציא ומשלים הברכה ואח"כ בוצע והאורח מברך ברכת המזון כדי שיברך לבעל הבית ואם היו כולן בעלי הבית הגדול שבהן בוצע והוא מברך ברכת המזון:
3
The person breaking bread is not permitted to do so until salt or relishes have been brought before each individual, unless their intention was to eat bread by itself.
One should not break off a small piece, lest one appear stingy, nor a piece larger than the size of an egg, lest one appear like a glutton. On the Sabbath, however, one may break off a large piece. One should break the bread at the place that it has been baked thoroughly.
ג
אין הבוצע רשאי לבצוע עד שיביאו מלח או לפתן לפני כל אחד ואחד אלא אם כן נתכוונו לאכול פת הרבה ואינו בוצע לא פרוסה קטנה מפני שהוא נראה כצר עין ולא פרוסה גדולה יותר מכביצה מפני שנראה כרעבתן ובשבת יש לו לבצוע פרוסה גדולה ואינו בוצע אלא ממקום שנתבשל יפה יפה:
4
The most preferable way to perform the mitzvah is to break open a whole loaf. When one possesses a whole loaf of barley bread and a sliced loaf of wheat bread, one should put the sliced loaf together with the whole loaf, so that one will break open both a loaf of wheat and a whole loaf.
On Sabbaths and on festivals, one is obligated to break bread on two whole loaves. One should hold both in one's hands [when reciting the blessing] and break open one.
ד
מצוה מן המובחר לבצוע ככר שלימה אם היתה שם שלימה של שעורים ופרוסה של חטים מניח שלימה בתוך פרוסה ובוצע משתיהן כדי שיבצע מחטים ומשלימה בשבתות ובימים טובים חייב לבצוע על שתי ככרות נוטל שתיהן בידו ובוצע אחת מהן:
5
The person who breaks bread should give a slice of bread to each individual, ¼the latter« should each pick up the piece with his hand. The person who breaks bread should not place the bread in the hand of a person who is eating unless the latter is a mourner.
The person who breaks bread should take the bread first and eat. Those assembled may not eat until the person who recites the blessing tastes [from the bread]. The person reciting the blessing may not taste [from the bread] until those assembled complete the recitation of Amen. Should the person breaking bread desire to honor his teacher or a scholar of greater stature than he by allowing him to take the bread before he does, he may.
ה
הבוצע נותן פרוסה לפני כל אחד ואחד והאחר נוטל בידו ואין הבוצע נותן ביד האוכל אא"כ היה אבל והבוצע הוא פושט ידיו תחלה ואוכל ואין המסובין רשאין לטעום עד שיטעום המברך ואין הבוצע רשאי לטעום עד שיכלה אמן מפי רוב המסובין ואם רצה הבוצע לחלוק כבוד לרבו או למי שהוא גדול ממנו בחכמה ויניחנו לפשוט ידו קודם לו הרשות בידו:
6
Two people should wait for each other when [eating from the same] dish. When three people are [eating from the same dish], it is not [necessary] to wait. When two have completed eating, the third should also cease. If, however, one completes eating, the other two need not cease.
One should not talk during a meal lest a dangerous situation arise. For this reason, if wine is brought in the midst of the meal, each person should recite the blessing alone. Were one to recite the blessing and another to answer Amen while he is swallowing, a dangerous situation might arise.
One should not look at the face of a person who is eating or at his portion, lest he become embarrassed.
ו
שנים ממתינין זה לזה בקערה שלשה אין ממתינין גמרו מהן שנים השלישי מפסיק עמהן גמר אחד מהן השנים אין מפסיקין לו אלא אוכלין והולכין עד שגומרין אין משיחין בסעודה כדי שלא יבא לידי סכנה ומפני זה אם בא להם יין בתוך המזון כל אחד ואחד מברך לעצמו שאם בירך אחד ועונה העונה אמן בשעת הבליעה יבא לידי סכנה ואין מסתכלין בפני האוכל ולא למנתו שלא לביישו:
7
An attendant who stands before those dining should not eat together with them. As an act of mercy, one should allow him to taste each dish to satisfy his desire. If the assembled give him wine, he should recite a blessing over each cup, because his drinking is dependent on their desire, not his own.
ז
השמש שעומד לפני המסובין אינו אוכל עמהן ודרך רחמנות הוא ליתן לתוך פיו מכל תבשיל ותבשיל כדי ליישב דעתו ואם נתנו לו יין מברך על כל כוס וכוס שנותנין לו מפני שאין שתייתו תלויה ברצונו אלא ברצונם:
8
Should one of the assembled go out to urinate, he need wash only one hand [before] entering. Should he speak with a friend and thus remain outside for an extended period of time, he should wash both his hands [before] entering.
If [the company] was sitting and drinking, he should enter, sit in his place, wash his hands [with his back turned], and then turn to face the guests. Why should he wash in his place? So that the others will not say that he did not wash his hands because bread is not being served.
ח
יצא אחד מן המסובין להשתין מים נוטל ידו אחת ונכנס דיבר עם חבירו והפליג נוטל שתי ידיו ונכנס אם היו מסובין לשתייה נכנס ויושב במקומו ונוטל ידיו ואחר כך מחזיר פניו לאורחין ולמה נוטל במקומו שמא יאמרו לא נטל ידיו מפני שאין שם אכילה:
9
Raw meat should not be placed on bread, nor should a full cup be passed over bread. Similarly, bread should not be used as a support for a plate, nor should it be thrown. The same applies to pieces [of meat or fish] and other foods that do not have shells - e.g., berries, grapes, and figs - because they will become disgusting.
It is permissible to cause wine to flow through pipes in the halls of bridegrooms, and roasted grains and nuts may be tossed at the bridegrooms in summer. This is not permitted in the winter, however, because they will become disgusting.
We should not wash our hands with wine, whether it has been mixed with water or not. Similarly, we may not spoil any other food or beverage in a contemptuous and derisive manner.
ט
אין מניחין בשר חי על הפת ואין מעבירין כוס מלא על הפת ואין סומכין את הקערה בפת ואין זורקין את הפת ולא את החתיכות ולא את האוכלין שאין להן קליפין כגון תותים וענבים ותאנים מפני שהן נמאסין ומותר למשוך את היין בצינורות בבתי חתנים וזורקין לפניהם קליות ואגוזים בימות החמה אבל לא בימות הגשמים מפני שנמאסין ואין נוטלין ידיהן ביין בין חי בין מזוג וכן אין מפסידין שאר אוכלין ומשקין דרך בזוי ובעיטה:
10
It is forbidden for guests to take any of [the food] that they have been served and give it to the sons or the daughters of the host. Perhaps the host will become embarrassed because all he had was what he had served and that will have been taken away by the children.
A person should not send a friend a cask of wine with oil floating on its surface, lest one send a friend a cask that is [almost] entirely wine with only [a small amount] of oil on its surface. The recipient may be [unaware of the cask's contents,] invite guests [with the intention of serving them oil,] and become embarrassed [at his inability to do so]. Similarly, any other activity that may cause a person who holds a feast to become embarrassed is forbidden.
י
אסור לאורחים ליטול כלום ממה שלפניהם וליתן ביד בנו או בתו של בעל הבית שמא יתבייש בעל הסעודה שהרי אין לו אלא מה שהביא לפניהם ונמצאו הקטנים נוטלים אותם והולכים לא ישלח אדם לחבירו חבית יין ושמן צף על פיה שמא ישלח לו אדם חבית שכולה יין וידמה שהוא שמן ושמן הוא שעל פניה בלבד ויזמן אורחים ויתבייש וכל כל כיוצא בדברים אלו המביאים לידי בושה לבעל הסעודה אסורין:
11
After [everyone] finishes eating, the tables should be removed and the place where they ate should be swept. Afterwards, [those assembled] should wash their hands [as mentioned above].
[This practice should be followed] lest pieces [of bread] the size of an olive be found on the floor. It is forbidden to walk or wash over [pieces of this size]. If, however, the pieces are smaller than an olive, it is permissible to destroy them intentionally.
יא
גמרו מלאכול מסלקין את השולחן ומכבדין את המקום שאכלו בו ואח"כ נוטלין את ידיהם שמא ישיירו שם פירורין שיש בהן כזית שאסור להלך בהן ולרחוץ עליהן אבל פירורין שאין בהן כזית מותר לאבדן ביד:
12
When water is brought to wash, the one who recites grace washes his hands first, so that the person of greatest stature will not sit with dirty hands while others are washing. The remainder of the people eating wash one after another.
Honor is not paid to anyone with regard to [the order of washing], because honor is not extended with regard to dirty hands, crossing bridges, or on the roads, with the exception of an entrance that is fit to have a mezuzah, and even then only with regard to entering.
יב
הביאו להם מים לנטילה כל שמברך ברכת המזון הוא נוטל ידיו תחלה כדי שלא ישב הגדול וידיו מזוהמות עד שיטול אחר ושאר הסועדין נוטלין ידן בסוף זה אחר זה ואין מכבדין בדבר זה שאין מכבדין בידים מזוהמות ולא בגשרים ולא בדרכים אלא בפתח הראוי למזוזה ובשעת כניסה:
13
After [the assembled] finish washing their hands, drying their hands, and reciting grace, the person who recited grace should recite the blessing over the incense when the incense burner is brought in. Everyone should answer Amen.
יג
גמרו ליטול ידיהן ונגבו ידיהן וברכו ברכת המזון והביאו את המוגמר מי שבירך ברכת המזון הוא מברך על המוגמר וכולן עונין אמן:
14
If wine is available, [grace should be recited over a cup of wine]. We bring a cup that contains a revi'it or more and spices. [The person reciting grace] should hold the wine in his right hand and the spices in his left hand while reciting grace. Afterwards, he should recite the blessing on the wine, and then the blessing on the spices.
If the spices were fragrant oil or the like, he should spread them on the head of the attendant afterwards. If the attendant was a Torah sage, he should spread it on the wall so that he will not be going out to the marketplace with perfume.
יד
אם היה שם יין מביאין כוס מחזיק רביעית או יתר על רביעית ומביאין בשמים ואוחז את היין בימינו ואת הבשמים בשמאלו ומברך ברכת המזון ואחר כך מברך על היין ואחר כך מברך על הבשמים אם היו הבשמים שמן ערב וכיוצא בו טחו בראש השמש ואם היה השמש תלמיד חכם טחו בכותל כדי שלא יצא מבושם לשוק:
15
Although grace does not require wine, should one recite grace over wine according to the custom we have mentioned, [several conditions must be met:]
One should wash out the cup over which the blessing is recited on the inside and rinse its outside.
It should be filled with undiluted wine. When one reaches the blessing for Eretz Yisrael, one should add a small amount of water so that it will be pleasant to drink.
Conversation should not be made over the cup over which grace is recited. Rather, everyone should remain silent until grace and the blessing of the wine is concluded, and then they should drink.
טו
אף ע"פ שאין ברכת המזון צריכה יין אם בירך על היין כמנהג שאמרנו צריך שידיח כוס של ברכה מבפנים ולשטוף אותו מבחוץ וימלאנו יין חי וכיון שהגיע לברכת הארץ נותן לתוכו מעט מים כדי שיהא ערב לשתיה ואין משיחין על כוס של ברכת המזון אלא הכל שותקים עד שתכלה ברכת המזון וברכת היין וישתו:
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters A Day: Ma'achalot Assurot Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 8, Ma'achalot Assurot Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 9, Ma'achalot Assurot Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 10
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassMa'achalot Assurot - Chapter 8
1
[The prohibition against partaking of] the gid hanesheh1applies with regard to kosher2 domesticated animals and wild beasts,3 even nevelot and trefot.4 It applies to a fetus5 and to animals that have been consecrated, both those consecrated [for sacrifices] of which we partake and for sacrifices of which we do not partake. It applies to [the gid] on the right thigh and that on the left thigh.6
According to Scriptural Law, only [the gid] on the hip socket is forbidden, as [Genesis 32:33] states: "which is on the hip-socket." The remainder of the gid which is above the socket or below the socket - and similarly, the fat which is on the gid - are forbidden only according to Rabbinic decree.7There are two giddim. The inner one next to the bone is forbidden according to Scriptural Law. The entire outer one is forbidden by Rabbinic decree.
