| |||||
- 
- ב"ה - Today in Judaism - Today is Friday, 18 Tevet, 5778 · January 5, 2018 - Candle Lighting Light Candles before sunset ––:––Today in Jewish History:
• Huna Killed (469)
The Exilarch ("Reish Galuta") of Babylonian Jewry, Huna Mori bar Mar Zutra, was executed in Pumpadita by order of the Persian emperor on the 18th of Tevet of the year 4229 from creation (469 of the common era). Also killed on that day was Rav Mesharshia bar Pekod (the third Jewish leader who was arrested with them, Rav Ameimar bar Mar Yenuka, was executed two months later).
• Passing of B'nei Yissachar (1841)The 18th of Tevet the yahrtzeit (anniversary of the passing) of Rabbi Zvi Elimelech Shapiro of Dynov (1783?-1841), author of the Chassidic work B'nei Yissachar.
Links: A story and a teaching
Daily Quote: In learning Torah the Jew feels like a pupil with his master; in praying - like a child with his father (Hayom Yom, Tammuz 26)
Daily Torah Study:
Chumash: Shemot, 6th Portion Exodus 4:18-4:31 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation
• Video Class
• Daily Wisdom (short insight)
Exodus Chapter 4
18Moses went and returned to Jether, his father in law, and he said to him, "Let me go now and return to my brothers who are in Egypt, and let me see whether they are still alive." So Jethro said to Moses, "Go in peace." יחוַיֵּ֨לֶךְ משֶׁ֜ה וַיָּ֣שָׁב | אֶל־יֶ֣תֶר חֹֽתְנ֗וֹ וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לוֹ֙ אֵ֣לֲכָה נָּ֗א וְאָשׁ֨וּבָה֙ אֶל־אַחַ֣י אֲשֶׁר־בְּמִצְרַ֔יִם וְאֶרְאֶ֖ה הַֽעוֹדָ֣ם חַיִּ֑ים וַיֹּ֧אמֶר יִתְר֛וֹ לְמשֶׁ֖ה לֵ֥ךְ לְשָׁלֽוֹם:
and returned to Jether, his father-in-law: to take his leave, for he had sworn to him [Jethro] (that he would not leave Midian except with his permission) (Exodus Rabbah 4:1). And he had seven names: Reuel, Jether, Jethro, Keni, [Hobab, Heber, and Putiel]. — [from Michilta, Yithro 1:1] See Rashi on Exod. 18:1 for the reasons for these names.
וישב אל יתר חתנו: ליטול רשות, שהרי נשבע לו. ושבעה שמות היו לו רעואל, יתר, יתרו, קני, חובב, חבר, פוטיאל:
19The Lord said to Moses in Midian, "Go, return to Egypt, for all the people who sought your life have died." יטוַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהֹוָ֤ה אֶל־משֶׁה֙ בְּמִדְיָ֔ן לֵ֖ךְ שֻׁ֣ב מִצְרָ֑יִם כִּי־מֵ֨תוּ֙ כָּל־הָ֣אֲנָשִׁ֔ים הַֽמְבַקְשִׁ֖ים אֶת־נַפְשֶֽׁךָ:
for all the people… have died: Who are they? Dathan and Abiram. They were [really] alive, but they lost their property, and a pauper is considered dead. — [from Ned. 64b]
כי מתו כל האנשים: מי הם, דתן ואבירם. חיים היו, אלא שירדו מנכסיהם, והעני חשוב כמת:
20So Moses took his wife and his sons, mounted them upon the donkey, and he returned to the land of Egypt, and Moses took the staff of God in his hand. כוַיִּקַּ֨ח משֶׁ֜ה אֶת־אִשְׁתּ֣וֹ וְאֶת־בָּנָ֗יו וַיַּרְכִּבֵם֙ עַל־הַֽחֲמֹ֔ר וַיָּ֖שָׁב אַ֣רְצָה מִצְרָ֑יִם וַיִּקַּ֥ח משֶׁ֛ה אֶת־מַטֵּ֥ה הָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים בְּיָדֽוֹ:
mounted them upon the donkey: The designated donkey. That is the donkey that Abraham saddled for the binding of Isaac, and that is the one upon whom the King Messiah is destined to appear, as it is said: “humble, and riding a donkey” (Zech. 9:9). — [from Pirkei Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 31]
על החמר: חמור המיוחד, הוא החמור שחבש אברהם לעקידת יצחק והוא שעתיד מלך המשיח להגלות עליו, שנאמר (זכריה ט ט) עני ורוכב על חמור:
and he returned to the land of Egypt, and Moses took the staff: Chronological order is not strictly adhered to in the Scriptures.
וישב ארצה מצרים ויקח משה את מטה וגו': אין מוקדם ומאוחר מדוקדקים במקרא:
21The Lord said to Moses, "When you go to return to Egypt, see all the signs that I have placed in your hand and perform them before Pharaoh, but I will strengthen his heart, and he will not send out the people. כאוַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהֹוָה֘ אֶל־משֶׁה֒ בְּלֶכְתְּךָ֙ לָשׁ֣וּב מִצְרַ֔יְמָה רְאֵ֗ה כָּל־הַמֹּֽפְתִים֙ אֲשֶׁר־שַׂ֣מְתִּי בְיָדֶ֔ךָ וַֽעֲשִׂיתָ֖ם לִפְנֵ֣י פַרְעֹ֑ה וַֽאֲנִי֙ אֲחַזֵּ֣ק אֶת־לִבּ֔וֹ וְלֹ֥א יְשַׁלַּ֖ח אֶת־הָעָֽם:
When you go to return to Egypt: You should know that with this intention you shall go, that you shall be steadfast in My mission, to perform all My signs before Pharaoh, and you shall not be afraid of him.
בלכתך לשוב מצרימה וגו': דע שעל מנת כן תלך, שתהא גבור בשליחותי לעשות כל מופתי לפני פרעה ולא תירא ממנו:
that I have placed in your hand: He did not say this in reference to the three aforementioned signs, for He had not commanded that he [Moses] do them before Pharaoh but before Israel, in order that they would believe him, and we do not find that he performed them before him [Pharaoh]. But [regarding] signs that I am destined to put into your hand in Egypt, such as: “When Pharaoh speaks to you [i.e., asking for you to perform signs], etc.” (Exod. 7:9), do not wonder that it is written: “that I have placed,” [i.e., implying the past tense,] because this is what it means: “When you speak to him, I will have already placed them into your hand.”
אשר שמתי בידך: לא על שלש האותות האמורות למעלה, שהרי לא לפני פרעה צוה לעשותם אלא לפני ישראל, שיאמינו לו, ולא מצינו שעשאם לפניו, אלא מופתים שאני עתיד לשום בידך במצרים, כמו (שמות ז ט) כי ידבר אליכם פרעה וגו'. ואל תתמה על אשר כתיב אשר שמתי, שכן משמעו כשתדבר עמו, כבר שמתים בידך:
22And you shall say to Pharaoh, 'So said the Lord, "My firstborn son is Israel." ' כבוְאָֽמַרְתָּ֖ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה כֹּ֚ה אָמַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֔ה בְּנִ֥י בְכֹרִ֖י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:
And you shall say to Pharaoh: When you hear that his heart is hard, and he refuses to send [the Israelites out], say thus to him.
ואמרת אל פרעה: כשתשמע שלבו חזק וימאן לשלוח אמור לו כן:
My firstborn son: [Firstborn is] an expression of greatness, similar to “I, too, shall make him a firstborn” (Ps. 89:28). This is its simple meaning, but its midrashic interpretation is: Here the Holy One, blessed be He, acknowledged the sale of the birthright, which Jacob bought from Esau. — [from Gen. Rabbah 63:14]
בני בכרי: לשון גדולה, כמו (תהילים פט כח) אף אני בכור אתנהו, זהו פשוטו. ומדרשו כאן חתם הקב"ה על מכירת הבכורה שלקח יעקב מעשו:
23So I say to you, 'Send out My son so that he will worship Me, but if you refuse to send him out, behold, I am going to slay your firstborn son.' " כגוָֽאֹמַ֣ר אֵלֶ֗יךָ שַׁלַּ֤ח אֶת־בְּנִי֙ וְיַ֣עַבְדֵ֔נִי וַתְּמָאֵ֖ן לְשַׁלְּח֑וֹ הִנֵּה֙ אָֽנֹכִ֣י הֹרֵ֔ג אֶת־בִּנְךָ֖ בְּכֹרֶֽךָ:
So I say to you…: in G-d's name, send My son etc.