א
גיד הנשה נוהג בבהמה וחיה הטהורין ואפילו בנבלות וטרפות שלהן ונוהג בשליל ובמוקדשין בין קדשים הנאכלים בין קדשים שאינן נאכלין ונוהג בירך של ימין ובירך של שמאל ואין אסור מן התורה אלא שעל כף הירך בלבד שנאמר אשר על כף הירך אבל שאר הגיד שלמעלה מן הכף ושלמטה עד סופו וכן חלב שעל הגיד אינו אסור אלא מדברי סופרים ושני גידין הן הפנימי הסמוך לעצם אסור מן התורה והעליון כולו אסור מדבריהם:
2
When a person partakes of the inner gid hanesheh on the socket, he is liable for lashes.8 If he partakes of the fat [of the gid], the remainder of the inner gid, or the entire outer one, he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.9
What is the measure of which one must partake to be liable? An olive-sized portion. If one ate the entire gid on the socket, one is liable, even though it is less than an olive in size. The rationale is that it is considered as a self-contained entity.10
ב
האוכל מגיד הנשה הפנימי ממקום שעל הכף לוקה ואם אכל מחלבו או משאר הגיד הפנימי או מכל החיצון מכין אותו מכת מרדות וכמה שיעור אכילה כזית ואם אכל הגיד שעל הכף כולו אע"פ שאין בו כזית לוקה מפני שהוא כבריה בפני עצמה:
3
When a person eats an olive-sized portion of the gid on the right side and an olive-sized portion of the gid on the left side, or he ate two entire giddim even if they are not the size of an olive, he receives 80 lashes. He is given lashes for every gid independently.11
ג
אבל כזית מגיד של ימין וכזית מגיד של שמאל או שאכל שני גידים כולן אף על פי שאין בהן כזית לוקה שמונים (וכן הוא לוקה על כל גיד וגיד):
4
The prohibition against gid hanesheh does not apply with regard to a fowl, because it does not have a [round]12 hip-socket. Instead, its thigh is long [and flat]. If there is a fowl whose thigh is shaped like that of the thigh of an animal, i.e., it has a hip-socket, its gid hanesheh is forbidden, but one is not liable for lashes, because of it. Similarly, when there is an animal whose thigh is long like that of a fowl, its gid hanesheh is forbidden, but one is not liable for lashes for it.13
ד
העוף אין בו משום גיד הנשה מפני שאין לו כף ירך אלא יריכו ארוך ואם נמצא עוף שירכו כירך הבהמה שיש לו כף גיד הנשה שלו אסור ואין לוקין עליו וכן בהמה שכף ירכה ארוך כשל עוף גיד הנשה שלה אסור ואין לוקין עליו:
5
When a person eats the gid hanesheh from a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild beast, he is not liable.14 [The rationale is that this prohibition] does not apply with regard to a non-kosher animal,15 only with regard to an animal that is entirely permitted. Nor is he considered as one who partook of the remainder of its body, for the gid is not included as meat, as we explained.16 If, however, one partakes of the fat on the gid [of a non-kosher] animal, it is considered as if one ate from its meat.
ה
האוכל גיד הנשה מבהמה וחיה הטמאים פטור לפי שאינו נוהג בטמאה אלא בבהמה שכולה מותרת ואינו כאוכל משאר גופה שאין הגידים מכלל הבשר כמו שביארנו ואם אכל מחלב שעל הגיד הרי זה כאוכל מבשרה:
6
When a person partakes of a gid hanesheh from a nevelah, a trefe, or an animal consecrated as a burnt offering, he is liable for two [sets of lashes]. Since [the prohibition]17 includes the remainder of its body which was permitted, it also includes the gid and causes another prohibition to be added to it.18
ו
האוכל גיד הנשה של נבילה או של טרפה או של עולה חייב שתים מתוך שנכלל באיסור שאר גופה שהיה מותר נכלל גם הגיד ונוסף עליו איסור אחר:
7
One who removes the gid hanesheh must ferret out all traces of it until nothing remains.19 A butcher's word is accepted with regard to the gid hanesheh,20 just as it is accepted with regard to forbidden fat. [Accordingly,] we do not purchase meat from every butcher, [only from] an upright man who has established a reputation for observance.21 If he slaughters meat himself and sells it, his word is accepted.
ז
הנוטל גיד הנשה צריך לחטט אחריו עד שלא ישאיר ממנו כלום ונאמן הטבח על גיד הנשה כשם שנאמן על החלב ואין לוקחין בשר מכל טבח אלא אם היה אדם כשר ומוחזק בכשרות הוא ששוחט לעצמו ומוכר ונאמן:
8
Where does the above apply? In the Diaspora. In Eretz Yisrael, by contrast, when it is populated entirely by [Torah-observant] Jews, meat may be purchased from anyone.22
ח
במה דברים אמורים בחוצה לארץ אבל בארץ ישראל בזמן שכולה לישראל לוקחין מכל אדם:
9
[The following rules apply when] a butcher is considered as trustworthy to sell meat, but it is discovered that he sold meat that was nevelah or trefe. He must return the money to its owners.23 He is placed under a ban of ostracism and is removed from his position.24
There is no way that he can correct [his act] so that people [will be allowed] to purchase meat from him until he goes to a place where his identity is unknown25and returns a lost object of significant worth or slaughters an animal for his own self and has it declared trefe although it involves a significant financial loss. For these actions indicate that he certainly repented without any [intent to] deceive.26
ט
טבח הנאמן למכור בשר ונמצא בשר נבלה או בשר טריפה יוצא מתחת ידו מחזיר את הדמים לבעלים ומשמתין אותו ומעבירין אותו ואין לו תקנה לעולם ליקח ממנו בשר עד שילך למקום שאין מכירין אותו ויחזיר אבדה בדבר חשוב או ישחוט לעצמו ויוציא טרפה לעצמו בממון חשוב שודאי עשה תשובה בלא הערמה:
10
When a person purchases meat and sends it via a common person, [the latter's] word is accepted with regard to it. Although he has not established a reputation for Torah observance,27 we do not suspect that he will exchange [the meat for a non-kosher cut].28 Even the servants and maidservants29 of the Jews are trusted with regard to such a matter. A gentile, by contrast, is not [trusted], for we fear that he will exchange [the meat].30
י
הלוקח בשר ושלחו ביד אחד מעמי הארץ הרי זה נאמן עליו ואע"פ שאינו מוחזק בכשרות אין חוששין לו שמא יחליף ואפילו עבדי ישראל ואמהותיהן נאמנין בדבר זה אבל לא לעכו"ם שמא יחליף:
11
[The following rule applies when there are] ten stores, nine sell kosher meat and one sells nevelot.31 If one purchased meat from one of these stores and did not know which one he purchased from, [the meat] is forbidden. [The rationale is that] whenever [the presence of a forbidden entity] is firmly established, the situation is considered as half and half.32
If, however, meat is found cast away in the street,33 [it is judged] according to the majority. For [we follow the assumption:] Anything that was separated, separated from the majority.34 If the majority of sellers were gentile, [the meat] is forbidden. If the majority were Jewish, it is permitted.
יא
עשר חנויות תשע מוכרות בשר שחוטה ואחת מוכרת נבלות ולקח בשר מאחת מהן ואינו יודע מאיזה מהן לקח הרי זה אסור שכל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה דמי אבל בשר הנמצא מושלך בשוק הלך אחר הרוב דכל דפריש מרובא פריש אם היו רוב המוכרים עכו"ם אסור ואם היו רוב המוכרים ישראל מותר:
12
Similarly, when meat is found in the hand of a gentile and it is not known from where he purchased it, if [the majority of] the sellers of meat were Jewish, it is permitted.
This reflects the ruling according to Scriptural Law. [Nevertheless,] our Sages have already forbidden any meat found in the marketplace or in the possession of a gentile35 even though all the slaughterers and all the sellers are Jewish. Moreover, even if one purchased meat, left it in his house, and it disappeared from one's sight, it is forbidden36 unless it had a distinguishing mark, he was familiar with it and could recognize it definitely as [the piece of meat lost],37 or it was bound and sealed.
יב
וכן בשר הנמצא ביד עכו"ם ואינו ידוע ממי לקח אם היו מוכרי הבשר ישראל מותר זה הוא דין תורה וכבר אסרו חכמים כל הבשר הנמצא בין בשוק בין ביד עכו"ם אף על פי שכל השוחטין וכל המוכרין ישראל ולא עוד אלא הלוקח בשר והניחו בביתו ונעלם מן העין אסור אלא אם כן היה לו בו סימן או שהיה לו בו טביעת עין והוא מכירו ודאי שהוא זה או שהיה צרור וחתום:
13
[The following rule applies when] one hung a container filled with pieces of meat, the container broke, and the pieces fell to the earth.38 If there is no distinguishing mark [on the meat] and he was not able to recognize it, it is forbidden. [The rationale is that] it is possible to say that the meat that was in the container was dragged away by a wild beast or creeping animal and this is other meat.
יג
תלה כלי מלא חתיכות בשר ונשבר הכלי ונפלו החתיכות לארץ ובא ומצא חתיכות ואין לו בהן סימן ולא טביעת עין הרי זה אסור שיש לומר אותו בשר שהיה בכלי גררתו חיה או שרץ וזה בשר אחר הוא:
14
It is permitted to derive benefit from a gid hanesheh.39 Therefore it is permissible for a person to send a thigh which contains a gid hanesheh to a gentile.40 He may give him the entire thigh intact in the presence of a Jew. We do not suspect that [the other] Jew will partake of this meat before the gid is removed, because its place is recognizable.41 Accordingly, if the thigh was cut into pieces, he should not give it to a gentile in the presence of a Jew, lest the other Jew partake of it.42
יד
גיד הנשה מותר בהנאה לפיכך מותר לאדם לשלוח לעכו"ם ירך שגיד הנשה בתוכה ונותן לו הירך שלימה בפני ישראל ואין חוששין שמא יאכל ממנה ישראל זה קודם שינטל הגיד שהרי מקומו ניכר לפיכך אם היתה הירך חתוכה לא יתננה לעכו"ם בפני ישראל עד שיטול הגיד שמא יאכל ממנה ישראל:
15
Wherever the Torah states: "Do not eat," "You shall not eat,"43 "They shall not eat," or "It shall not be eaten," the intent is that it is forbidden both to partake of or benefit from the forbidden entity44 unless:
a) a verse explicitly states otherwise, as it does with regard to a nevelah [Deuteronomy 14:21]: "Give it to the stranger in your gate and he shall partake of it," or with regard to forbidden fat [Leviticus 7:24]: "You may use it for any task"; or
b) the Oral Law states explicitly that it is permitted to benefit from it, as is the case with regarding to teeming animals, swarming animals, blood, a limb from a living animal, and the gid hanesheh. For according to the Oral Tradition, it is permitted to benefit from all these prohibited entities, even though it is forbidden to partake of them.
טו
כל מקום שנאמר בתורה לא תאכל לא תאכלו לא יאכלו לא יאכל אחד איסור אכילה ואחד איסור הנאה במשמע עד שיפרוט לך הכתוב כדרך שפרט לך בנבלה שנאמר לגר אשר בשעריך תתננה ואכלה וכחלב שנאמר בו יעשה לכל מלאכה או עד שיתפרש בתורה שבעל פה שהוא מותר בהנאה כגון שקצים ורמשים ודם ואבר מן החי וגיד הנשה שכל אלו מותרין בהנאה מפי הקבלה אע"פשהן אסורין באכילה:
16
Whenever it is forbidden to benefit from a substance, if a person derives benefit without partaking of it, e.g., he sold or gave to a gentile or gave it to dogs, he is not liable for lashes.45 He should, however, be given stripes for rebellious conduct. The money [he received] is permitted.46
Whenever it is forbidden to partake of a substance, but it is permitted to benefit from it, even though it is permitted to benefit from it, it is forbidden do business with such articles or establish oneself in a profession that involves forbidden entities.47[There is] an exception, forbidden fat, for concerning it, it is written: "You may use it for any task." For this reason, we do not do business with nevelot, trefot, teeming animals, and swarming animals.
טז
כל מאכל שהוא אסור בהנאה אם נהנה ולא אכל כגון שמכר או נתן לעכו"ם או לכלבים אינו לוקה ומכין אותו מכת מרדות והדמים מותרין וכל דבר שאסור באכילה ומותר בהנאה אע"פ שהוא מותר בהנאה אסור לעשות בו סחורה ולכוין מלאכתו בדברים אסורים חוץ מן החלב שהרי נאמר בו יעשה לכל מלאכה לפיכך אין עושין סחורה לא בנבלות ולא בטרפות ולא בשקצים ולא ברמשים:
17
When a trapper happens upon a non-kosher wild animal, fowl, or fish, and he snares them or he traps both kosher and non-kosher animals, he may sell them.48 He may not, however, intend to have his profession concern non-kosher species.
It is, however, permitted to do business with milk that was milked by a gentile without being observed by a Jew, cheeses made by gentiles, and the like.
יז
הצייד שנזדמנו לו חיה או עוף ודג טמאים וצדן או שניצודו לו טמאים וטהורים מותר למוכרן אבל לא יכוין מלאכתו לטמאים ומותר לעשות סחורה בחלב שחלבו עכו"ם ואין ישראל רואהו ובגבינות העכו"ם וכיוצא בהן:
18
This is the general principle: Whenever a prohibition is forbidden by Scriptural Law, it is forbidden to do business with it. Whenever the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin, it is permitted do business with it, whether we are certain of the existence of the prohibition or it is a matter of question.
יח
זה הכלל כל שאיסורו מן התורה אסור לעשות בו סחורה וכל שאיסורו מדבריהם מותר לעשות בו סחורה בין בספיקו בין בודאו:
FOOTNOTES
1.
Genesis, ch. 32, relates that before his confrontation with Esau, Jacob remained alone in his camp. An unidentified being - interpreted by the Torah commentaries to be Esau's archangel - wrestled with him the entire night. When he saw that he could not defeat Jacob, he gave him a blow to his upper thigh, dislocating his gid hanesheh. In commemoration of this event, ""The children of Israel do not eat the gid hanesheh.
The Rabbis identified the gid hanesheh as the sciatic nerve, the large main nerve running down the back of an animal's hind leg. The term gid, though sometimes translated as "sinew," is a general term. As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:4), it is used to refer to arteries, veins, tendons, nerves, and sinews.
2.
See Halachah 5.
3.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 183) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 3) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
4.
See Halachah 6.
5.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 65:7 does not cite the Rambam's view, but instead quotes two differing opinions: one that the prohibition does not apply to a fetus at all and another, that it applies only when the fetus has completed the period of gestation and is discovered alive.
6.
Although the angel only dislodged the nerve on one of Jacob's legs, we are forbidden to partake of the nerves from both sides.
7.
See Halachah 7 concerning the removal of this nerve.
8.
Because he violates a Scriptural prohibition.
9.
For violating a Rabbinic prohibition.
10.