ואמר אליך: בשליחותו של מקום:
Send out My son… but if you refuse to send him out, behold, I am going to slay, etc.: That is the last plague, but He warned him [Pharaoh] about it first, because it was [the most] severe, and that is what [Scripture] says: “Behold, God deals loftily in His power” (Job 36:22). Therefore, “who is a teacher like Him?” [A man of] flesh and blood who seeks to avenge himself against his fellow, concealing his plans, so that he will not seek rescue, but the Holy One, blessed be He, deals loftily with His strength, and no one is able to escape from his hand, except by returning to Him [by repenting]. Therefore, He teaches him [about possible punishment] and warns him to repent. — [from Tanchuma, Va’era 14, Exodus Rabbah 9:9]
שלח את בני וגו' הנה אנכי הרג וגו': היא מכה אחרונה ובה התרהו תחלה מפני שהיא קשה, וזה הוא שאמר (איוב לו כב) הן אל ישגיב בכחו, לפיכך מי כמוהו מורה (איוב לו כב). בשר ודם המבקש להנקם מחבירו מעלים את דבריו שלא יבקש הצלה, אבל הקב"ה ישגיב בכחו ואין יכולת להמלט מידו, כי אם בשובו אליו, לפיכך הוא מורהו ומתרה בו לשוב:
24Now he was on the way, in an inn, that the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. כדוַיְהִ֥י בַדֶּ֖רֶךְ בַּמָּל֑וֹן וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁ֣הוּ יְהֹוָ֔ה וַיְבַקֵּ֖שׁ הֲמִיתֽוֹ:
Now he was: [I.e.,] Moses.
ויהי: משה בדרך במלון:
on the way, in an inn and sought to put him to death: [I.e., He sought] Moses, because he had neglected to circumcise his son Eliezer. Because he neglected it, he was [to be] punished with death. It was taught in a Braitha: Rabbi Jose said: God forbid! Moses did not neglect it, but he reasoned: Shall I circumcise [him] and go forth on the road? It will be dangerous for the child for three days. Shall I circumcise [him] and wait three days? The Holy One, blessed be He, commanded me, “Go, return to Egypt.” [Moses hurried to Egypt intending to circumcise Eliezer upon his return.] Why [then] was he to be punished with death? Because first he busied himself with [the details of] his lodging. [This appears] in tractate Nedarim (31b). The angel turned into a sort of serpent and swallowed him [Moses] from his head to his thighs, and then [spit him out and] swallowed him from his feet to his private parts. Zipporah therefore understood that it was because of [the failure to perform] the circumcision [that this occurred]. — [from Ned. 32a, Exodus Rabbah 5:5]
ויבקש המיתו: המלאך למשה, לפי שלא מל את אליעזר בנו, ועל שנתרשל נענש מיתה. תניא אמר רבי יוסי חס ושלום לא נתרשל, אלא אמר אמול ואצא לדרך, סכנה היא לתינוק עד שלשה ימים, אמול ואשהה שלשה ימים, הקב"ה צוני (פסוק י"ט) לך שוב מצרים. ומפני מה נענש, לפי שנתעסק במלון תחלה. במסכת נדרים (דף לא ב). והיה המלאך נעשה כמין נחש ובולעו מראשו ועד ירכיו, וחוזר ובולעו מרגליו ועד אותו מקום, הבינה צפורה שבשביל המילה הוא:
25So Zipporah took a sharp stone and severed her son's foreskin and cast it to his feet, and she said, "For you are a bridegroom of blood to me." כהוַתִּקַּ֨ח צִפֹּרָ֜ה צֹ֗ר וַתִּכְרֹת֙ אֶת־עָרְלַ֣ת בְּנָ֔הּ וַתַּגַּ֖ע לְרַגְלָ֑יו וַתֹּ֕אמֶר כִּ֧י חֲתַן־דָּמִ֛ים אַתָּ֖ה לִֽי:
and cast it to his feet: She cast it before Moses’ feet. — [from Yerushalmi, Ned. 3:9]
ותגע לרגליו: השליכתו לפני רגליו של משה:
and she said: about her son.
ותאמר: על בנה:
For you are a bridegroom of blood to me: You were a cause that my bridegroom would [almost] be murdered. You are to me the slayer of my bridegroom.
כי חתן דמים אתה לי: אתה היית גורם להיות החתן שלי נרצח עליך, הורג אישי אתה לי:
26So He released him. Then she said, "A bridegroom of blood concerning the circumcision." כווַיִּ֖רֶף מִמֶּ֑נּוּ אָ֚ז אָֽמְרָ֔ה חֲתַ֥ן דָּמִ֖ים לַמּוּלֹֽת:
So He released: [I.e.,] the angel [released] him. Then she understood that [it was] because of the circumcision that he had come to slay him.
וירף: המלאך ממנו. אז הבינה שעל המילה בא להורגו:
she said, “A bridegroom of blood concerning the circumcision”: My bridegroom would have been murdered because of the circumcision.
אמרה חתן דמים למולת: חתני היה נרצח על דבר המילה:
concerning the circumcision: Heb. לַמּוּלֹת concerning the circumcision. This is a noun, and the “lammed” serves as an expression meaning “concerning,” similar to “And Pharaoh will say concerning the children of (לִבְנֵי) Israel” (Exod. 14:3). Onkelos, however, translates דָמִים as referring to the blood of the circumcision.
למולת: על דבר המולות. שם דבר הוא, והלמ"ד משמשת בלשון על, כמו (שמות יד ג) ואמר פרעה לבני ישראל. ואונקלוס תרגם דמים, על דם המילה:
27The Lord said to Aaron, "Go toward Moses, to the desert." So he went and met him on the mount of God, and he kissed him. כזוַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־אַֽהֲרֹ֔ן לֵ֛ךְ לִקְרַ֥את משֶׁ֖ה הַמִּדְבָּ֑רָה וַיֵּ֗לֶךְ וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁ֛הוּ בְּהַ֥ר הָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים וַיִּשַּׁק־לֽוֹ:
28And Moses told Aaron all the words of the Lord with which he had sent him and all the signs that He had commanded him. כחוַיַּגֵּ֤ד משֶׁה֙ לְאַ֣הֲרֹ֔ן אֵ֛ת כָּל־דִּבְרֵ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר שְׁלָח֑וֹ וְאֵ֥ת כָּל־הָֽאֹתֹ֖ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוָּֽהוּ:
29So Moses and Aaron went, and they assembled all the elders of the children of Israel. כטוַיֵּ֥לֶךְ משֶׁ֖ה וְאַֽהֲרֹ֑ן וַיַּ֣אַסְפ֔וּ אֶת־כָּל־זִקְנֵ֖י בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:
30And Aaron spoke all the words that the Lord had spoken to Moses, and he performed the signs before the eyes of the people. לוַיְדַבֵּ֣ר אַֽהֲרֹ֔ן אֵ֚ת כָּל־הַדְּבָרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֑ה וַיַּ֥עַשׂ הָֽאֹתֹ֖ת לְעֵינֵ֥י הָעָֽם:
31And the people believed, and they heard that the Lord had remembered the children of Israel and that He saw their affliction, and they kneeled and prostrated themselves. לאוַיַּֽאֲמֵ֖ן הָעָ֑ם וַיִּשְׁמְע֡וּ כִּֽי־פָקַ֨ד יְהֹוָ֜ה אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל וְכִ֤י רָאָה֙ אֶת־עָנְיָ֔ם וַיִּקְּד֖וּ וַיִּשְׁתַּֽחֲוֽוּ:
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 88 - 89
• Hebrew text
• English text
Chapter 88
The psalmist weeps and laments bitterly over the maladies and suffering Israel endures in exile, which he describes in detail.
1. A song, a psalm by the sons of Korach, for the Conductor, upon the machalat le'anot; 1 a maskil2 for Heiman the Ezrachite.
2. O Lord, God of my deliverance, by day I cried out [to You], by night I [offer my prayer] before You.
3. Let my prayer come before You; turn Your ear to my supplication.
4. For my soul is sated with affliction, and my life has reached the grave.
5. I was reckoned with those who go down to the pit, I was like a man without strength.
6. [I am regarded] among the dead who are free, like corpses lying in the grave, of whom You are not yet mindful, who are yet cut off by Your hand.
7. You have put me into the lowest pit, into the darkest places, into the depths.
8. Your wrath has weighed heavily upon me, and all the waves [of Your fury] have constantly afflicted me.
9. You have estranged my friends from me, You have made me abhorrent to them; I am imprisoned and unable to leave.
10. My eye is afflicted because of distress; I call to You, O Lord, every day; I have stretched out my hands [in prayer] to You.