Accordingly, even if it is less than an olive-sized portion in size, one is liable. Compare to Chapter 2, Halachah 21, Chapter 15, Halachah 17, and Chapter 16, Halachah 6.
11.
Rav Moshe HaCohen writes that this ruling applies when the person was given a separate warning for each gid. Otherwise, he receives only one set of lashes. The Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam would also accept that interpretation.
12.
This explanatory addition is based on Chullin 92b.
13.
Chullin 92b discusses these issues and leaves both matters unresolved; hence, the Rambam's rulings.
14.
Not for partaking of the gid and not for partaking of the meat of a forbidden animal.
15.
Chullin 101a notes that the confrontation between Jacob and the angel took place before the Giving of the Torah, at a time when the Jews could eat non-kosher animals. Hence, there is reason to say that the prohibition could involve a non-kosher animal, for partaking of such animal was not forbidden until the Giving of the Torah.
In response, the Talmud explains that our observance of this prohibition does not stem from the practice observed by Jacob's descendants, but because this prohibition was reiterated at the time of the Giving of the Torah. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 7:6, the Rambam elaborates on this point, explaining that our observance of Jewish practice, even the mitzvot which we know that the Patriarchs fulfilled like circumcision, stems from God's command at Sinai and not from our ancestors' observance.
16.
Chapter 4, Halachah 18. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 65:9) which states that a gid is "like a piece of wood; it has no flavor."
17.
I.e., the prohibition against partaking of a nevelah, trefe, or burnt offering.
18.
Following the concept of issur kollel, "an encompassing prohibition," as explained in the conclusion of Halachah 14 (Maggid Mishneh).
The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that Chullin 82b states that according to the opinion that a gid hanesheh does not have any flavor, one is not liable. Only the opinion that maintains that the gid hanesheh does have a flavor holds one liable. From the previous halachah, it appears that the Rambam follows the former view. Why then does he hold the person liable for two sets of lashes.
19.
Since the gid hanesheh and the gid forbidden by Rabbinic decree subdivide into several branches, this is a rather difficult task. For this reason, in most sectors of the Jewish community today, it is customary not to eat the hind-quarters of an animal. Accordingly, several cuts of meat, e.g., sirloin steak, are not available from kosher butchers.
20.
I.e., we rely on his word and do not inspect the meat ourselves.
21.
If the person himself does not have a reputation for observance and knowledge of the laws, he can sell meat if he hires such a person to act as a supervisor. This is the rationale for the practice of hasgachah, kashrut inspection, practiced today.
22.
In the present era, there is no difference between Eretz Yisrael and other lands, for the majority of the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael are not Torah observant.
23.
He must return the money entirely. This applies even if the customers already partook of the non-kosher meat (Hilchot Mechirah 16:14). The rationale is that a person's soul is revolted by the commission of a transgression and he is not considered to have benefited from the meat at all (Sefer Meirat Einayim 232:4).
24.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 21.
25.
If he performs such an act in a place where his identity is known, it can be said that he did so in order to be reinstated.
26.
I.e., they show that he is willing to forgo his financial benefit in order to keep Torah law. See also Hilchot Shechitah 10:14 and Hilchot Edut 12:9 which deal with the same concept. Hilchot Edut states that in order to be accepted as a witness, he must wear black garments as a sign of repentance.
27.
See the Maggid Mishneh who maintains that the Rambam would rule in this manner even when a Jew is reputed to transgress various prohibitions. He also mentions the opinion of the Rashba who maintains that further precautions must be taken if an article is entrusted to a non-observant Jew. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 118:8) quotes the Rambam's ruling and then cites the Rashba's view without indicating which opinion should be followed.
28.
I.e., we do not expect that he will steal. Moreover, he will derive no benefit from doing so, for he will have to supply an equivalent piece of meat for the one he exchanges. We do not expect him to cause sin without deriving any benefit. If, however, he has a reputation for stealing, his word is not accepted (Maggid Mishneh).
29.
I.e., Canaanite servants, non-Jews purchased as servants who have undergone a partial conversion process (Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 12:11).
30.
For a gentile is never trusted in any matters involving Jewish observance. When one desires to send food that involves prohibitions with a gentile, it is necessary to take precautions as stated in Chapter 13, Halachot 8-10.
31.
I.e., even if the proportions are heavily weighted in favor of the conclusion that the meat is kosher, we accept the possibility that it is non-kosher.
32.
This is a general principle applying in many other contexts as well, e.g., Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 2:10, Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:15.
33.
The Hagahot Maimoniot explains that this law applies only when the meat is discovered in the public domain. If a person is seen taking meat from a store, but it is not known which store he took it from, the previous law applies.
34.
This also is a frequently employed Talmudic principle.
35.
As mentioned by the Maggid Mishneh, there are Rishonim who permit meat found in the possession of a gentile when the majority of the sellers are Jewish, maintaining that this is evident from Chullin 95a. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 63:1, however, quotes the Rambam's view.
36.
According to the literal meaning of the Rambam's words, if meat was placed in the freezer, it would be forbidden. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 63:2) cites, however, the opinion of Rashbam which permits the meat if it is found in the same place that it was placed. The Rama writes that it is customary to follow this view.
37.
The Maggid Mishneh states that if a person has a reputation for upright conduct, his word is accepted in this concept even if he is not a Torah scholar. Note the contrast to Hilchot Gezeilah V'Aveidah 14:12 which accepts only the word of a Torah scholar if one claims to recognize a lost object, but cannot identify it with distinctive marks.
38.
If, however, he found it as he left it, it is certainly permitted (Maggid Mishneh).
39.
The Maggid Mishneh notes that according to Pesachim 22a, it would appear that the authorities who maintain that the gid hanesheh has no flavor also maintain that it is forbidden to benefit from it. Now the Rambam follow the perspective that the gid hanesheh has no flavor (see Halachah 5). Hence his position here is somewhat difficult. The Maggid Mishneh explains, however, that the two positions are not necessary interrelated and both rulings of the Rambam can be upheld.
40.
I.e., because there is no prohibition against receiving benefit from the gid hanesheh, he does not have to remove it before selling the meat.
41.
Since the Jew sees a co-religionist giving the gentile the meat, he will assume that it was ritually slaughtered and that the meat was kosher. [This applies in a place where public announcements are made when an animal is discovered to be trefe (Chullin 93b). Otherwise, the Jew must tell the gentile that the animal is kosher (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 65:11)].
Nevertheless, since the place of the gid hanesheh is recognizable - i.e., it is obvious whether the gid is still in the thigh or has already been removed - he will not partake of the meat until the gid is removed.
42.
Since the place of the gid hanesheh is not obvious, the other Jew may think that ordinary kosher meat is being given and may partake of it.
43.
Both of these commands are in the second person: one singukar, one plural.
44.
Sometimes the command is stated in an active voice; sometimes, it is passive; sometimes, singular and sometimes plural. The passive form implies that it is forbidden to derive any benefit that could lead to one's eating, e.g., selling it for money that could be used to purchase food.
45.
Rav Moshe HaCohen questions this ruling, stating that if the intent of the Scriptural prohibition is that it is forbidden to benefit from these substances, why is one not liable for lashes for deriving such benefit? The Maggid Mishneh explains that he is not liable, for one is liable for lashes only when he derives benefit from the food in the ordinary manner one derives benefit from food. This includes only eating. Receiving money, by contrast, is not considered as benefiting from food in the ordinary manner. Rav Moshe HaCohen, however, anticipated that attempted resolution and explains that, on the contrary, selling edible food is an ordinary way of deriving benefit.
46.
There is one exception to this: money received in return for a false deity or articles associated with it. That money is itself forbidden (see Chapter 13, Halachah 15; Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:19).
47.
I.e., one's livelihood may not revolve around the sale of these forbidden entities or performing work with them (e.g., serving as a chef in a non-kosher restaurant). The rationale for the prohibition is that we fear that a person who has extensive involvement with forbidden substances may come to partake of them (Rashba).
The Maggid Mishneh clarifies that the above applies only with regard to food from forbidden species. One may choose a profession that involves employing a horse or a donkey as a beast of burden.
48.
He must sell them immediately. He may not raise them until they become large [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 117:4)]. See also Siftei Cohen 117:6 who questions whether the leniency is granted only to a professional trapper or to any person.
Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 9
1
It is forbidden to cook meat and milk together and to partake of them according to Scriptural Law.1 It is forbidden to benefit from [such a mixture]. It must be buried. Its ashes are forbidden like the ashes of all substances that must be buried.2
Whenever a person cooks an olive-sized portion of the two substances together,3 he is worthy of lashes, as [Exodus 23:19] states: "Do not cook a kid in its mother's milk." Similarly, a person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the meat and milk that were cooked together4 is worthy of lashes even though he was not the one who cooked them.5
א
בשר בחלב אסור לבשלו ואסור לאכלו מן התורה ואסור בהנאה וקוברין אותו ואפרו אסור כאפר כל הנקברין ומי שיבשל משניהם כזית כאחד לוקה שנאמר לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו וכן האוכל כזית משניהם מהבשר והחלב שנתבשלו כאחד לוקה ואף על פי שלא בשל:
2
The Torah remained silent concerning the prohibition against partaking [of meat and milk]6 only because it forbade cooking them. This is as if to say: Even cooking it is forbidden, how much more so partaking of it.7 [To cite a parallel:] The Torah did not mention the prohibition against relations with one's daughter, because it forbade those with the daughter of one's daughter.8
ב
לא שתק הכתוב מלאסור האכילה אלא מפני שאסר הבשול כלומר ואפילו בשולו אסור ואין צריך לומר אכילתו כמו ששתק מלאסור הבת מאחר שאסר בת הבת:
3
According to Scriptural Law, the prohibition involves only [a mixture of] meat from a kosher domesticated animal9 and milk from a kosher domesticated animal, as implied by the verse: "Do not cook a kid in its mother's milk."10 The term "a kid" includes the offspring of an ox, the offspring of a sheep, and the offspring of a goat unless the verse states explicitly, a goat-kid.11The term "a kid in its mother's milk" [does not exclude all other situations].12 Instead, the Torah is speaking regarding the commonplace circumstance.
With regard to the meat of a kosher animal which was cooked in the milk of a non-kosher animal or the meat of a non-kosher animal which was cooked in the milk of a kosher animal, by contrast, cooking is permitted, and deriving benefit is permitted. One is not liable for [transgressing the prohibition against partaking of] meat and milk if one partakes of it.13
ג
אין אסור מן התורה אלא בשר בהמה טהורה בחלב בהמה טהורה שנאמר לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו וגדי הוא כולל ולד השור ולד השה ולד העז עד שיפרוט ויאמר גדי עזים ולא נאמר גדי בחלב אמו אלא שדיבר הכתוב בהווה אבל בשר בהמה טהורה (שבשלו) בחלב בהמה טמאה או בשר בהמה טמאה (שבשלו) בחלב בהמה טהורה מותר לבשל ומותרת בהנייה ואין חייבין על אכילתו משום בשר בחלב:
4
Similarly, the meat of a wild beast and the meat of a fowl together with the milk of a wild beast or the milk of a domesticated animal is not forbidden according to Scriptural Law.14 Therefore it is permitted to cook it and it is permitted to benefit from it. It is forbidden to partake of it according to Rabbinic Law so that people at large will not be negligent and come to violate the Scriptural prohibition against milk and meat and partake of the meat of a kosher domesticated animal [cooked] in the milk of a kosher domesticated animal. For the literal meaning of the verse implies only the meat of a kid in the milk of its actual mother.15 Therefore, they forbade all meat in milk.
ד
וכן בשר חיה ועוף בין בחלב חיה בין בחלב בהמה אינו אסור באכילה מן התורה לפיכך מותר לבשלו ומותר בהנייה ואסור באכילה מדברי סופרים כדי שלא יפשעו העם ויבואו לידי איסור בשר בחלב של תורה ויאכלו בשר בהמה טהורה בחלב בהמה טהורה שהרי אין משמע הכתוב אלא גדי בחלב אמו ממש לפיכך אסרו כל בשר בחלב:
5
It is permitted to partake of fish and locusts [cooked] in milk.16
When a person slaughters a fowl and finds eggs that are completed within it, it is permitted to partake of them together with milk.17
ה
דגים וחגבים מותר לאכלן בחלב והשוחט עוף ונמצא בו ביצים גמורות מותר לאכלן בחלב:
6
When [milk and meat] are smoked, cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias, or the like, one is not liable for lashes.18 Similarly, when meat is cooked in whey, milk from a dead animal,19 or milk from a male,20 or if blood is cooked with milk, one is absolved and is not liable for partaking [of the mixture] because of [the prohibition against partaking of] milk and meat.21
When, however, a person cooks the meat of a dead animal, forbidden fat, or the like in milk, he is liable for lashes for cooking.22 He is not liable for lashes for partaking [of the mixture] because of the prohibition against meat and milk.23For the prohibition against [mixtures of] meat and milk does not take effect with regard to [entities] prohibited as nevelah or forbidden fat, because we are not speaking about a more encompassing prohibition, a prohibition which adds a new dimension, or [two] prohibitions that take effect at the same time.24
ו
המעושן והמבושל בחמי טבריא וכיוצא בהן אין לוקין עליו וכן המבשל בשר במי חלב או בחלב מתה או בחלב זכר או שבשל דם בחלב פטור ואינו לוקה על אכילתו מושם בשר בחלב אבל המבשל בשר מתה או חלב וכיוצא בהן בחלב לוקה על בשולו ואינו לוקה על אכילתו משום בשר בחלב שאין איסור בשר בחלב חל על איסור נבילה או איסור חלב שאין כאן לא איסור כולל ולא איסור מוסיף ולא איסור בת אחת:
7
When a person cooks a fetus in milk, he is liable. Similarly, one who partakes of it is liable. When, however, one cooks a placenta, skin, sinews, bones, the roots of the horns, or the soft portion of the hoofs [cooked] in meat,25he is not liable. Similarly, one who partakes [of such a mixture] is not liable.
ז
המבשל שליל בחלב חייב וכן האוכלו אבל המבשל שליא או עור וגידין ועצמות ועקרי קרנים וטלפים הרכים בחלב פטור וכן האוכלן פטור:
8
When meat falls into milk or milk falls into meat and they are cooked together, the minimum measure [for which one is liable is] enough for one substance to impart its flavor to the other.
What is implied? When a piece of meat falls into a bubbling pot26 full of milk, a gentile should taste [the contents of] the pot.27 If it has the flavor of meat, it is forbidden. If not, it is permitted, but the piece of meat is forbidden.28
When does the above apply? When he hurried and removed the piece of meat before it discharged the milk that it absorbed. If he did not remove it [that quickly], we require 60 times its volume,29 because the milk that it absorbed became forbidden. It was discharged and then mixed together with the remainder of the milk.30
ח
בשר שנפל לתוך החלב או חלב שנפל לתוך הבשר ונתבשל עמו שיעורו בנותן טעם כיצד חתיכה של בשר שנפלה לקדרה רותחת של חלב טועם הנכרי את הקדרה אם אמר שיש בה טעם בשר אסורה ואם לאו מותרת ואותה חתיכה אסורה במה דברים אמורים שקדם והוציא את החתיכה קודם שתפלוט חלב שבלעה אבל אם לא סלק משערים אותה בששים מפני שהחלב שנבלע בה ונאסר יצא ונתערב עם שאר החלב:
9
When milk falls [onto a piece of] meat [being cooked] in a pot,31 we taste32 the piece on which the milk fell. If it does not have the flavor of milk, everything is permitted.33 [More stringent rules apply] if the piece of meat has the flavor of milk. Even though if the piece of meat was pressed to remove [the absorbed liquid], the flavor [of milk] would not remain, since it has the flavor of milk now, it is forbidden and we must measure its entire volume.34 If everything in the pot - the other meat, the vegetables, the sauce, and the spices - is great enough so that the piece is one sixtieth of the entire [volume], that piece of meat is forbidden35 and the remainder is permitted.36
ט
נפל חלב לתוך קדרה של בשר טועמין את החתיכה שנפל עליה חלב אם אין בה טעם חלב הכל מותר ואם יש בחתיכה טעם חלב אף על פי שאם תסחט החתיכה לא ישאר בה טעם הואיל ויש בה עתה טעם חלב נאסרה אותה חתיכה ומשערין בכולה אם היה בכל שיש בקדרה מן החתיכות והירק והמרק והתבלין כדי שתהיה חתיכה זו אחד מששים מן הכל החתיכה אסורה והשאר מותר:
10
When does the above apply? When he did not stir the pot at the outset when the milk fell into it. [He did so] only at the end37 and did not cover the pot.38
If, however, he stirred the pot from the beginning until the end39 or covered [the pot]40 from the time [the milk] fell until the end, [the question of whether a prohibition exists depends] on whether [the milk] imparted its flavor.41
Similarly, if the milk fell into the sauce or onto all the pieces and it was not known on which piece [the milk] fell,42 he should stir the entire pot so that all its contents will be mixed [thoroughly].43 If the flavor of milk [can be detected] in the entire pot, it is forbidden. If not, it is permitted. If a gentile to taste [the pot] whom we can rely on cannot be found, we require a measure of sixty whether for meat in milk or milk in meat. If there is one measure in sixty,44 it is permitted. If there is less than sixty, it is forbidden.
י
בד"א בשלא נער את הקדרה בתחלה כשנפל החלב אלא לבסוף ולא כסה אבל אם נער מתחלה ועד סוף או שכסה משעת נפילה עד סוף הרי זה בנותן טעם וכן אם נפל חלב לתוך המרק או לכל החתיכות ולא נודע לאי זה חתיכה נפל נוער את הקדרה כולה עד שתשוב ויתערב הכל אם יש בקדרה כולה טעם חלב אסורה ואם לאו מותרת אם לא נמצא נכרי שיטעום ונסמוך עליו משערים בששים בין בשר לתוך חלב בין חלב לתוך בשר אחד מששים מותר פחות בששים אסור:
11
When meat has been cooked in a pot, milk should not be cooked in it.45 If one cooked [milk] in it, [it is forbidden] if it imparted its flavor.46
יא
קדרה שבשל בה בשר לא יבשל בה חלב ואם בשל בנותן טעם:
12
The udders [of an animal] are forbidden according to Rabbinic Law.47 [The prohibition is not of Scriptural origin, because] meat that was cooked in milk from an animal that was slaughtered is not forbidden according to Scriptural Law, as we explained.48
Therefore if one cut it open and discharged the milk it contained, it is permitted to roast it and eat it. If one cut it both horizontally and vertically and then pressed it into a wall until none of the moisture of the milk remained, it may be cooked with other meat.49
When an udder has not been cut open, when from a young animal that never nursed50 or from an older one, it is forbidden to cook it. If one transgressed and cooked it alone, it is permitted to partake of it. If one cooked it with other meat, we require 60 times its volume. The udder itself is calculated in the 60.51
יב
הכחל אסור מדברי סופרים שאין בשר שנתבשל בחלב שחוטה אסור מן התורה כמו שביארנו לפיכך אם קרעו ומירק החלב שבו מותר לצלותו ולאכלו ואם קרעו שתי וערב וטחו בכותל עד שלא נשאר בו לחלוחית חלב מותר לבשלו עם הבשר וכחל שלא קרעו בין של קטנה שלא הניקה בין של גדולה אסור לבשלו ואם עבר ובשלו בפני עצמו מותר לאכלו ואם בשלו עם בשר אחר משערין אותו בששים וכחל מן המנין:
13
What is implied? If the entire mixture together with the udder was sixty times the volume of the udder, the udder is forbidden,52 and the remainder is permitted. If there was less than 60 times its volume, the entire mixture is forbidden. Regardless of [the ruling applying to the entire mixture], if the udder fell into another pot, it can cause it to be forbidden. We require 60 times its volume as in the original instance.53 [The rationale is that] the udder which is cooked becomes considered as a forbidden piece of meat.
We measure [the volume of] the udder at the time that it was cooked, not according to its state when it fell [into the mixture].
יג
כיצד אם היה הכל עם הכחל כמו ששים בכחל הכחל אסור והשאר מותר ואם היה בפחות מששים הכל אסור בין כך ובין כך אם נפל לקדרה אחרת אוסר אותה ומשערין בו בששים כבראשונה שהכחל עצמו שנתבשל נעשה כחתיכה האסורה ואין משערין בו אלא כמות שהוא בעת שנתבשל לא כמות שהיה בשעה שנפל:
14
We do not roast an udder that has been cut above meat on a spit.54If, however, one roasted it [in that manner], everything is permitted.55
יד
אין צולין את הכחל שחתכו [למעלה] מן הבשר בשפוד ואם צלהו הכל מותר:
15
A stomach that is cooked with milk inside it56 is permitted. [The rationale is that] it is no longer considered as milk.57 Instead, it is considered as a waste product, because it undergoes a change in the digestive system.
טו
קיבה שבשלה בחלב שבה מותרת שאינו חלב אלא הרי הוא כטנופת שהרי ישתנה במעים:
16
It is forbidden to place the skin of a kosher animal's stomach [in milk] to serve as a catalyst for it to harden into cheese. If one used it as a catalyst, [a gentile] should taste the cheese. If it has a taste of meat, it is forbidden. If not, it is permitted. [The rationale is that] the catalyst is itself a permitted entity,58 for it comes from the stomach of a kosher animal. [The only question] is [whether] the prohibition against meat and milk [was violated] and that is dependent on whether the flavor was imparted.
[Different laws apply, however, when] one uses the skin of the stomach of a nevelah, a trefe, or a non-kosher animal. [The rationale is that] since the catalyst is forbidden in its own right, the cheese becomes forbidden, not because of the prohibition of meat and milk, but because of the prohibition against a nevelah. For this reason, [our Sages] forbade cheeses made by gentiles, as we explained.59
טז
אסור להעמיד הגבינה בעור הקיבה של שחוטה ואם העמיד טועם את הגבינה אם יש בה טעם בשר אסורה ואם לאו מותרת מפני שהמעמיד דבר המותר הוא שקיבת שחוטה היא ואין כאן אלא איסור בשר בחלב ששעורו בנותן טעם אבל המעמיד בעור קיבת נבילה וטרפה ובהמה טמאה הואיל והמעמיד דבר האסור בפני עצמו נאסרה הגבינה משום נבלה לא משום בשר בחלב ומפני חשש זה אסרו גבינת עכו"ם כמו שביארנו:
17
Meat alone is permitted and milk alone is permitted. It is [only] when the two become mixed together through cooking that they both become forbidden.
When does the above apply? When they were cooked together, when a hot object fell into a hot object,60 or when a cold object fell into a hot object.61If, however, [milk or meat] that is hot fell into the other when it is cold, [all that is necessary is to] remove the surface of the meat which touched the milk; the remainder may be eaten.62
If cold [meat] fell into cold [milk or the opposite], one must wash the piece of meat thoroughly.63 [Afterwards,] it may be eaten. For this reason, it is permitted to [carry] meat and milk bound together in a single handkerchief, provided they do not touch each other. If they do touch each other, one must wash the meat and wash the cheese.64 [Afterwards,] he may partake of them.
יז
הבשר לבדו מותר והחלב לבדו מותר ובהתערב שניהן על ידי בישול יאסרו שניהם במה דברים אמורים שנתבשלו שניהם ביחד או שנפל חם לתוך חם או צונן לתוך חם אבל אם נפל אחד משניהם והוא חם לתוך השני והוא צונן קולף הבשר כולו שנגע בו החלב ואוכל השאר ואם נפל צונן לתוך צונן מדיח החתיכה ואוכלה לפיכך מותר לצרור בשר וגבינה במטפחת אחת והוא שלא יגעו זה בזה ואם נגעו מדיח הבשר ומדיח הגבינה ואוכל:
18
When a substance is salted to the extent that it cannot be eaten because of its salt,65 is considered as if it is boiling.66 If it can be eaten in its present state like kutach,67 it is not considered as if it is boiling.68
יח
מליח שאינו נאכל מחמת מלחו הרי הוא כרותח ואם נאכל כמות שהוא כמו הכותח אינו כרותח:
19
[The following rules apply when] a fowl that has been slaughtered falls into milk or kutach that contains milk: If it is raw, it need only be washed thoroughly and it is permitted. If it was roasted, one should remove its surface.69If it has portions where it is open70 or it is spiced and it falls into milk or kutach, it is forbidden.71
יט
עוף שחוט שנפל לחלב או לכותח שיש בו חלב אם חי הוא מדיחו ומותר ואם צלי קולפו ואם היו בו פלחים פלחים או שהיה מתובל בתבלין ונפל לחלב או לכותח הרי זה אסור:
20
It is forbidden to serve fowl72 together with milk on the table upon which one is eating.73 This is a decree [enacted] because habit [might lead] to sin.74 We fear that one will eat one with the other. [This applies] even though fowl with milk is forbidden only because of Rabbinic decree.75
כ
אסור להעלות העוף עם הגבינה על השלחן שהוא אוכל עליו גזירה משום הרגל עבירה שמא יאכל זה עם זה אע"פ שהעוף בחלב אסור מדברי סופרים:
21
When two guests who are not familiar with each other are eating at the same table, one may eat the meat of an animal and one may eat cheese. [The rationale is] that they are not well-acquainted with each other to the extent that they will eat together.76
כא
שני אכסנאין שאינם מכירין זה את זה אוכלין על שלחן אחד זה בשר בהמה וזה גבינה מפני שאין זה גס לבו בזה כדי שיאכל עמו:
22
We do not knead a loaf with milk. If one kneaded it [with milk], the loaf is forbidden,77 because habit [might lead] to sin, lest he eat it together with meat. We do not dab an oven with animal fat.78 If in fact one dabbed an oven [with fat], any loaf is forbidden79 until one fires the oven,80 lest one eat milk with [that loaf]. If one altered the appearance of the bread so that it will be evident that one should not eat meat or milk with it, it is permitted.
כב
אין לשון העיסה בחלב ואם לש כל הפת אסורה מפני הרגל עבירה שמא יאכל בה בשר ואין טשין את התנור באליה ואם טש כל הפת אסורה עד שיסיק את התנור שמא יאכל בה חלב ואם שינה בצורת הפת עד שתהיה ניכרת כדי שלא יאכל בה לא בשר ולא חלב הרי זה מותר:
23
When a loaf has been baked together with roasted meat or fish were roasted together with meat,81 it is forbidden to eat them together with milk.82 When meat was eaten83 in a dish and then fish were cooked in it, it is permitted to eat those fish together with kutach.84
כג
פת שאפאה עם הצלי ודגים שצלאן עם הבשר אסור לאכלן בחלב קערה שאכלו בה בשר ובשלו בה דגים אותן הדגים מותר לאכלן בכותח:
24
When a knife was used to cut roasted meat85 and then was used to cut radish or other sharp foods, it is forbidden to eat them together with kutach.86 If, however, one cut meat [with a knife] and afterwards cut zucchini or watermelon,87 one should scrape away the place where the cut was made and the remainder may be eaten with milk.