11. Do You perform wonders for the deceased? Do the dead stand to offer You praise? Selah.
12. Is Your kindness recounted in the grave, your faithfulness in the place of perdition?
13. Are Your wondrous deeds known in the darkness [of the grave], or Your righteousness in the land of oblivion?
14. But, I, to You, O Lord, I cry; each morning my prayer comes before You.
15. Why, O Lord, do You forsake my soul? Why do You conceal Your countenance from Me?
16. From my youth I have been afflicted and approaching death, yet I have borne the fear of You which is firmly established within me.
17. Your furies have passed over me; Your terrors have cut me down.
18. They have engulfed me like water all day long, they all together surrounded me.
19. You have estranged from me beloved and friend; I have been rejected by my intimates.
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument(Metzudot).
2.A psalm intended to enlighten and impart knowledge(Metzudot).
Chapter 89
This psalm speaks of the kingship of the House of David, the psalmist lamenting its fall from power for many years, and God's abandonment and spurning of us.
1. A maskil1 by Eitan the Ezrachite.
2. I will sing of the Lord's kindness forever; to all generations I will make known Your faithfulness with my mouth.
3. For I have said, "The world is built with kindness; there in the heavens You establish Your faithfulness.”
4. I have made a covenant with My chosen one; I have sworn to David, My servant:
5. "I will establish Your descendants forever; I will build your throne for all generations," Selah.
6. Then the heavens will extol Your wonders, O Lord; Your faithfulness, too, in the congregation of the holy ones.
7. Indeed, who in heaven can be compared to the Lord, who among the supernal beings can be likened to the Lord!
8. The Almighty is revered in the great assembly of the holy ones, awe-inspiring to all who surround Him.
9. O Lord, God of Hosts, who is mighty like You, O God! Your faithfulness surrounds You.
10. You rule the vastness of the sea; when its waves surge, You still them.
11. You crushed Rahav (Egypt) like a corpse; with Your powerful arm You scattered Your enemies.
12. Yours are the heavens, the earth is also Yours; the world and all therein-You established them.
13. The north and the south-You created them; Tabor and Hermon sing of [the greatness] of Your Name.
14. Yours is the arm which has the might; strengthen Your hand, raise high Your right hand.
15. Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; kindness and truth go before Your countenance.
16. Fortunate is the people who know the sound of the shofar; Lord, they walk in the light of Your countenance.
17. They rejoice in Your Name all day, and they are exalted through Your righteousness.
18. Indeed, You are the splendor of their might, and in Your goodwill our glory is exalted.
19. For our protectors turn to the Lord, and our king to the Holy One of Israel.
20. Then You spoke in a vision to Your pious ones and said: "I have granted aid to [David] the mighty one; I have exalted the one chosen from among the people.
21. I have found David, My servant; I have anointed him with My holy oil.
22. It is he whom My hand shall be prepared [to assist]; My arm, too, shall strengthen him.
23. The enemy shall not prevail over him, nor shall the iniquitous person afflict him.
24. And I will crush his adversaries before him, and will strike down those who hate him.
25. Indeed, My faithfulness and My kindness shall be with him, and through My Name his glory shall be exalted.
26. I will set his hand upon the sea, his right hand upon the rivers.
27. He will call out to Me, 'You are my Father, my God, the strength of my deliverance.’
28. I will also make him [My] firstborn, supreme over the kings of the earth.
29. I will maintain My kindness for him forever; My covenant shall remain true to him.
30. And I will bestow [kingship] upon his seed forever, and his throne will endure as long as the heavens last.
31. If his children forsake My Torah and do not walk in My ordinances;
32. if they profane My statutes and do not observe My commandments,
33. then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their misdeeds with plagues.
34. Yet I shall not take away My kindness from him, nor betray My faithfulness.
35. I will not abrogate My covenant, nor change that which has issued from My lips.
36. One thing I have sworn by My holiness-I will not cause disappointment to David.
37. His seed will endure forever and his throne will be [resplendent] as the sun before Me.
38. Like the moon, it shall be established forever; [the moon] is a faithful witness in the sky for all time.”
39. Yet You have forsaken and abhorred; You became enraged at Your anointed.
40. You annulled the covenant with Your servant; You have profaned his crown [by casting it] to the ground.
41. You shattered all his fences; You turned all his strongholds into ruin.
42. All wayfarers despoiled him; he has become a disgrace to his neighbors.
43. You have uplifted the right hand of his adversaries; You have made all his enemies rejoice.
44. You also turned back the blade of his sword, and did not sustain him in battle.
45. You put an end to his splendor, and toppled his throne to the ground.
46. You have cut short the days of his youth; You have enclothed him with long-lasting shame.
47. How long, O Lord, will You conceal Yourself-forever? [How long] will Your fury blaze like fire?
48. O remember how short is my life span! Why have You created all children of man for naught?
49. What man can live and not see death, can save his soul forever from the grave?
50. Where are Your former deeds of kindness, my Lord, which You swore to David in Your faithfulness?
51. Remember, my Lord, the disgrace of Your servants, that I bear in my bosom from all the many nations;
52. that Your enemies have disgraced, O Lord, that they have disgraced the footsteps of Your anointed.
53. Blessed is the Lord forever, Amen and Amen.
FOOTNOTES
1.A psalm intended to enlighten and impart knowledge(Metzudot).
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 13
• English Text (Lessons in Tanya)
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
Friday, Tevet 18, 5778 · January 5, 2018
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 13
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Yehoshua B. Gordon Watch • Listen
• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Manis Freidman Listen • Download MP3
In the previous chapter the Alter Rebbe described the spiritual profile of the Beinoni. In the Beinoni’s heart, said the Alter Rebbe, evil desires may often arise, but his divine soul constantly prevents such desires from finding expression in actual thought, speech or action. On the contrary, these three soul-garments are the exclusive domain of the divine soul and are utilized by the Beinoni only for thought, speech and action of Torah study and the fulfillment of the mitzvot.
ובזה יובן לשון מאמר רז״ל: בינונים זה וזה שופטן פירוש: יצר טוב ויצר הרע
Accordingly, we may understand the comment of our Sages1 that “Beinonim are judged by both [their good and evil inclinations]” — both “judge” him and dictate his conduct. As Scriptural support for this contention, the Talmud cites:
דכתיב: כי יעמוד לימין אביון להושיע משופטי נפשו
For it is written:2 “He —the Almighty — stands at the right hand of the poor man, to save him from them that judge his soul.” The plural “them that judge” indicates the presence of two judges within the person, the evil inclination and the good.
We thus find that the Beinoni’s inclinations are described as his “judges”. Now, were the term Beinoni to be understood in its simple, literal sense of one who has an equal history of good deeds and bad, it should more properly be said that “the Beinoni is ruled by both [inclinations]”. For one to sin, his evil inclination must rule him; for him to do good his good inclination must rule. The Beinoni who supposedly does both, must be ruled (and not merely “judged”) by both.
However, according to the explanation of the term Beinoni given in the previous chapter, it is clear that, indeed, the Beinoni is merely judged by both inclinations, not ruled by both, as shall be explained presently.
ולא אמרו: זה וזה מושלים, חס ושלום
Note that [our Sages] did not say, “He is ruled by both the good inclination and the evil,” G‑d forbid,
כי כשיש איזו שליטה וממשלה ליצר הרע בעיר קטנה, אפילו לפי שעה קלה
because where the evil nature gains any rule and dominion, albeit momentarily, over the “small city,” i.e., whenever the evil rules one’s body (likened to a city which both the good inclination and the evil seek to conquer),
נקרא רשע באותה שעה
one is deemed “wicked” (rasha) at such times.
אלא היצר הרע אינו רק, על דרך משל, כמו שופט ודיין האומר דעתו במשפט
Rather, the evil inclination in the Beinoni is no more than, for example, a magistrate or judge who expresses his opinion on a point of law,
ואף על פי כן יכול להיות שלא יהיה פסק הלכה כך למעשה, מפני שיש עוד שופט ודיין החולק עליו
yet in fact his decision is not necessarily final, for there is another magistrate or judge who disagrees with him.
וצריך להכריע ביניהם, והלכה כדברי המכריע
It then becomes necessary, in order to formulate a binding decision, to arbitrate between the two, and the final verdict will rest with the arbitrator.