כד
סכין שחתך בה בשר צלי וחזר וחתך בה צנון וכיוצא בו מדברים חריפין אסור לאכלן בכותח אבל אם חתך בה בשר וחזר וחתך בה קישות או אבטיח גורד מקום החתך ואוכל השאר בחלב:
25
We do not place a jar of salt near a jar of kutach, because it will draw out its flavor.88 Thus one will cook meat with this salt that has the flavor of milk. One may, however, place a jar of vinegar near a jar of kutach, because the vinegar will not draw out its flavor.89
כה
אין מניחין כד של מלח בצד כד של כמך מפני ששואב ממנו ונמצא מבשל הבשר במלח זה שיש בו טעם החלב אבל מניח כד החומץ בצד כד הכמך שאין החומץ שואב ממנו:
26
When a person eats cheese or milk first, it is permitted for him to eat meat directly afterwards. He must, however, wash his hands90 and clean his mouth between the cheese and the meat.91
With what should he clean his mouth? With bread or with fruit that [require him] to chew and then swallow or spit them out.92 One may clean his mouth with all substances with the exception of dates, flour, and vegetables, because they do not clean effectively.
כו
מי שאכל גבינה או חלב תחלה מותר לאכול אחריו בשר מיד וצריך שידיח ידיו ויקנח פיו בין הגבינה ובין הבשר ובמה מקנח פיו בפת או בפירות שלועסן ובולען או פולטן ובכל מקנחין את הפה חוץ מתמרים או קמח או ירקות שאין אלו מקנחין יפה:
27
When does the above apply? With regard to the meat of a domesticated animal or a wild beast.93 If, however, one [desires to] eat the meat of a fowl after eating cheese or milk, it is not necessary for him to clean his mouth or wash his hands.94
כז
בד"א בבשר בהמה או חיה אבל אם אכל בשר עוף אחר שאכל הגבינה או החלב אינו צריך לא קנוח הפה ולא נטילת ידים:
28
When a person ate meat first - whether the meat of an animal or the meat of a fowl - he should not partake of milk afterwards unless he waits the time for another meal, approximately six hours.95 This stringency is required because meat that becomes stuck between teeth and is not removed by cleaning.96
כח
מי שאכל בשר בתחלה בין בשר בהמה בין בשר עוף לא יאכל אחריו חלב עד שיהיה ביניהן כדי שיעור סעודה אחרת והוא כמו שש שעות מפני הבשר של בין השינים שאינו סר בקינוח:
FOOTNOTES
1.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 186-187) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 113 and 92) include these prohibitions among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
2.
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:11,13.
3.
I.e., together the mixture is the size of an olive. It is not necessary that one have an olive-sized portion of milk and an olive-sized portion of meat.
4.
If, however, the meat and milk have not been cooked together, there is no Scriptural prohibition against partaking of them together (Maggid Mishneh). According to Rabbinic Law, it is forbidden to partake of them in any manner.
5.
Even if a prohibition was not violated when cooking them together (e.g., they were cooked by a gentile), it is forbidden for a Jew to partake of the mixture. The implication is that the prohibitions against cooking the mixture and partaking of it are separate issues that do not necessarily share a connection (Maggid Mishneh).
6.
I.e., no where in the Torah does it state that it is forbidden to partake of such a mixture.
7.
Significantly, in his Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., the Rambam explains that the prohibitions against partaking of and benefiting from milk and meat are derived from the fact that the Torah repeats this prohibition three times. Perhaps the reason the Rambam does not mention this means of derivation here is to avoid the following question being raised: Why are lashes not given for benefiting from milk and meat?
To explain: In Chapter 8, Halachah 16, the Rambam writes that one is not liable for lashes for deriving benefit from a forbidden substance. As explained in the notes to that halachah, the Maggid Mishneh explains that one is liable for lashes only when he derives benefit from the food in an ordinary manner from food. This includes only eating and not other forms of deriving benefit. Nevertheless, seemingly this should not apply with regard to benefiting from a mixture of milk and meat. For, as stated in Chapter 14, Halachah 10, in that instance, one is liable even if one does not derive benefit in the ordinary manner. Hence, it would appear that one should be liable for lashes for partaking of such a mixture.
Among the explanations given why one is not liable is that the prohibition against deriving benefit from a mixture of milk and meat is derived from an inference from a more lenient instance to a more stringent one (a kal vichomer; see Chullin 115b). And we follow the principle that punishment is not meted out when a prohibition is derived in such a fashion, only when it is stated explicitly (Sifri, Naso). If, however, there was an explicit prohibition in the Torah teaching us that deriving benefit from a mixture of milk and meat was forbidden. Seemingly, one would be liable for lashes (Lechem Mishneh).
8.
See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 2:6.
9.
With regard to the meat or milk of a kosher wild beast or fowl, see the following halachah and notes.
10.
I.e., the prohibition involves only a kid that could be eaten and milk of which one could partake.
11.
I.e., the term gidi translated as "kid," commonly means "a kid-goat." Nevertheless, according to the Bible, it is not necessarily restricted to this meaning unless the verse specifies so explicitly, as in Genesis 27:16; 38:20.
12.
I.e., the intent is not that one is liable only for cooking an offspring in the milk of its mother and not in any other situations. See the conclusion of the following halachah.
13.
Needless to say, one is liable for partaking of the non-kosher meat or the non-kosher milk.
14.
There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis in Chullin 116a whether the prohibition against eat the meat of a wild beast [cooked] in milk is Scriptural or Rabbinic in origin. According to some interpretations, that difference of opinion is perpetuated among the Rishonim (see Siftei Cohen 87:4). Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of Rishonim and Achronim follow the opinion the Rambam states here. This is also the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 87:3).
Significantly, in (Hilchot Mamrim 2:9), the Rambam states that the meat of a wild beast that is cooked in milk is forbidden according to Scriptural Law. In their glosses to Hilchot Mamrim, the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that there, the Rambam is speaking theoretically: Were the halachah to follow the opinion that the meat of a wild beast is forbidden according to Scriptural law, the ruling would be such and such. The Merkevat HaMishneh, however, maintains that a printing error crept into the text in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot and the text should be changed to fit the Rambam's ruling in Hilchot Mamrim.
15.
Hence were the Sages to allow one to partake of the meat of a wild beast and fowl cooked in milk, one might think that the prohibition applies only in its most literal context. As a safeguard to prevent this error from occurring, they instituted this prohibition.
16.
The Turei Zahav 87:3 and the Siftei Cohen 87:5 mention that there are authorities who forbid eating fish and milk together because it can cause health dangers. They, however, reject that ruling.
17.
This refers to eggs that already have a yolk and whites, but are still connected to the chicken's body (Maggid Mishneh). See the Turei Zahav 87:6 and the Siftei Cohen 87:9 who quote authorities who explain that even though such eggs are considered as meat in certain contexts, there is no prohibition against partaking of them together with milk.
18.
Nevertheless, there is a prohibition against partaking of all these mixtures and those mentioned in the following clause.
19.
I.e., milk that was in the animal's udders when it died or was slaughtered. See Halachah 12.
20.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 87:6) states that, after the fact, there is no prohibition against a mixture of milk from a male and meat. The Siftei Cohen 87:16 explains that this refers to milk from a male human. Even the Rama would forbid milk from a male animal according to Rabbinic Law.
21.
Implied is that in the latter instance, one is liable for partaking of blood. The Siftei Cohen 87:15 notes that according to many authorities, one is not liable for lashes for partaking of blood that has been cooked.
22.
Since we are speaking about meat or fat from a kosher species, the prohibition against cooking applies. In this instance, we do not say that "one prohibition does not fall upon another," because there is no prohibition against cooking a nevelah or forbidden fat.
23.
He is, however, liable for partaking of a nevelah or of forbidden fat.
24.
As stated in Chapter 14, Halachah 18, and in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:8, it is only in these circumstances, that we do not follow the general principle: One prohibition does not fall upon another prohibition.
The commentaries ask: Seemingly, the prohibition against a mixture of meat and milk does add a new dimension to this prohibition, because it is forbidden to benefit from such a mixture. Why then does the prohibition against partaking of milk and meat not apply?
The Rambam attempts to resolve this question in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 3:4) by explaining that since the prohibition against benefiting from the mixture is an extension of the prohibition against partaking of it, when - as in the present instance - the prohibition against partaking of it does not apply, the prohibition against benefiting from it also does not apply.
25.
For as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 18, such substances are not fit to be eaten and thus are not considered as meat.
26.
The pot must be boiling hot. If meat falls into cold milk, it will not absorb it. See Halachah 17.
27.
Chullin 97a states "An Aramean chef shall taste it." Tosafot and others explain that only a chef's word is accepted. He will not lie, because if his falsification is discovered, his professional reputation will be tarnished and he will suffer a loss. We suspect that an ordinary gentile, by contrast, will lie. His word is only accepted with regard to ritual matters when he makes statements in the course of conversation, without knowing that a Jew is depending on his word.
This interpretation is not evident from the Rambam's words. On the contrary, it appears that according to the Rambam, the statements of any gentile are acceptable (see Chapter 15, Law 30, and notes). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 92:1 quotes the Rambam's words. The Siftei Cohen 92:1 mentions the view of Tosafot. The Rama states that in the Ashkenazic community, the custom is not to rely on the word of a gentile in this context. Instead, we require sixty times the volume of the meat in all instances. Otherwise, both the milk and the meat are forbidden.
28.
For it certainly absorbed milk.
29.
As will be explained (see Chapter 15, Halachah 6, and notes), our Sages received the tradition that a forbidden substances will not impart its flavor to a mixture when the mixture contains sixty times its volume.
30.
There is no way of distinguishing the remainder of the milk from the forbidden milk. Hence the entire mixture is forbidden unless there is more than 60 times the amount of the forbidden substance.
31.
As evident from the continuation of the Rambam's words in this and the following halachah, we are speaking of an instance where milk falls on a piece of meat that is not in the sauce. According to Rashi, the lower portion of the meat is resting within the sauce in the pot and its upper portion - on which the milk falls - projects beyond it. According to Rabbenu Yitzchak, the entire portion is outside the sauce. See Turei Zahav 92:2; Siftei Cohen 92:4. (From the Rambam's wording at the beginning of the following halachah, it would appear that he follows Rabbenu Yitzchak's position.)
32.
I.e., we have the meat tasted by a gentile as above.
33.
I.e., the piece itself is permitted and therefore all the contents of the pot.
34.
Since the meat becomes forbidden, because it is meat that has been mixed with milk, tasting the mixture for milk is not sufficient. Instead, we consider the meat as a forbidden article and measure 60 times its volume. It is not possible to distinguish between the flavor of the forbidden meat and that of the permitted meat.
35.
Once it becomes forbidden, it is considered as a prohibited entity and cannot become permitted again. Our Sages [Chullin 108b; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 92:3-4)] use the expression: "The piece becomes like carrion," i.e., as if it is inherently forbidden.
36.
As if it was mixed with 60 times its volume of non-kosher meat. If the entire mixture is not 60 times the volume of the forbidden piece, the entire mixture becomes forbidden.
37.
Since he mixed at the end, after the meat became forbidden, the entire mixture may become forbidden.
38.
Thus the piece of meat on which the milk fell remained a discrete entity, separate from the entire mixture. Hence it becomes forbidden.
39.
The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 82) states that it is sufficient for him to stir the mixture at the beginning. This will cause the milk to be blended throughout the entire mixture. There is no need for him to continue stirring the pot. Rav Yaakov ibn Chaviv maintains that the Rambam would also accept this position. The Rambam mentions stirring the put until the end only for stylistic reasons. This interpretation is also apparent in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 8:3).
In his Kessef Mishneh and Beit Yosef, Rav Yosef Caro differs and maintains that the Rambam's words here should be understood literally. Unless he mixed the pot from the beginning until the end, we fear that it was not mixed well. Hence in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 92:2, he quotes the Rambam exactly. The Rama, however, cites the Tur's position.
40.
For covering the pot also causes the flavor of the milk to be blended throughout the entire mixture.
41.
And we have a gentile taste the mixture as above.
42.
The Tur and the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 92:2) emphasize that if the person does not stir the pot immediately after the milk fell in, the piece on which the milk fell becomes forbidden. Since its identity is unknown, all the pieces are forbidden unless the entire mixture is 60 times larger than its largest piece.
Rav Yaakov ibn Chaviv and Rav Yosef Caro (in his Kessef Mishneh and Beit Yosef) interpret the Rambam's intent as analogous to that of the Tur. They maintain that the Rambam also would agree that if person waited after the milk fell on the piece, that piece - and perhaps all the pieces - become(s) forbidden.
The Maggid Mishneh offers a different interpretation, explaining that in this instance, we do not say that the piece of meat on which the milk fell becomes forbidden because we do not know which piece it is. Hence rather than have the taste of the milk affect that piece, we stir the entire mixture so that the milk will become blended into it and become nullified as explained in the following note.
The Turei Zahav 92:6 and the Siftei Cohen 92:8 follow the interpretation of the Maggid Mishneh, explaining that in this instance, the principle (Beitzah 4b): "We do not nullify the existence of a forbidden substance at the outset," does not apply. For since the identity of the forbidden substance was never established, there is no specific prohibited substance involved. Hence at the outset, the entire pot is considered as subject to being forbidden. To prevent that from happening, we stir it so that the prohibition will not take effect.
43.
I.e., intentionally mixing the milk throughout the entire pot and thus nullifying its presence. As the Tur (loc. cit) writes, if the milk fell into the sauce, even if the person did not stir the mixture, this would be the ruling. Nevertheless, the Rambam advises the person to stir the mixture so that it will be mixed thoroughly and no trace will remain.
44.
More precisely, the permitted substance must be sixty times the volume of the forbidden substance. Thus we are speaking about the forbidden substance being one sixty-first.
45.
This applies even on a later day. According to Scriptural Law, after 24 hours, there is no prohibition. Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, at the outset, one should be stringent and not cook milk in a pot in which meat was cooked previously even if it had been cooked several days beforehand.
46.
I.e., it should be tasted by a gentile. According to the Ashkenazic custom not to rely on a gentile, we require that the contents be 60 times the volume of the pot. The Siftei Cohen 93:1 states that it would be very rare for such a situation to exist. Generally, the ratio between a pot and its contents is less than 60. Hence, in most instances, the food would be prohibited.
47.
I.e., we are afraid that a certain amount of milk remained in the udder or that the udder absorbed a certain amount of milk. Since we do not know how much milk it absorbed, we assume that it is entirely forbidden.
48.
Halachah 6.
49.
The ruling regarding roasting is more lenient than the ruling regarding cooking, because when meat is roasted, any fluids it contains are discharged and flow outward without being absorbed (see Halachah 14). When it is cooked, by contrast, it stews in its juices and it and any other meat will absorb the milk it discharges.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 90:2) writes that the accepted custom is not to cook it with other meat at all and to cook it alone only after it has been cut vertically and horizontally and pressed into a wall. The Rama adds that it is Ashkenazic custom not to cook it at all.
50.
I.e., our Sages enforced their decree universally, without differentiating between one animal and another.
51.
In Chapter 15, Halachah 18, the Rambam explains that since only a Rabbinic prohibition is involved, our Sages were more lenient. Thus the Rambam interprets this ruling as being of general significance. The Rashba offers a different rationale for this ruling, explaining that since the meat of the udder is acceptable, we include it in the reckoning of 60. Thus in contrast to other instances where 60 times the amount of the forbidden substance is required, here, we require only 59.
52.
Rashi, Chullin 97b, explains that we assume that the milk imparted its flavor to the udder. Hence it becomes forbidden as the Rambam proceeds to state.
53.
Thus according to the Rambam, only 59 times its volume is required. This view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 90:1). The Tur and the Rama differ and maintain that the second mixture is judged more stringently than the first. They follow the rationale of the Rashba cited above. Thus they maintain at first, the udder is included in the reckoning, because its meat is permitted. With regard to the second mixture, by contrast, it is the meat, not the milk of the udder which is forbidden. Hence 60 times its volume is required.
54.
This is a safeguard so that it will not discharge milk which will flow over other pieces of meat.
55.
For even if its milk does flow over other pieces of meat, they are not forbidden. The rationale is that since it has been cut open, we do not suspect that perhaps some milk remained. Since the entire prohibition is Rabbinic in origin, we are not overly stringent. The Rama states if the udder was not cut open beforehand, the meat that is lower on the spit is forbidden.
56.
I.e., a calf that had drank its mother's milk and was cooked with that milk in its stomach.
57.
The Kessef Mishneh states that according to the Rambam, this applies even to milk that is still liquid. Since it has already undergone preliminary digestive processes, it is no longer considered as milk. See Chapter 4, Halachah 19.
58.
Hence the logic mentioned in the following note does not apply.
59.
Chapter 3, Halachah 13. As the Rambam states in that halachah, since the amount of skin used is minimal, we might think that no prohibition is involved, for the forbidden substance would be nullified. Nevertheless, the Rabbis ruled stringently, explaining that since the catalyst which causes the milk to curdle is forbidden, everything is forbidden.
60.
For in this instance, the two substances will be absorbed by each other just as if they had been cooked together.
61.
For we follow the principle (Pesachim 76a): "The lower one dominates," and the food is considered as hot.
62.
We assume that the meat's surface absorbed a small amount of milk while it was cooling down (ibid.). Hence the surface is forbidden and must be removed. The milk does not, however, permeate beyond the surface. Therefore the remainder is permitted. With regard to the milk, it appears that there is no prohibition. The Radbaz explains that since it is not possible to remove the surface of the milk, there is no prohibition whatsoever. Other Rishonim require that the milk be sixty times the volume of the surface of the meat. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 91:4) quotes the Rambam's ruling and the Siftei Cohen 91:8 states that this decision is accepted by the Rama despite the fact that this might appear incompatible with some of the other rulings of the Rama. The Turei Zahav 91:7, however, argues in favor of the view of the other Rishonim.
63.
Since they are both cold, there is no suspicion that one will be absorbed by the other. Washing the meat is necessary only to remove any traces of milk that might be left.
64.
The Bayit Chadash rules that this applies only when one of them is moist. If they are both solid, they need not even be washed.
65.
In previous eras, before the advent of refrigeration, meat was salted thoroughly to preserve it. Afterwards, when one desired to partake of it, he would soak it in water to remove the salt (Rashi, Chullin 112a). The Radbaz states that we are speaking about salting meat in a manner similar to the way it is salted to remove its blood. If less salt than that is used, these laws do not apply. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 91:5) which discusses these laws.
66.
I.e., we assume that it will cause substances to be discharged and absorbed as cooking does. This is merely a Rabbinic stringency.
It must be emphasized that the comparison to cooking is not total. Generally, salting only causes the surface of the substance to become forbidden. If, however, the substance is fatty, the entire substance becomes forbidden (ibid.:6).
67.
A mixture of milk, breadcrumbs, salt, and spices, commonly served as a dip in Babylon.
68.
All that is necessary is to wash the meat and/or cheese thoroughly.
69.
There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if this is speaking about a roasted fowl that is hot, or even one that is not hot. According to the latter opinion, it will still absorb some milk because it has become soft and permeable. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 91:7) quotes the first view while the Turand the Rama mention the second.
70.
I.e., instead of being a solid surface, the surface of the meat cracks open in several places.
71.
Because the cracks in its surface or the spices will cause it to absorb the milk to a greater extent than it would otherwise. This clause appears also to be referring to meat that has been roasted. There are, however, opinions that interpret it as referring to raw meat. See Siftei Cohen 91:21.
72.
Needless to say, this applies to meat (see Lechem Mishneh).
73.
They may, however, be placed together on a serving table (Chullin 104b).
74.
Since both substances are permitted and they are served together, one might accidentally partake of them together.
Implied is that if substances are forbidden and one would not ordinarily partake of them, there is no difficulty in having them served on the table at which one is eating. See Siftei Cohen 88:2.
75.
See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 88:2) which explains that if a distinction is made, e.g., the milk is placed on one type of placemat and the meat on another, there is no prohibition.
76.
Thus there is little likelihood that they will share their food together.
77.
Even to be eaten alone [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 97:1)]. The Shulchan Aruch, however, grants license if only a small amount of bread was prepared in this manner and thus it can be eaten at one time.
78.
Even if the fat is kosher.
79.
We fear that the fat from the oven became absorbed in the bread, causing it to become fleishig.
80.
Firing the oven to the point that it becomes red-hot will burn away all traces of the fat.
81.
Even if they did not touch each other. Note the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 116) and the Turei Zahav 95:3) which mention that there is a prohibition against eating fish roasted with meat because it could cause a health problem.
82.
For the vapors from the meat become absorbed in the bread or in the fish. In Chapter 15, Halachah 32, the Rambam rules that vapors do not cause an object to become forbidden. There is not necessarily a contradiction between these two rulings, for here we are speaking about a small oven [Radbaz, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 97:3). Even though, after the fact, kosher meat roasted together with non-kosher meat in a small oven is permitted, here one is not deeming the bread or fish forbidden, one is merely prohibiting that it be eaten with milk (Siftei Cohen 97:4).
83.
Or cooked [Radbaz, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 95:1)]. The Shulchan Aruch adds that this ruling applies only when the dish was thoroughly washed and no trace of meat remains.
84.
Even though the kutach contains milk. The rationale is that although the flavor of the meat was imparted to the dish and from the dish, it was imparted to the fish. Nevertheless, since it went through these two intermediate stages, it is not considered significant and does not cause the fish to be considered fleishig. The Rabbis referred to this concept as nat bar nat - notain taam bar notain tam ("imparting merely flavor a second time").
It must be emphasized that nat bar nat is permitted only with regard to a mixture of milk and meat. The rationale is that both milk and meat are permitted, a prohibition only exists when they are mixed together and if one of them has been weakened to the extent that it is nat bar nat, it is not considered significant. When, however, an entity is inherently forbidden, e.g., non-kosher meat, when its flavor becomes absorbed into a dish, that dish becomes forbidden and it may not be used again for hot food (Radbaz).
85.
The Rambam's wording implies that the meat was hot (Radbaz). This ruling applies also to hot cooked meat (Kessef Mishneh). There are opinions that maintain that this ruling also applies when the meat was cold (Radbaz).
86.
Rashi, Chullin 111b, states that the rationale is that it is likely that there will be a small amount of fat left on the knife. Thus when the knife is used to cut the sharp food, its sharpness will cause the flavor of the fat will be imparted to it. According to this view, if the knife was cleaned or used to cut another substance first, it does not cause the radish to be forbidden [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 96:5); note also the dissenting view of the Rama]. (This opinion speaks of fat being left on the knife, for if there was no fat there, seemingly, this instance would resemble the concept of nat bar nat mentioned in the previous halachah.)
There are, however, other opinions (Tosafot, Sefer HaTerumot) which maintain that this ruling would apply even if the knife was clean. The rationale is the pungency of the food and the pressure of the knife cause it to absorb more than an ordinary instance of nat bar nat.
From the Rambam's wording, it appears that the entire radish is forbidden. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 96:1), however, rules that it is sufficient to remove a piece a fingerbreadth in thickness. The Rama, however, mentions the Rambam's view.
87.
I.e., substances that are not pungent and soft and contain moisture. If one cuts a vegetable that is not soft and moist, it is sufficient to wash it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 96:5)].
88.
The Ra'avad and the Radbaz note that the Rambam apparently had a slightly different version of Chullin 112a, the source for this halachah, than that found in the standard printed texts of the Talmud. According to the standard version, the rationale is that we fear that some drops of kutach will fall into the salt. The Radbaz adds that according to the Rambam, the prohibition applies only with regard to earthenware jugs. If they are made from metal, the material will be too dense to allow for the flavor to be drawn out.
89.
According to the other rationale, the kutach will remain a distinct entity if it falls into the salt, but it will become mixed with the vinegar and nullified if it falls into it (Radbaz; Turei Zahav 95:16).
90.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 89:2) states that if one sees that his hands are clean, it is not necessary to wash them.
91.
The Rama quotes a view that requires one to wait six hours after eating hard cheese. It is, however, questionable if this would be required for most hard cheese commercially produced today.
92.
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states that one should also wash his mouth.
93.
The requirement of this stringency for the meat of a domesticated animal is understandable, for the prohibition is of Scriptural origin. Nevertheless, according to the standard text of Halachah 4, the prohibition against a mixture of milk and the meat of a wild beast is also Rabbinic in origin. What then is the difference between the meat of a wild beast and that of a fowl? The Kessef Mishneh, however, explains that the meat of a domesticated animal resembles the meat of a wild beast. Hence it was necessary for the Rabbis to forbid it. Alternatively, Rabbenu Tam explains that the meat of a wild beast will stick to a person's mouth and hands more than the meat of a fowl.
94.
Since only a Rabbinic prohibition is involved, our Sages did not enforce any further stringency.
95.
This is the view stated in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 89:1) and in the Rama's conclusion, although the Rama does mention that there are some more lenient views.
96.
The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 89) gives a different rationale: that because meat is fatty, its taste persists for a long time.
Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 10
1
All the prohibitions we mentioned involve living beings. There are also other Scriptural prohibitions that involve the produce of the earth. They include: chadash, kilai hakerem, tevel, and orlah.1
א
כל איסורין שאמרנו הן במיני נפש חיה ויש איסורין אחרים של תורה בזרע הארץ והן החדש וכלאי הכרם והטבל והערלה:
2
What is meant by chadash?2 It is forbidden to partake of any of the five species of grain3 alone4 before the omer5is offered on the sixteenth of Nisan, as [Leviticus 23:14] states: "You may not partake of bread, roasted kernels, or fresh kernels."6
Anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of fresh grain before the offering of the omer is liable for lashes. [This applies] in every place and at all times, whether in Eretz [Yisrael] or in the Diaspora,7 whether at the time of the Temple or when the Temple is no longer standing.8
[The only difference in observance is that] while the Temple is standing, once the omer has been offered, it is permitted [to partake of] new grain in Jerusalem. Distant places9 are permitted [to partake of new grain] after midday. For the court will not be indolent with regard to [the offering of omer] beyond midday.10 [Now] when the Temple is no longer standing, the entire day is forbidden according to Scriptural Law. In the present age, in the places where the festivals are observed for two days,11 chadash is forbidden on the entire day of the seventeenth of Nisan until the evening according to Rabbinic Law.12
ב
החדש כיצד כל אחד מחמשה מיני תבואה בלבד אסור לאכול מהחדש שלו קודם שיקרב העומר בט"ז בניסן שנאמר ולחם וקלי וכרמל לא תאכלו וכל האוכל כזית חדש קודם הקרבת העומר לוקה מן התורה בכל מקום ובכל זמן בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ בין בפני הבית בין שלא בפני הבית אלא שבזמן שיש מקדש משיקרב העומר הותר החדש בירושלים והמקומות הרחוקין מותרין אחר חצות שאין בית דין מתעצלין בו עד אחר חצות ובזמן שאין בית המקדש כל היום כולו אסור מן התורה ובזמן הזה במקומות שעושין שני ימים טובים החדש אסור כל יום י"ז בניסן עד לערב מדברי סופרים:
3
When a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of bread from each of roasted kernels, or fresh kernels [from chadash], he is liable for three sets of lashes,13 as [implied by the verse]: "You may not partake of bread, roasted kernels, or fresh kernels." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that all three involve separate prohibitions.14
ג
האוכל לחם וקלי וכרמל כזית מכל אחד ואחד לוקה שלש מלקיות שנאמר ולחם וקלי וכרמל לא תאכלו מפי השמועה למדו ששלשתן בלאוין חלוקין זה מזה:
4
Whenever grain took root before the offering of the omer, it is permitted to be eaten after the offering of the omer despite the fact that it did not reach maturity until after that offering. Grain that took root after the offering of the omer is forbidden until the offering of that sacrifice the following year even though it was planted before that offering was brought. This law applies in every place15 and in every era according to Scriptural Law.