כך היצר הרע אומר דעתו בחלל השמאלי שבלב
Similarly, in the battle between the evil inclination and the good: The evil inclination states its opinion in the left part of the [Beinoni’s] heart, i.e., it creates an evil desire in his heart and demands that he act accordingly, thus rendering “judgment” as to his future conduct.
ומהלב עולה למוח להרהר בו
From the heart [the desire] ascends to the mind for contemplation. This ascent is automatic; whenever a desire is awakened in the heart, the brain will contemplate it.
ומיד חולק עליו השופט השני, שהוא הנפש האלקית שבמוח
Immediately upon its ascent to the brain it is challenged by the second “judge”, the divine soul [residing] in the brain,
המתפשט בחלל הימני שבלב, מקום משכן היצר הטוב
which extends into the right part of the heart where the good inclination abides (i.e., reveals itself).
The good inclination is actually the voice of the divine soul’s emotional attributes, and is hence active in the right part of the heart; see ch. 9. The good inclination thus battles the evil, ensuring that the latter’s passion not be realized, for the “opinion” of the good inclination is that all of the body’s faculties and organs be utilized only for matters of holiness.
והלכה כדברי המכריע, הוא הקב״ה, העוזרו להיצר טוב
The final verdict rests with the arbitrator — the Holy One, blessed be He, who comes to the aid of the good inclination, enabling it to prevail over the evil inclination.
כמאמר רז״ל: אלמלא הקב״ה עוזרו אין יכול לו
As our Sages say,3 “[Man’s evil inclination gathers strength daily,…and] if the Almighty did not help him (i.e., help his good inclination) he could not overcome it (his evil inclination).”
והעזר היא ההארה שמאיר אור ה׳ על נפש האלקית
The help that G‑d grants him is the glow of divine light that illuminates his divine soul,
להיות לה יתרון ושליטה על סכלות הכסיל ויצר הרע, כיתרון האור מן החושך, כנ״ל
that it may gain superiority and mastery over the folly of the “fool”, the evil inclination, [a dominion] paralleling the superiority of light over darkness, as stated above, in ch. 12.
Just as a little light banishes much darkness, so is the abounding folly and darkness of one’s evil inclination driven away by dint of the little light of holiness emanating from his divine soul. It is this ray of divine illumination that constitutes G‑d’s assistance to the divine soul.4
The Alter Rebbe now goes on to resolve the contradiction and answer the question noted in the opening words of the Tanya:
The Talmud states that a Jew is charged with an oath to regard himself as wicked, whereas elsewhere, the Mishnah declares: “Be not wicked in your own estimation.” Also: “If a person considers himself wicked, he will be grieved at heart and depressed, and will not be able to serve G‑d joyfully and with a contented heart.”
He now explains that the meaning of the oath — which literally reads, “Be in your own eyes like a rasha” — is that one regard himself not as an actual rasha, but as like one, having traits similar to those of a rasha. This means that he must consider himself a Beinoni, who possesses the same evil in his soul as does a rasha and can desire evil just as a rasha does.
In the Alter Rebbe’s words:
אך מאחר שהרע שבחלל השמאלי בבינוני הוא בתקפו כתולדתו, להתאות תאוה לכל תענוגי עולם הזה
Yet, inasmuch as the evil in the left part of the Beinoni’s heart is in its native strength, craving after all the pleasures of this world,
ולא נתבטל במיעוט לגבי הטוב ולא נדחה ממקומו כלל
and is neither so minute as to be nullified before the good of the divine soul (as is the case with atzaddik), nor has it been displaced from its position to any degree,
רק שאין לו שליטה וממשלה להתפשט באברי הגוף
but merely lacks authority and power to become diffused throughout the limbs of the body to cause them to do, speak or think evil; nor is the evil’s lack of ability attributable to the Beinoni’s efforts, for his evil, like that of the rasha, retains its native strength to pervade the entire body; rather, the evil is powerless merely
מפני הקב״ה העומד לימין אביון, ועוזר ומאיר לנפש האלקית
because of the Holy One, blessed be He, who “stands at the right hand of the poor man,” helping him and irradiating his divine soul so that it may be able to prevail over the evil.
Thus it is only Divine intervention that prevents the evil from pervading the body; essentially, however, the evil of the Beinoni’s animal soul is as strong as it was at birth.
לכן נקרא כרשע, כמאמר רז״ל: אפילו כל העולם כולו אומרים לך צדיק אתה, היה בעיניך כרשע
Therefore [the Beinoni] is described as being “k‘rasha” (“like a rasha”), but not actually a rasha,as in the statement of our Sages, “Even if the whole world tells you that you are a tzaddik, be in your own eyes like a rasha.”
ולא רשע ממש
He should not [regard himself as] an actual rasha, for the Mishnah admonishes,5 “Be not wicked in your own estimation.”
Moreover, regarding oneself as a rasha hinders one from serving G‑d joyfully.
אלא שיחזיק עצמו לבינוני
Rather, one should consider oneself a Beinoni,
ולא להאמין להעולם שאומרים שהרע שבו נתבטל לגבי הטוב, שזו מדרגת צדיק
and should not believe i.e., accept the world’s opinion which would have him believe that the evil in him has been nullified by the good, for this is the level of a tzaddik.
Only the tzaddik succeeds in nullifying and transforming the evil within him. But the “world”, which judges the Beinoni by his actions and sees that he never transgresses, asumes that he too has effectively banished from within him the evil that is the cause of sin; consequently, people regard him as a tzaddik.
He is therefore cautioned against accepting the opinion of “the world.”
אלא יהיה בעיניו כאלו מהותו ועצמותו של הרע הוא בתקפו ובגבורתו בחלל השמאלי כתולדתו
Instead, he should take the view that the essence and core of the evil is in its full native strength and might, in the left part of his heart,
ולא חלף והלך ממנו מאומה
not having vanished or departed from him at all.
ואדרבה נתחזק יותר בהמשך הזמן שנשתמש בו הרבה
On the contrary, with the passage of time [the evil] has gained strength because he utilized iti.e., the animal soul considerably,
באכילה ושתיה ושאר עניני עולם הזה
in eating and drinking and in other mundane pursuits.
As with every faculty, constant use of the animal soul causes it to become even stronger than it was at birth.
The Alter Rebbe thus concludes that the words “consider yourself ‘like a rasha’” mean that one must consider himself a Beinoni. The above applies even to those who have reached a lofty spiritual level; they too should consider themselves Beinonim. For should one consider himself a tzaddik and maintain that the evil within him has already been nullified by the good, he will cease to do battle with the evil. If he is mistaken and is not in fact a tzaddik, such an unfounded attitude can cause him to slip drastically from his level, descending even lower than the level of a Beinoni to that of a rasha.
* * *
Until now we have been speaking of a working man who does not have the opportunity to spend all his time in Torah study and divine service. Now the discussion turns to the individual who spends all his time immersed in the study of Torah.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Berachot 61b. |
| 2. | Tehillim 109:31. |
| 3. | Kiddushin 30b. |
| 4. |
It was stated in the previous chapter that man’s mind innately rules his heart. Why, then, should he need special divine assistance in curbing his appetites?
The Rebbe answers:
This divine assistance is necessary whenever the conflict between the two souls does not involve a struggle of mind vs. heart; e.g., (1) when the divine soul wishes to prevent sinful thoughts from arising in the mind, or (2) when the emotive faculties of the divine soul seek to overpower those of the animal soul (without recourse to contemplation and meditation).
But now the question may be reversed: Why in ch. 12 does the Alter Rebbe use the argument of the mind’s natural supremacy over the heart to point out the divine soul’s supremacy over the animal soul?
To this the Rebbe answers: In ch. 12, the Alter Rebbe speaks of the state of the Beinoni after prayer, when the effect of his meditation on G‑dliness during prayer still lingers in his mind. At such time his mind is suffused with G‑dliness to the point where the animal soul cannot so much as voice an opinion there. Thus, any struggle between the souls at that time would be a case of mind vs. heart, where the natural supremacy of the mind could confer victory on the divine soul.
|
| 5. | Avot 2:13. |
• Sefer Hamitzvot:
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassFriday, Tevet 18, 5778 · January 5, 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 101
Slaughtering an Animal and its Offspring on the Same Day
"You shall not slaughter it and its child on the same day"—Leviticus 22:28.
It is forbidden to slaughter an animal and its offspring on the same day—even if offered as a sacrifice to G‑d.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Slaughtering an Animal and its Offspring on the Same Day
Negative Commandment 101
Translated by Berel Bell
The 101st prohibition is that we are forbidden from slaughtering an animal and her child on the same day. This applies both to sanctified and non-sanctified animals.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not slaughter an animal and her child on the same day."