ד
כל תבואה שהשרישה קודם הקרבת העומר אף על פי שלא נגמרה אלא אחר שקרב מותרת באכילה משקרב העומר ותבואה שהשרישה אחר שקרב העומר אע"פ שהיתה זרועה קודם שקרב העומר הרי זו אסורה עד שיקרב העומר של שנה הבאה ודין זה בכל מקום ובכל זמן מן התורה:
5
[There is an unresolved halachic difficulty in the following situations:] Grain took root after the omer. One harvested it and sowed this wheat in the ground. Afterwards, the omer of the following year was offered, while these kernels of wheat were still in the ground.16 There is a doubt whether [the offering of] the omer caused [these kernels] to be permitted as if they had been stored in a jar or it did not cause them to be permitted, because they have been nullified in the ground.17 Therefore if a person collected them and partook of them, he is not liable for lashes, but [instead] is given stripes for rebellious conduct.
Similarly, when a stalk reached a third of its growth before the offering of the omer,18 one uprooted it and then replanted it after the offering of the omer, and it increased in size. There is a doubt whether it is forbidden because of the increase in size until the offering of the omer the following year or it is not forbidden because it took root before the offering of the omer.19
ה
תבואה שהשרישה אחר העומר וקצרה וזרע מן החטים בקרקע ואחר כך קרב העומר הבא ועדיין החטים בקרקע הרי אלו ספק אם התירן העומר כאילו היו מונחין בכד או לא יתיר אותן מפני שבטלו בקרקע לפיכך אם לקט מהם ואכל אינו לוקה ומכין אותו מכת מרדות וכן שיבולת שהביאה שליש מלפני העומר ועקרה ושתלה אחר שקרב העומר והוסיפה הרי זו ספק אם תהיה אסורה מפני התוספת עד שיבא העומר הבא או לא תהיה אסורה שהרי השרישה קודם העומר:
6
What is meant by kilai hakerem?20 Sowing a species of grain or a type of vegetable together with a vine.21 [This applies] whether they were sown by a Jew or a non-Jew,22 whether they grew on their own, or whether one planted a vine among vegetables, we are prohibited against partaking and benefiting from both of them, as [Deuteronomy 22:9] states: "Lest the fullness of the seed which you sowed and the produce of the vineyard become hallowed."23 ["Becom[ing] hallowed"] means being set apart and forbidden.
ו
כלאי הכרם כיצד מין ממיני תבואה או מיני ירקות שנזרעו עם הגפן בין שזרע ישראל בין שזרע נכרי בין שעלו מאליהן בין שנטע הגפן בתוך הירק שניהם אסורין באכילה ובהנייה שנאמר פן תקדש המלאה הזרע אשר תזרע ותבואת הכרם כלומר פן תתרחק ותאסור שניהם:
7
One who eats24 an olive-sized portion from kilai hakerem, whether from the vegetables or from the grapes is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. The two can be combined to reach this measure.25
ז
והאוכל כזית מכלאי הכרם בין מן הירק בין מן הענבים לוקה מן התורה ושניהם מצטרפין זה עם זה:
8
When does the above26 apply? When they were sown in Eretz Yisrael.27 In the Diaspora, by contrast, kilai hakerem are forbidden by Rabbinic decree.
In Hilchot Kelayim,28 it will be explained which species are forbidden as kilai hakerem and which are not forbidden, how they become forbidden, when they become forbidden, in which situations, produce causes vines to llowed," and when they do not cause them to become "hallowed."
ח
במה דברים אמורים שנזרעו בארץ ישראל אבל בחוצה לארץ כלאי הכרם מדברי סופרים ובהלכות כלאים יתבאר אי זה מין אסור בכלאי הכרם ואי זה מין אינו אסור והיאך יאסור ומתי יאסר ואי זה דבר מקדש ואי זה אינו מקדש:
9
What is meant by orlah?29 Whenever anyone plants30 a fruit tree, it is forbidden to partake of or benefit from all of the fruit the tree produces for three years after being planted, as [Leviticus 19:23] states: "For three years, they shall be closed off for you, they may not be eaten."31 Whoever eats an olive-sized portion of such fruit is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law.
ט
הערלה כיצד כל הנוטע אילן מאכל כל פירות שעושה אותו אילן שלש שנים משנטע הרי הן אסורין באכילה ובהנאה שנאמר שלש שנים יהיה לכם ערלים לא יאכל וכל האוכל מהם כזית לוקה מן התורה:
10
When does this apply when one plants in Eretz Yisrael, as [the above] verse states: "When you enter the land...." With regard to the prohibition against orlah in the Diaspora, it is a halachah transmitted to Moses at Sinai32 that fruit that is definitely orlah is forbidden. If there is a doubt regarding the matter, it is permitted. In Hilchot Ma'aaser Sheni,33it will be explained which [growths] are forbidden as orlah and which are permitted.34
י
בד"א בנוטע בארץ ישראל שנאמר כי תבאו אל הארץ וגו' אבל איסור ערלה בחוצה לארץ הלכה למשה מסיני שודאי הערלה בחוצה לארץ אסורה וספיקה מותר ובהלכות מעשר שני יתבאר דברים האסורין משום ערלה ודברים המותרין:
11
When there is a doubt whether produce is orlah or kilai hakerem in Eretz Yisrael, it is forbidden.35 In Syria, i.e., the lands that David conquered,36 it is permitted.
What is implied? If there was a vineyard [containing] orlah and grapes were being sold outside it, or there were vegetables sown inside it37 and vegetables were being sold outside it, [in which instance,] there is a doubt whether [the grapes or the vegetables] came from it or from another place, in Syria, they are permitted.38 In the Diaspora, even if one sees grapes being taken out from a vineyard that is orlah or vegetables being taken out from a vineyard, one may purchase them provided one does not actually see orlah being reaped or the vegetables being harvested [from the vineyard].
יא
ספק ערלה וכלאי הכרם בארץ ישראל אסור בסוריא והיא ארצות שכבש דוד מותר כיצד היה כרם וערלה וענבים נמכרות חוצה לו היה ירק זרוע בתוכו וירק נמכר חוצה לו שמא ממנו הוא זה שמא מאחר בסוריא מותר ובחוצה לארץ אפילו ראה הענבים יוצאות מכרם ערלה או ירק יוצא מן הכרם לוקח מהן והוא שלא יראה אותו בוצר מן הערלה או לוקט הירק בידו:
12
When there is a doubt whether a vineyard [contains] orlah or kilai hakerem, in Eretz Yisrael, it is forbidden. In Syria, it is permitted.39 Needless to say, that ruling prevails in the Diaspora.
יב
כרם שהוא ספק ערלה או ספק כלאים בארץ ישראל אסור ובסוריא מותר ואין צריך לומר בחוצה לארץ:
13
It is forbidden40 to drink a jug of wine that is found hidden in an orchard [whose produce is] orlah. It is permitted to benefit from it. [The rationale is] that a thief will not steal from a place and hide [what he stole] there. Grapes that are hidden there are forbidden, lest they have been harvested from there and stored away there.
יג
חבית יין הנמצאת טמונה בפרדס של ערלה אסורה בשתייה ומותרת בהנייה שאין הגנב גונב ממקום וטומן בו אבל ענבים הנמצאין טמונים שם אסורים שמא משם נלקטו והצניען שם:
14
[The following laws apply when] a gentile and a Jew are partners in planting [an orchard]. If at the beginning of the partnership, they agreed that the gentile would benefit from the produce during the years of orlah and the Jew would benefit from it for three years when the produce is permitted afterwards, it is permitted.41 If they did not make such an agreement at the outset, it is forbidden [to make one afterwards].42 [Even when the agreement was made at the outset,] they may not make a reckoning.
What is meant [by making a reckoning]? I.e., to calculate the quantity of produce from which the gentile benefited in the years of orlah so that the Jew will benefit from exactly that amount. If they made such an agreement, it is forbidden, for this is exchanging the produce which is orlah.43
יד
נכרי וישראל שהיו שותפין בנטיעה אם התנו מתחלת השותפות שיהיה הנכרי אוכל שני ערלה וישראל אוכל שלש שנים משני היתר כנגד שני הערלה הרי זה מותר ואם לא התנו מתחלה אסור ובלבד שלא יבאו לחשבון כיצד כגון שיחשוב כמה פירות אכל הנכרי בשני ערלה עד שיאכל ישראל כנגד אותן הפירות אם התנו כזה אסור שהרי זה כמחליף פירות ערלה:
15
It appears to me that the laws of neta reva'i44 do not apply in the Diaspora. Instead, one may eat the produce of the fourth year without redeeming it at all. Our Sages mentioned only orlah.
An extrapolation can be made from a more stringent instance to [this one] which is less stringent. In Syria, the laws governing the tithes and the Sabbatical year apply by Rabbinic decree,45 nevertheless, the laws governing neta reva'i do not apply, as will be explained in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni.46 Thus, in the Diaspoa,47 how much more so should [we conclude] that the laws governing neta reva'i do not apply.
In Eretz Yisrael, however, these laws apply whether or not the Temple is standing.48 Some of the Geonim ruled that kerem reva'i49 alone must be redeemed in the Diaspora before it is permitted to be eaten. There is no basis for this [ruling].50
טו
יראה לי שאין דין נטע רבעי נוהג בחוצה לארץ אלא אוכל פירות שנה רביעית בלא פדיון כלל שלא אמרו אלא הערלה וקל וחומר הדברים ומה סוריא שהיא חייבת במעשרות ובשביעית מדבריהם אינה חייבת בנטע רבעי כמו שיתבאר בהלכות מעשר שני חוצה לארץ לא כל שכן שלא יהיה נטע רבעי נוהג בה אבל בארץ ישראל נוהג בה בין בפני הבית בין שלא בפני הבית והורו מקצת גאונים שכרם רבעי לבדו פודין אותו בחוצה לארץ ואח"כ יהיה מותר באכילה ואין לדבר זה עיקר:
16
In Eretz Yisrael, it is forbidden to eat any of the produce of the fourth year51 until it is redeemed.52 In Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni, we will explain the laws governing the redemption [of the produce], how it should be eaten, and when we begin calculating the growth of a tree with regard to orlah and [netah] reva'i.
טז
פירות שנה רביעית כולה אסור לאכול מהן בארץ ישראל עד שיפדו ובהלכות מעשר שני יתבאר משפטי פדיונן ודין אכילתן ומאימתי מונין לערלה ולרבעי:
17
How is produce which is neta reva'i redeemed in the present age?53 After [the produce] is collected, one recites the blessing: Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the earth, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to redeem neta reva'i. Afterwards, one redeems the entire crop even with one p'rutah.54 This p'rutah is then cast into the Dead Sea.55
Alternatively, one may transfer the holiness to other produce that is worth a p'rutah by saying:56 "The holiness of all of this produce is transferred to this wheat," "...to this barley," or the like.57 Afterwards, one burns the [latter quantity of produce] so that they will not cause difficulty to others.58 He may then partake of all the produce [he harvested].
יז
כיצד פודין פירות נטע רבעי בזמן הזה אחר שאוסף אותן מברך בא"י אמ"ה אקב"ו על פדיון נטע רבעי ואחר כך פודה את כולן ואפילו בפרוטה אחת ואומר הרי אלו פדויין בפרוטה זו ומשליך אותה פרוטה לים המלח או מחללן על שוה פרוטה מפירות אחרות ואומר הרי כל הפירות האלו מחוללין על חטים אלו או על שעורים אלו וכיוצא בהן ושורף אותן כדי שלא יהיו תקלה לאחרים ואוכל כל הפירות:
18
Some of the Geonim ruled that even though one redeemed the produce of the fourth year or transferred its holiness, it is forbidden to partake of it until the entrance of the fifth year. This ruling has no foundation. It appears to me that it is in error. [Although Leviticus 19:25] states: "And in the fifth year, you shall partake of its produce," the intent of the verse is that in the fifth year you will partake of its produce without redeeming it like any ordinary produce in the world. One should not heed the above ruling.
יח
הורו מקצת הגאונים שאף על פי שפדה פירות שנה רביעית או חללן אסור לאכלן עד שתכנס שנה חמישית ודבר זה אין לו עיקר ויראה לי שזו שגגת הוראה והטעם לפי שכתוב ובשנה החמישית תאכלו את פריו ואין ענין הכתוב אלא שבשנה החמישית תאכלו פריו בלא פדיון ככל חולין שבעולם ואין ראוי לחוש להוראה זו:
19
What is meant by tevel? Any produce from which one is obligated to separate terumah and tithes is called tevel before one separates these portions.59 [In that state,] it is forbidden to partake of it,60 as [Leviticus 22:16] states: "And they shall not desecrate the sacraments of the children of Israel which they will dedicate to God," i.e., one should not treat them in an ordinary manner while the sacred elements that will be separated in the future have not yet been separated.
When a person61 partakes of an olive-sized portion of tevel before he separates terumah gedolah and terumat ma'aser, he is liable for death by the hand of heaven,62 as [Leviticus 22:15-16] states: "And they shall not desecrate the sacraments of the children of Israel... And they will bear the sin of guilt."