One who transgressed this prohibition and slaughtered them is punished by lashes.
The details of this mitzvah are fully explained in the fifth chapter of tractate Chulin.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 22:28.
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter A Day: Berachot Berachot - Chapter Eleven
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassBerachot - Chapter Eleven
1
All blessings begin with "Blessed [are You, God...]" and conclude with "Blessed [are You, God...]," with the exception of the blessing after the recitation of the Shema, blessings that come in succession to each other, the blessings over fruit and the like, the blessings over the fulfillment of the mitzvot, and the blessings that we have mentioned which are expressions of praise and thanks. The [latter blessings] include some that begin with "Blessed [are You, God...]" and do not conclude with "Blessed [are You, God...]" and others that conclude with "Blessed [are You, God...]" but do not begin with "Blessed [are You, God...]."
[There are certain exceptions to these rules,] for example, a small number of blessings over the mitzvot, such as the blessing recited [when reading from] a Torah scroll and [some of the blessings recited as an expression of praise and thanks;] for example, the blessing recited when one sees Jewish graves. The rest of the blessings over mitzvot begin with "Blessed [are You, God...]" and do not conclude [with "Blessed are You, God...].
א
כל הברכות כולן פותח בהם בברוך וחותם בהם בברוך חוץ מברכה אחרונה של קריאת שמע וברכה הסמוכה לחבירתה וברכת הפירות והדומה לה וברכת עשיית המצות ומאלו הברכות שאמרנו שהן דרך שבח והודיה יש מהן פותח בברוך ואינו חותם בברוך ויש מהן שהוא חותם בברוך ואינו פתוח בברוך אלא מעט מברכת המצות כגון ברכת ספר תורה ורואה קברי ישראל מאלו שהן דרך שבח והודייה אבל שאר ברכות המצות כולן פותח בהן בברוך ואינו חותם:
Commentary on Halachah 1
2
There are positive commandments that a person is obligated to make an effort to pursue [their fulfillment] until he performs them - for example, tefillin, sukkah, lulav, and shofar. These are referred to as obligations, since a person is obligated to fulfill them.
There are other mitzvot that are not obligations, but resemble voluntary activities - for example, [the mitzvot of] mezuzah and constructing a guardrail. A person is not obligated to dwell in a house that requires a mezuzah [just in order] to fulfill this mitzvah. Instead, if he desires, he can dwell in a tent or a ship for his entire life. Similarly, he does not have to build a house [just] in order to build a guardrail.
A blessing should be recited before fulfilling all positive commandments that are between man and God, whether they are mitzvot that are obligatory or are not obligatory.
ב
יש מצות עשה שאדם חייב להשתדל ולרדוף עד שיעשה אותה כגון תפילין וסוכה ולולב ושופר ואלו הן הנקראין חובה לפי שאדם חייב על כל פנים לעשות ויש מצוה שאינה חובה אלא דומין לרשות כגון מזוזה ומעקה שאין אדם חייב לשכון בבית החייב מזוזה כדי שיעשה מזוזה אלא אם רצה לשכון כל ימיו באהל או בספינה ישב וכן אינו חייב לבנות בית כדי לעשות מעקה וכל מצות עשה שבין אדם למקום בין מצוה שאינה חובה בין מצוה שהיא חובה מברך עליה קודם לעשייתה:
3
Similarly, with regard to all the Rabbinic mitzvot - both the mitzvot that the Rabbis established as obligations - e.g., reading the megillah, lighting Shabbat candles, and lighting Chanukah candles - and the mitzvot that are not obligations - e.g., an eruv or washing hands - one should recite a blessing before performing them, [praising God] "who has sanctified us with Your commandments and commanded us….”
Where has He commanded us [to fulfill these commandments]? In the Torah, which states [Deuteronomy 17:11]: "Act [according to the judgment] they relate to you." [Based on this Biblical verse, the blessing recited before fulfilling a Rabbinical commandment] can be interpreted as follows: Who has sanctified us with Your commandments and commanded us to listen to these [sages] who have commanded us to light Chanukah candles or read the megillah. The same applies regarding all Rabbinic commandments.
ג
וכן כל המצות שהן מדברי סופרים בין מצוה שהיא חובה מדבריהם כגון מקרא מגילה והדלקת נר בשבת והדלקת נר חנוכה בין מצות שאינן חובה כגון עירוב ונטילת ידים מברך על הכל קודם לעשייתן אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו לעשות והיכן צונו בתורה שכתוב בה אשר יאמרו לך תעשה נמצא ענין הדברים והצען כך הוא אשר קדשנו במצותיו שציוה בהן לשמוע מאלו שצונו להדליק נר של חנוכה או לקרות את המגילה וכן שאר כל המצות שמדברי סופרים:
4
Why do we not recite a blessing before washing our hands after [eating]? Because the Sages obligated us [to do] this only because of danger. Blessings are not recited over an [obligation that was instituted] because of danger.
To what can this be compared? To someone who strains drinking water at night because of the danger of leeches. [Surely,] he does not recite a blessing, [praising God,] "who commanded us to strain water." The same applies in all similar situations.
ד
ולמה אין מברכין על נטילת ידים באחרונה מפני שלא חייבו בדבר זה אלא מפני הסכנה ודברים שהם משום סכנה אין מברכין עליהם הא למה זה דומה למי שסינן את המים ואח"כ שתה בלילה מפני סכנת עלוקה שאינו מברך וצונו לסנן את המים וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
5
[The following rules apply when] a person performs a mitzvah, but does not recite a blessing: If the fulfillment of the mitzvah still continues, he may recite the blessing even though he already performed it. If the mitzvah is a deed that is completed, he should not recite a blessing.
What is implied? When a person wrapped himself in tzitzit, donned tefillin, or sat in a sukkah without reciting a blessing at the outset, after wrapping himself [in tzitzit] he should recite the blessing "... who commanded us to wrap ourselves in tzitzit"; after donning [tefillin], he should recite the blessing "... who commanded us to put on tefillin"; after sitting [in the sukkah], he should recite the blessing "... who commanded us to sit in the sukkah." The same applies in all similar situations.
ה
העושה מצוה ולא בירך אם מצוה שעדיין עשייתה קיימת מברך אחר עשייה ואם דבר שעבר הוא אינו מברך כיצד הרי שנתעטף בציצית או שלבש תפילין או שישב בסוכה ולא בירך תחלה חוזר ומברך אחר שנתעטף אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו להתעטף בציצית וכן מברך אחר שלבש להניח תפילין ואחר שישב לישב בסוכה וכן כל כיוצא באלו:
6
In contrast, if a person slaughtered [an animal] without reciting a blessing, he should not recite the blessing "... who sanctified us with Your commandments and commanded us concerning slaughter," after the slaughter [is completed]. Similarly, if he covered [a fowl's] blood, separated terumah or the tithes, or immersed himself without reciting a blessing beforehand, he should not recite a blessing afterwards. The same applies in all similar situations.
ו
אבל אם שחט בלא ברכה אינו חוזר אחר שחיטה ומברך אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על השחיטה וכן אם כסה הדם בלא ברכה או הפריש תרומה ומעשרות או שטבל ולא בירך אינו חוזר ומברך אחר עשייה וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
7
There is no mitzvah for which the blessing should be recited after its fulfillment, with the exception of the immersion of a convert. [In this instance, the exception was made] because he could not say, "who sanctified us with Your commandments and commanded us." Until [the convert] immersed himself, he was neither sanctified nor commanded. Therefore, he recites the blessing over the immersion [only] after immersing himself. [This is allowed] since at the outset, he was unfit and unable to recite the blessing.
ז
אין לך מצוה שמברכין אחר עשייתה אלא טבילת הגר בלבד שאינו יכול לומר אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו שעדיין לא נתקדש ולא נצטוה עד שיטבול לפיכך אחר שיטבול מברך על הטבילה מפני שהיה דחוי מעיקרו ולא היה ראוי לברך:
8
Whenever the performance of a mitzvah constitutes the completion of one's obligation, he should recite the blessing before performing it. When, however, there is another commandment that follows the performance of a particular mitzvah, the blessing should not be recited until the other mitzvah is performed.
What is implied? When a person makes a sukkah, a lulav, a shofar, tzitzit, tefillin, or a mezuzah, he should not recite a blessing at the time he made [them]: [praising God for] "sanctifying us with Your commandments and commanding us to make a sukkah" or "a lulav," or "to write tefillin," because there is another commandment that follows this action.