יט
הטבל כיצד כל אוכל שהוא חייב להפריש ממנו תרומה ומעשרות קודם שיפריש ממנו נקרא טבל ואסור לאכול ממנו שנאמר ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל את אשר ירימו לה' כלומר לא ינהגו בהן מנהג חולין ועדיין קדשים שעתידין להתרם לא הורמו והאוכל כזית מן הטבל קודם שיפריש ממנו תרומה גדולה ותרומת מעשר חייב מיתה בידי שמים שנאמר ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל וגו' והשיאו אותם עון אשמה:
20
When, however, one partakes of food from which terumah gedolah and terumat ma'aser63 have been separated, but from which tithes - even the tithes of the poor have not been separated - he is worthy of lashes for partaking of tevel. He is not worthy of death. For only with regard to terumah gedolah and terumat ma'aser is the sin worthy of death.64
כ
אבל האוכל מדבר שניטלה ממנו תרומה גדולה ותרומת מעשר ועדיין לא הפריש ממנו מעשרות ואפילו לא נשאר בו אלא מעשר עני הרי זה לוקה משום אוכל טבל ואין בו מיתה שאין עון מיתה אלא בתרומה גדולה ותרומת מעשר:
21
The warning against partaking of tevel from which tithes were not separated is included in [Deuteronomy 12:17 which] states: "You may not eat the tithes of grain... in your gates."65
In Hilchot Terumot and Hilchot Ma'aserot, it will be explained which produce is obligated to have terumah and the tithes [separated from it] and which is not, when does the obligation stem from Scriptural Law and when is it Rabbinic. When a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of produce that is tevel according to Rabbinic Law66 or kilai hakerem or orlah from the Diaspora,67he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.
כא
אזהרה לאוכל טבל שלא הורמו ממנו מעשרות בכלל שנאמר לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך מעשר דגנך וגו' ובהלכות תרומות ומעשרות יתבאר איזה דבר חייב בתרומה ובמעשרות ואי זה דבר פטור ואי זה דבר הוא חייב מן התורה ואי זהו החייב מדברי סופרים והאוכל כזית מטבל של דבריהם או מכלאי הכרם וערלה של חוצה לארץ מכין אותו מכת מרדות:
22
The juices that come from produce that is tevel, chadash, consecrated to the Temple, growths of the Sabbatical year, kilayim, and orlah are forbidden as they are. One is not, however, liable for lashes for partaking of them.68 Exceptions are wine and oil that are orlah and wine that is kilai hakerem. One is liable for lashes for them just as one is liable for lashes for the olives and grapes,
כב
הטבל והחדש וההקדש וספיחי שביעית והכלאים והערלה משקין היוצאין מפירותיהן אסורים כמותן ואין לוקין עליהן חוץ מיין ושמן של ערלה ויין של כלאי הכרם שלוקין עליהן כדרך שלוקין על הזיתים ועל הענבים שלהן:
23
There are other prohibitions involving foods applicable to consecrated entities. They are all of Scriptural origin, e.g., there are prohibitions against partaking of terumot, the first fruits, challah, and the second tithe. And there are prohibitions involving sacrifices consecrated [to be offered] on the altar, e.g., piggul, sacrificial meat that remains past its time, and sacrifices that have become impure.69 All of these [prohibitions] will be explained in the appropriate place.
כג
ויש בקדשים איסורין אחרים במאכלות וכולן של תורה הן כגון איסורין שיש באכילת תרומות ובכורים וחלה ומעשר שני ואיסורין שיש בקדשי מזבח כגון פיגול ונותר וטמא וכל אחד מהן יתבאר במקומו:
24
The measure for which one is liable - whether for lashes or for kerait is an olive-sized portion. We have already explained the prohibition against [partaking of] leaven on Pesach and the [relevant] laws in Hilchot Chametz UMatzah. The prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur is a different type of prohibition.70 The prohibition against all products of the vine that applies to a Nazirite does not apply equally to all. Therefore, all of these prohibitions, the measure for which one is liable, and the [relevant] laws are explained in the appropriate place.
כד
ושיעור כל אכילה מהן כזית בין למלקות בין לכרת וכבר ביארנו איסור חמץ בפסח ודיניו בהלכות חמץ ומצה אבל איסור אכילה ביוה"כ איסור מין בפני עצמו וכן איסור יוצא מגפן על הנזיר אינו שוה בכל ולפיכך יתבאר איסור כל אחד מהן ושיעורו ודיניו במקומו הראוי לו:
FOOTNOTES
1.
The Rambam proceeds to define each of these terms in the subsequent halachot. The prohibitions the Rambam mentions in this chapter apply universally. There are other prohibitions involving the consumption of agricultural products that apply with regard to non-priests, e.g., terumah, as explained in Sefer Zeraim and others involving the sacrifices as explained in Sefer HaAvodah (Radbaz).
2.
The term chadash literally means "new." It refers to new grain, i.e., grain that is harvested before the sixteenth of Nisan, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
3.
These five species are commonly identified as wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt. As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Berachot 3:1, there is some discussion whether these are in fact the species of which the Talmud and the Rambam speak.
4.
I.e., other species commonly identified as grain, e.g., corn, rice, and millet, are not included in this ban.
5.
A measure of barley that is offered on the sixteenth of Nisan, as explained in Leviticus 23:9-15; Hilchot Temidim UMusafim, ch. 7.
6.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 189-191) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 303-305) include these prohibitions among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Radbaz states that the Rambam mentions chadash before the other prohibitions, because it occurs most frequently, recurring every year.
7.
In the Diaspora, where crops of grain are sometimes planted after Pesach, this prohibition could present a problem. For all grain planted after Pesach, will not be permitted until the following year. In resolution, the Rama writes that unless we know otherwise, all grain is permitted after Pesach, based on the concept of sefek-sefekah - multiple doubt. It is possible it is from the previous year's crop. Even if it is from this year's crop, perhaps it took root before Pesach and is thus permitted.
The Bayit Chadash in his gloss to the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 293) elaborates on the concept that the prohibition against chadash applies only to grain belonging to a Jew. Grain belonging to a non-Jew is not bound by this prohibition. The Turei Zahav 293:2 differs and maintains that it applies also to grain grown by a gentile. Most of the authorities respect the Bayit Chadash for his attempt to absolve most of the Jewish people from the prohibition (since by and large, the grain available in the Diaspora is grown by non-Jews) but accept the logic of the Turei Zahav. In practice, however, it is customary to rely on the leniency of the Rama.
8.
I.e., the prohibition is not dependent on the offering of the omer, but instead applies even when no sacrifices are offered.
9.
I.e., places that will not be able to hear a report when the omer was actually offered before noon because they are far removed from Jerusalem.
10.
I.e., by midday, one can be certain that the omer had been sacrificed.
11.
See Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh, ch. 5, which explains that in places where messengers from Jerusalem would not inform the Jewish community when the new month had been sanctified, the festivals are observed for two days, for perhaps the day considered as the fifteenth of Nisan was really the fourteenth.
12.
Since the observance of the second day was instituted because there was a doubt concerning the day on which the festival should be observed, our Sages ordained that the prohibition concerning chadash should be observed by Rabbinical decree until the conclusion of the seventeenth so as not to minimize the importance of the festival. Even though there is no longer any doubt concerning the day on which the festival should be observed, we heed this prohibition to maintain our Sages' original decree (Radbaz).
13.
Provided he is given a separate warning for each one (Radbaz).
14.
All three are mentioned in one verse. Thus one might think that we are speaking of a prohibition of a general nature and we follow the principle (see Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2-3) that lashes are not given for a prohibition of a general nature. Nevertheless, Keritot 5a explains why this instance is an exception.
15.
I.e., even in places that follow a different agricultural cycle than Eretz Yisrael.
16.
And had not sprouted (Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:4).
17.
And thus they would not be permitted until the following year.
18.
Thus had one left it in the ground, it would have been permitted.
19.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:5) rules that such grain is forbidden because of the doubt.
20.
The Hebrew term literally means "mixed species in a vineyard."
21.
The Rambam's statements have attracted the attention of the commentaries, for they represent a contradiction to his statements in Hilchot Kelayim 8:1: "One is not liable for sowing kilai hakerem unless he sows wheat, barley, and grape seeds together." The Radbaz explains that the laws governing sowing mixed species are different than those regarding partaking of them.
22.
For as above, the prohibition against sowing mixed species and partaking of them are distinct.
23.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 193) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 549) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
24.
The Torah does not specifically mention that it is forbidden to partake of the mixed species. Nevertheless, it states that it is forbidden to derive benefit from them. There is no great derivation of benefit than eating (Radbaz). From the Rambam's wording, one would surmise that one is not liable for lashes from merely benefiting from kilai hakerem.
25.
I.e., when one eats some of the grapes and some of the vegetables, if the combined volume is the size of an olive, he is liable.
26.
Liability for lashes.
27.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 3:10), the Rambam writes that this concept is derived from Deuteronomy 22:9: "Do not sow kilayom in your vineyard." For the only vineyard that can truly be considered as "yours," i.e., belonging to a Jew, is one in Eretz Yisrael.
The Mishneh LiMelech writes that in the present era, when the observance of the agricultural laws in Eretz Yisrael is only a matter of Rabbinic Law (see Hilchot Terumah 1:26), the prohibition against kilai hakerem is also of Rabbinic origin.
28.
One of the Halachot in Sefer Zeraim.
29.
The term literally means "covered." Thus the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aserot 4:4) speaks of "something which covers (oral) its fruit." For that reason, a foreskin is described as an orlah, because it covers the male organ. Here also this fruit is "covered" by a forbidden quality.
30.
I.e., replants an existing seedling or plants a seed and grows the tree from the outset (Radbaz).
31.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 192) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 246) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
32.
I.e., an element of the Oral Tradition that has no explicit source in the Written Law.
33.
One of the Halachot in Sefer Zeraim.
34.
I.e., which type of planting or replanting incurs the prohibition against orlah and which does not.
35.
A Scriptural prohibition is involved. Hence we follow the principle: Whenever a Scriptural prohibition is involved, we rule stringently.
36.
As explained in Hilchot Terumah 1:3, King David conquered parts of Syria before he completed the conquest of Eretz Yisrael. Hence, these lands were not considered as part of Eretz Yisrael proper. Nevertheless, certain laws concerning the produce of Eretz Yisrael were applied there by Rabbinic decree.
37.
Thus violating the prohibition against kilai hakerem.
38.
I.e., permission is granted even in an instance were it is highly likely that the produce is prohibited.
39.
I.e., one may purchase the produce even if one is certain it comes from the vineyard in question. Indeed, one may even pick the produce from that vineyard by oneself (Radbaz; Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 10:11).
40.
This represents the Rambam's interpretation of Bava Batra 24a. Others interpret that passage as stating that we are even permitted to partake of the wine. This is the view quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 294:11).
Tosafot questions: Why isn't the wine forbidden as yayin nesech, wine touched by a gentile? They reply that we assume that the thieves were Jewish. Thus if there is reason to think that the thieves are gentile, the wine is forbidden (Siftei Cohen 294:22).
41.
I.e., the gentile takes care of the orchard in the orlah years, and the Jew in the subsequent years. He is not considered as benefiting from the produce that is orlah, because it never belonged to him.
42.
For the crops that are orlah are considered to have become the Jew's property and he is bartering them. Rashi and Rabbenu Asher (Avodah Zarah 22a) differ and permit such an arrangement to be made. They explain that although if such an arrangement is not made at the outset, it is forbidden to make it with regard to the Sabbath, different rules apply here. On the Sabbath, it is forbidden for the gentile to perform work on behalf of the Jew. In this instance, no such prohibition exists (Siftei Cohen 294:28). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 294:13) follows the Rambam's approach, while the Rama follows that of Rabbenu Asher.
43.
Here also, the authorities who rule leniently as mentioned in the previous note would rule leniently (Siftei Cohen 294:29).
44.
This term refers to the produce of the fourth year of a tree's growth. This produce must be taken to Jerusalem and eaten in a state of ritual purity or redeemed and the money taken to Jerusalem to be used for food to be eaten there.
45.
See Hilchot Terumot 1:4; Hilchot Shemitah 4:27.
46.
Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 9:1.
47.
Where the laws of the tithes and the Sabbatical year do not apply at all.
48.
The Rambam's wording is somewhat misleading. The laws of neta reva'i are not dependent on the existence of the Temple. Even if the Temple is not standing, this mitzvah applies. Nevertheless, according to Scriptural Law, they apply only when the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael is intact. And according to Scriptural Law, that sanctity was nullified after the conquest of the land by the Assyrians and Babylonians. According to Rabbinic Law, however, these laws do apply in Eretz Yisrael in the present age.
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class
Monday, Tevet 14, 5778 · 01 January 2018
"Today's Day"
Tuesday, Tevet 14, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vay'chi, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 72-76.
Tanya: This is what is called (p. 37)...in the holy Zohar. (p. 39).
The Shpola Zeideh ("Grandfather of Shpola"), a disciple of the Maggid of Mezritch, was a man of intense fervor, far more than any of his colleagues - the Maggid's other disciples. When he visited the Alter Rebbe in Liadi in 5569 or 5570 (1809 or 1810) he related that when he was a child of three he saw the Baal Shem Tov. "He placed his holy hand on my heart and ever since I have felt warm."
A gesture of a tzadik, certainly seeing him and hearing his voice, must make an impression never to be forgotten.
Daily Thought:
Exploiting a Setback
Failure is wasted if you return only to the place from where you fell.
If your plans fail, think bigger, aim higher.
---
No comments:
Post a Comment