When is the blessing recited? When one sits in the sukkah, shakes the lulav, hears the sounding of the shofar, wraps oneself in tzitzit, dons tefillin, or affixes the mezuzah. In contrast, when one constructs a guardrail, before constructing it one should recite the blessing "...who has sanctified us with Your commandments and commanded us to construct a guardrail." The same applies in all similar situations.
ח
כל מצוה שעשייתה היא גמר חיובה מברך בשעת עשייה וכל מצוה שיש אחר עשייתה צווי אחר אינו מברך אלא בשעה שעושה הצווי האחרון כיצד העושה סוכה או לולב או שופר או ציצית או תפילין או מזוזה אינו מברך בשעת עשייה אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו לעשות סוכה או לולב או לכתוב תפילין מפני שיש אחר עשייתו צווי אחר ואימתי מברך בשעה שישב בסוכה או כשינענע הלולב או כשישמע קול השופר או כשיתעטף בציצית ובשעת לבישת תפילין ובשעת קביעת מזוזה אבל אם עשה מעקה מברך בשעת עשייה אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו לעשות מעקה וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
9
The blessing shehecheyanu is recited:
[before] fulfilling every mitzvah that we are obligated to fulfill only at a specific time - e.g., shofar, sukkah, lulav, reading the Megillah, and [lighting] Chanukah candles,
[before fulfilling] every mitzvah that involves the acquisition of property - e.g., tzitzit, tefillin, and a guardrail - and
[before fulfilling] every mitzvah that we are obligated to fulfill infrequently - for this resembles a mitzvah we are obligated to fulfill only at a specific time - e.g., circumcising one's son and redeeming him.
If one did not recite the blessing shehecheyanu when making a sukkah or a lulav, one should recite this blessing when fulfilling the mitzvah. The same applies in other similar situations.
ט
כל מצוה שהיא מזמן לזמן כגון שופר וסוכה ולולב ומקרא מגילה ונר חנוכה וכן כל מצוה ומצוה שהיא קניין לו כגון ציצית ותפילין ומזוזה ומעקה וכן מצוה שאינה תדירה ואינה מצוייה בכל עת שהרי היא דומה למצוה שהיא מזמן לזמן כגון מילת בנו ופדיון הבן מברך עליה בשעת עשייתה שהחיינו ואם לא בירך על סוכה ולולב וכיוצא בהם שהחיינו בשעת עשייה מברך עליהן שהחיינו בשעה שיצא ידי חובתו בהן וכן כל כיוצא בהן:
10
Whether a person performs a mitzvah for himself or for a colleague, before performing the mitzvah, he should recite the blessing "... who has sanctified us with Your commandments and commanded us...." He should, however, recite the blessingshehecheyanu only on mitzvot that he is performing for himself.
If a person is [intending to] fulfill several mitzvot, he should not recite the blessing "... who has sanctified us with Your commandments and commanded us to fulfill the mitzvot ---." Instead, he should recite a blessing over each mitzvah individually.
י
אחד העושה מצוה לעצמו ואחד העושה אותה לאחרים מברך קודם עשייתה אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו לעשות אבל אינו מברך שהחיינו אלא על מצוה שעושה אותה לעצמו היו לפניו מצות הרבה אינו מברך אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על המצות אלא מברך על כל אחת ואחת בפני עצמה:
11
Whoever performs a mitzvah for his own sake, whether it is an obligation incumbent upon him or not, should recite a blessing, [praising God "who sanctified us with Your commandments and commanded us] to perform ----." In contrast, if he performs a mitzvah on behalf of another person, the form of the blessing is ["who sanctified us... and commanded us] concerning the performance of ----."
יא
כל העושה מצוה בין שהיתה חובה עליו בין שאינה חובה עליו אם עשה אותה לעצמו מברך לעשות עשה אותה לאחרים מברך על העשייה:
12
What is implied? Before donning tefillin, one recites the blessing "... to put on tefillin"; before wrapping oneself in tzitzit, one recites the blessing "... to wrap..."; before sitting in the sukkah, one recites the blessing "...to sit in the sukkah." Similarly, one recites the blessings "... to kindle the Sabbath light," and "... to complete the Hallel."
Similarly, if one affixes a mezuzah on one's own house, one should recite the blessing "... to affix a mezuzah"; if one erects a guardrail on one's roof, one should recite the blessing "... to erect a guardrail." Should one separate terumah for oneself, one should recite the blessing "... to separate [terumah]." Should one circumcise one's own son, one should recite the blessing "... to circumcise [one's] son." Should one slaughter one's Paschal sacrifice or festive sacrifice, one recites the blessing "... to slaughter...."
יב
כיצד לבש תפילין מברך להניח תפילין נתעטף בציצית מברך להתעטף ישב בסוכה מברך לישב בסוכה וכן הוא מברך להדליק נר של שבת ולגמור את הלל וכן אם קבע מזוזה לביתו מברך לקבוע מזוזה עשה מעקה לגגו מברך אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו לעשות מעקה הפריש תרומה לעצמו מברך להפריש מל את בנו מברך למול את הבן שחט פסחו וחגיגתו מברך לשחוט:
Commentary on Halachah 12
13
If, however, one affixes a mezuzah for others, one should recite the blessing "... concerning the affixing of a mezuzah." Should one construct a guardrail for others, one should recite the blessing "... concerning the building of a guardrail." Should one separate terumah for others, one should recite the blessing "... concerning the separation of terumah. Should one circumcise a colleague's son, one should recite the blessing "... concerning the circumcision." The same applies in all similar situations.
יג
אבל אם קבע מזוזה לאחרים מברך על קביעת מזוזה עשה להם מעקה מברך על עשיית מעקה הפריש להם תרומה מברך על הפרשת תרומה מל את בן חבירו מברך על המילה וכן כל כיוצא באלו:
14
[The following rules apply] when a person performs a mitzvah on his own behalf and on behalf of others simultaneously. If the mitzvah is not obligatory in nature, he should use the form "... concerning..." for the blessing. Therefore, one recites the blessing "... concerning the mitzvah of eruv."
If the mitzvah is obligatory and he had the intent of fulfilling his own obligation and that of the others, he should use the form "... to..." for the blessing. Therefore, one recites the blessing "... to hear the sound of the shofar."
יד
עשה המצוה לו ולאחרים כאחד אם היתה מצוה שאינה חובה מברך על העשייה לפיכך הוא מברך על מצות עירוב היתה חובה ונתכוון להוציא עצמו מידי חובה ולהוציא אחרים מברך לעשות לפיכך הוא מברך לשמוע קול שופר:
15
When one takes the lulav, one should recite the blessing "... concerning the taking of the lulav." [This form is used] because a person fulfills his obligation when he picks [the lulav] up. If one recites the blessing before taking the lulav, one should recite the blessing "... to take the lulav," as one recites the blessing "... to sit in the sukkah." From this, one derives the principle that a person who recites a blessing after performing [a mitzvah] blesses "... concerning..." [the mitzvah's] performance.
With regard to the washing of hands and ritual slaughter, since they are of a voluntary nature, even if a person slaughters on his own behalf, he should recite the blessings "... concerning slaughter," "... concerning the covering of the blood," and "... concerning the washing of hands."
Similarly, one recites the blessing "... concerning the destruction of chametz," whether one searches for leaven on one's own behalf or on behalf of others. [This form is used] because once a person resolves in his heart to nullify his ownership [over chametz], the mitzvah of destroying it is fulfilled even before one searches, as will be explained in its place.
טו
נטל את הלולב מברך על נטילת לולב שכיון שהגביהו יצא ידי חובתו אבל אם בירך קודם שיטול מברך ליטול לולב כמו לישב בסוכה מכאן אתה למד שהמברך אחר שעשה מברך על העשייה אבל נטילת ידים ושחיטה הואיל ובדברי הרשות הן אפילו שחט לעצמו מברך על השחיטה ועל כסוי הדם ועל נטילת ידים וכך הוא מברך על ביעור חמץ בין שבדק לעצמו בין שבדק לאחרים שמשעה שגמר בלבו לבטל נעשית מצות הביעור קודם שיבדוק כמו שיתבאר במקומו:
16
[A blessing is not recited over] all practices that are customs. [This applies] even to a custom established by the prophets - for example, taking the willow branches on the seventh day of Sukkot. Needless to say, a blessing is not recited over customs established by the Sages - e.g., reading Hallel on Rosh Chodesh and on the intermediate days of Pesach.
Similarly whenever there is a question whether a practice requires a blessing or not, it should be performed without reciting a blessing.
A person should always take care not to recite blessings that are not necessary, and should recite many blessings that are required. Thus, David declared [Psalms 145:2]: "I will bless you each day."
טז
כל דבר שהוא מנהג אע"פ שמנהג נביאים הוא כגון נטילת ערבה בשביעי של חג ואין צריך לומר מנהג חכמים כגון קריאת הלל בראשי חדשים ובחולו של מועד של פסח אין מברכין עליו וכן כל דבר שיסתפק לך אם טעון ברכה אם לאו עושין אותו בלא ברכה ולעולם יזהר אדם בברכה שאינה צריכה וירבה בברכות הצריכות וכן דוד אמר בכל יום אברכך:
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters A Day: Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 3, Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 4, Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 5
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassShechitah - Chapter 3
1
There are five factors that disqualify ritual slaughter and the fundamentals of the laws of shechitah are to guard against each of these factors: They are: shehiyah, dirasah, chaladah, hagramah, and ikur.1
א
חמשה דברים מפסידין את השחיטה, ועיקר הלכות שחיטה להזהר בכל אחת מהן, ואלו הן: שהייה, דרסה, חלדה, הגרמה, ועיקור.
2
What is meant by shehiyah? A person began to slaughter and lifted up his hand before he completed the slaughter and waited. Whether he did so inadvertently, intentionally, or because of forces beyond his control, [the following rules apply] if he or another person completed the slaughter. If he waited the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it, his slaughter is not acceptable. If he waited less than this amount of time, his slaughter is acceptable.
ב
שהייה כיצד הרי שהתחיל לשחוט והגביה ידו קודם שיגמור השחיטה ושהה בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין באונס וחזר הוא או אחר וגמר את השחיטה, אם שהה כדי שיגביה את הבהמה וירביצנה וישחוט שחיטתו פסולה, ואם שהה פחות מכדי זה שחיטתו כשרה.
3
With regard to a small domesticated animal:2, the measure of shehiyah is the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it. With regard to a large domestic animal,3 the measure of shehiyah is the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it.4 With regard to a fowl, the measure of shehiyah is the amount of time it would take to lift up a small animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it.5
ג
היתה בהמה דקה שיעור שהייתה כדי שיגביה בהמה דקה וירביצנה וישחוט, ואם היתה גסה כדי שיגביהנה וירביצנה וישחוט, ובעוף כדי שיגביה בהמה דקה וירביצנה וישחוט.
4
When a person cut [the signs] for a while, waited for a while, cut for a while, waited for a while until he concluded the slaughter without waiting the measure that disqualifies an animal at any one time, but over the times he waited over the entire period would equal the measure of shehiyah, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah.6
Similarly, if he waited the amount of time it takes to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and cut only a portion of the signs, but not to slaughter it entirely, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah.
ד
שחט מעט ושהה מעט וחזר ושחט מעט ושהה מעט עד שגמר השחיטה ולא שהה בפעם אחת שיעור השהייה אבל כשתחשוב כל זמן השהיות יצטרף מכולן שיעור שהייה הרי זו ספק נבלה, וכן אם שהה כדי שיגביהנה וירביצנה וכדי שישחוט כמו מיעוט הסימנין בלבד לא כדי שישחוט שחיטה גמורה הרי זו ספק נבלה. 65
5
If he slaughtered the majority of one of the signs for a fowl or the majority of both signs for an animal, the slaughter is permitted even if he waited half the day and then returned and finished cutting the signs.7 For since the minimum measure for slaughter was met, it is as if he is cutting slaughtered meat.
ה
שחט רוב אחד בעוף או רוב שנים בבהמה אע"פ ששהה חצי היום וחזר וגמר חתיכת הסימנין הרי זו מותרת, מאחר שנשחט בה כשיעור הרי זה כמחתך בשר השחוטה.
6
If one cuts half or less of the windpipe and waits an extended period, he may return and complete the slaughter; [his previous acts] are of no consequence.8 If, however, he cut the majority of [an animal's] windpipe or perforated the gullet even slightly and then waited the [disqualifying] measure, [the slaughter] is unacceptable.9 [This applies] whether he returned and completed cutting where he began or slaughtered the animal entirely in a different place. [The rationale is] that when the majority of the windpipe is slit or the gullet of either an animal or a fowl is perforated even slightly, the animal is comparable to a nevelah and ritual slaughter is not effective for it, as will be explained.10
ו
שחט בקנה לבדו חציו או מיעוטו ושהה זמן מרובה הרי זה חוזר וגומר השחיטה אין בכך כלום, אבל אם שחט רוב הקנה או שנקב בושט כל שהוא ושהה כשיעור בין שחזר וגמר השחיטה שהתחיל בין ששחט שחיטה גמורה במקום אחר הרי זו פסולה, מפני שהבהמה או העוף שנפסק רוב הקנה שלה או שניקב הושט במשהו נבלה ואין השחיטה מועלת בה כמו שיתבאר.
7
It is thus explained for you that the concept of shehiyah does not exist with regard to the windpipe of a fowl at all. For if he slit the majority of the windpipe and waited, he has already completed the slaughter of [the fowl]. When he goes back and completes it, it is as if he is cutting meat.11 If he slit less than half the windpipe and waited, he may return and [complete the] slaughter whenever he desires,12 for it is not disqualified as a nevelah unless the majority of the windpipe has been cut.
ז
הנה נתבאר לך שאין שהייה בקנה בעוף כלל, שאם שחט רוב הקנה ושהה כבר נגמרה שחיטתו כשחזר וגמר מחתך בשר הוא, ואם שחט במיעוט הקנה ושהה הרי זה חוזר ושוחט כל זמן שירצה שאינה נאסרת משום נבלה עד שיפסק רוב הקנה.
8
[The following rules apply when] one slaughtered a fowl and waited, but does not know whether the gullet was perforated or not.13 He should return and cut the windpipe alone in another place,14 let [the fowl] be until it dies, and then check the gullet from the inside.15 If a drop of blood was not found on it, it is apparent that it was not perforated and it is acceptable.
ח
שחט העוף ושהה בו ואינו יודע אם ניקב הושט או לא ניקב חוזר ושוחט הקנה לבדו במקום אחר ומניחו עד שימות ובודק הושט מבפנים, אם לא נמצאת בו טיפת דם בידוע שלא ניקב וכשרה.
9
What is meant by chaladah?16 For example, one inserted the knife between one sign and another.17 Whether one then slits the upper sign above or cuts the lower sign below in the manner of ritual slaughter, [the slaughter] is unacceptable.
ט
חלדה כיצד, כגון שהכניס הסכין בין סימן לסימן בין שפסק הסימן העליון למעלה בין ששחט התחתון למטה שהוא דרך שחיטה הרי זו פסולה.
10
If he inserted the knife beneath the [animal's] skin and slit both the signs in the ordinary fashion, hid the knife under tangled wool, or spread a cloth over the knife and the neck18 and slaughtered under the cloth, since the knife is not openly revealed, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah. Similarly, if slaughtered less than half the signs with chaladah and completed the slaughter without chaladah, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah.
י
הכניס את הסכין תחת העור ושחט שני הסימנים כדרכן, או שהחליד את הסכין תחת צמר מסובך, או שפרס מטלת /מטלית/ על הסכין ועל הצואר ושחט תחת המטלת הואיל ואין הסכין גלויה הרי זו ספק נבלה, וכן אם שחט מיעוט הסימנים בהחלדה וגמר השחיטה שלא בהחלדה הרי זו ספק נבלה.
11
What is meant by dirasah?19 For example, one struck the neck with a knife as one strikes with a sword, cutting the signs at one time, without passing [the knife] back and forth or one placed the knife on the neck and pressed, cutting downward like one cuts radishes or squash until he cuts the signs, [the slaughter] is unacceptable.
יא
דרסה כיצד, כגון שהכה בסכין על הצואר כדרך שמכין בסייף וחתך הסימנין בבת אחת בלא הולכה ולא הובאה, או שהניח הסכין על הצואר ודחק וחתך למטה כחותך צנון או קישות עד שחתך הסימנין הרי זו פסולה.
12
What is meant by hagramah?20 This refers to one who slaughters at a high point on the windpipe21 where it is not fit to slaughter. There are two [nodes, like kernels of] wheat at the top of the windpipe, at the large ring.22 [The following rules apply if] one slaughtered in the midst of these kernels. If he left even the slightest portion of them intact above [the place of slaughter], it is acceptable, for he slaughtered from the slanting cap [of the windpipe] or lower. This is within the place that is fit for ritual slaughter. If, however, he did not leave any portion of them intact, but instead cut above them, this is considered as [being slaughtered with] hagramah and it is unacceptable.
יב
הגרמה כיצד, זה השוחט בקנה למעלה במקום שאינו ראוי לשחיטה, וכמו שני חטים יש בסוף הקנה למעלה בטבעת גדולה, שחט בתוך החטים אם שייר מהן כל שהוא למעלה הרי זו כשרה, שהרי שחט משיפוי כובע ולמטה, והוא מן המקום הראוי לשחיטה, ואם לא שייר מהן כלום אלא שחט למעלה מהן הרי זו מוגרמת ופסולה.
13
If one slit the majority of one sign [for a fowl] or the majority of both signs [for an animal] and then completed the slaughter through dirasah or hagramah, it is acceptable, for the minimum measure was slaughtered in the proper manner.23
If at first, he slit a third [of the windpipe]24 through hagramah, and then cut two thirds in the appropriate manner, the slaughter is acceptable.25 If he cut a third in the appropriate manner, cut a third through hagramah, and then cut the last third in the appropriate manner, the slaughter is acceptable.26 If at first, he slit a third through hagramah, cut a third in the appropriate manner, and then cut a third through hagramah, the slaughter is unacceptable.27 If one cut [a portion of] an animal's throat with derisah or chaladah, it is unacceptable, whether it was the first or second third.28
יג
שחט רוב האחד או רוב השנים והשלים השחיטה בדרסה או בהגרמה הרי זו כשרה שהרי נשחט השיעור כראוי, הגרים בתחלה שליש ושחט שני שלישים הרי זו כשרה, שחט שליש והגרים שליש וחזר ושחט שליש האחרון כשרה, הגרים שליש ושחט שליש וחזר והגרים שליש האחרון הרי זו פסולה, ואם דרס או החליד בין בשליש הראשון בין בשליש האמצעי הרי זו פסולה.
14
What is meant by ikur? That the gullet and/or the windpipe were displaced29 and slid [from their place] before the conclusion of the slaughter. If, however, one slit an entire sign or its majority in a fowl, and then the second sign slipped, the slaughter is acceptable.30
יד
עיקור כיצד, כגון שנעקרה הגרגרת והיא הקנה או הושט ונשמט אחד מהן או שניהן קודם גמר שחיטה, אבל אם שחט אחד בעוף או רובו ואח"כ נשמט הסימן השני שחיטתו כשרה.
15
If one of the signs was displaced and afterwards, one slit the other, the slaughter is unacceptable.31 If one slit one of the signs [of a fowl] and then discovered that the other one was displaced, but it is unknown whether it was displaced before slaughter32 or after slaughter,33 there is an unresolved question whether [the fowl] is a nevelah.
טו
נשמט אחד מהן ואחר כך שחט את השני שחיטתו פסולה, שחט אחד מהן ונמצא השני שמוט ואין ידוע אם קודם שחיטה נשמט או אחר שחיטה הרי זו ספק נבלה.
16
If the sign that was cut for ritual slaughter is discovered to have been displaced, [the fowl or animal]34 is acceptable, for certainly, it was displaced after the slaughter. For if it had been displaced before ritual slaughter, it would have hung loosely and it would not have been able to be slaughtered [effectively].35
טז
נמצא הסימן השחוט שמוט הרי זו כשרה, שודאי אחר שחיטה נעקר, שאילו נעקר קודם שחיטה היה מתדלדל ולא נשחט.
17
When does the above apply? When [the slaughterer] did not hold the signs in his hand when he slit them. If, however, he held the signs and slaughtered, it is possible that [the signs] could have been slit [effectively even] after they were displaced.36 Therefore, if a sign is discovered to be displaced and slaughtered,37 there is an unresolved question whether [the animal or the fowl] is a nevelah.
יז
במה דברים אמורים שלא תפס הסימנין בידו כששחט, אבל אם תפסן ושחט אפשר שתשחט אחר העיקור ולפיכך אם נמצאת שמוטה ושחוטה הרי זו ספק נבלה.
18
Whenever we have used the term "unacceptable," the animal is a nevelah and if a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of it, he is liable for lashes for partaking of a nevelah. For only an acceptable slaughter as commanded by Moses our teacher of blessed memory prevents an animal from being considered a nevelah as we explained.38 Whenever there is an unresolved doubt whether slaughter [is acceptable], there is an unresolved doubt whether the animal is a nevelah.39 A person who partakes of it is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.
יח
כל מקום שאמרנו בשחיטה פסולה הרי זו נבלה, ואם אכל ממנה כזית לוקה משום אוכל נבלה שאין מוציא מידי נבלה אלא שחיטה כשרה כאשר צוה משה רבינו ע"ה =עליו השלום= כמו שביארנו, וכל ספק בשחיטה הרי הוא ספק נבלה והאוכל ממנה מכין אותו מכת מרדות.
19
When the thigh of an animal and [the meat40 of] its hollow were removed and thus it appears lacking when it crouches, it is a nevelah.41 [It is] as if half of it was cut away and it was divided into two bodies. Thus slaughter is not effective with regard to it.
Similarly, if [the animal's] backbone was broken together with the majority of the meat, its back was ripped open like a fish, the majority of the windpipe was been severed,42 or the gullet was perforated in a place fit for slaughter,43 it is considered as a nevelah while alive and slaughter will not be effective with regard to it. The same laws apply to both an animal and a fowl with regard to all these matters.
יט
בהמה שניטל ירך שלה וחללה עמה עד שתראה חסרה כשתרבץ הרי זו נבלה, כמו שנחתך חציה ונחלקה לשני גופות ואין השחיטה מועלת בה, וכן אם נשברה מפרקת ורוב בשר עמה או שנקרעה מגבה כדג או שנפסק רוב הקנה או שניקב הושט בכל שהוא במקום הראוי לשחיטה הרי זו נבלה מחיים ואין השחיטה מועלת בה, ואחד הבהמה ואחד העוף בכל הדברים האלה.
20
The gullet has two membranes: the external membrane is red and the inner membrane is white.44 If only one of them is perforated, [the animal] is acceptable.45 If they are both perforated even to the slightest degree in a place fit for slaughter, it is a nevelah.46 [This applies] whether it was slaughtered in the place of the perforation or in another place, slaughter will not be effective with regard to it. If they were both perforated, [even when] one [hole] does not correspond to the other, the animal is a nevelah47.
כ
שני עורות יש לו לושט, החיצון אדום והפנימי לבן, ניקב האחד מהן בלבד כשרה, ניקבו שניהן בכל שהוא במקום הראוי לשחיטה הרי זו נבלה, ובין שנשחטה במקום הנקב בין שנשחטה במקום אחר אין השחיטה מועלת בה, ניקבו שניהם זה שלא כנגד זה נבלה.
21
When the gullet is perforated and a scab forms which covers it, the scab is of no consequence and it is considered perforated as it was beforehand.48 If a thorn is detected standing in the gullet, there is an unresolved doubt whether the animal is a nevelah. We fear that perhaps a scab developed in the place of a perforation and it is not visible.49 If, however, a thorn is lying lengthwise50 in the gullet, we are not concerned about it, for most desert animals eat thorns continuously.51
כא
ניקב הושט ועלה בו קרום וסתמו אין הקרום כלום והרי הוא נקוב כשהיה, נמצא קוץ עומד בושט הרי זו ספק נבלה שמא ניקב הושט ועלה קרום במקום הנקב ואינו נראה, אבל אם נמצא הקוץ לאורכו בושט אין חוששין לו שרוב הבהמות המדבריות אוכלות הקוצים תמיד.
22
The gullet cannot be checked from the outside, only from the inside.52 What is implied? One should turn it inside out and check it. If a drop of blood is found upon it, it can be concluded that it was perforated.
כב
ושט אין לו בדיקה מבחוץ אלא מבפנים, כיצד הופכו ובודק אם נמצא עליו טיפת דם בידוע שהיה נקוב.
23
When the majority of the cavity of the windpipe53 has been severed in the place fit for slaughtering,54 [the animal] is a nevelah. This also applies if it has a hole the size of an isar.55
[The following rules apply if the windpipe of an animal] was perforated with small holes.56 If the perforations did not detract [from the flesh, they disqualify the animal if,] when they are added together, they constitute the majority [of the windpipe]. If they detract from the flesh, [they disqualify the animal if,] when they are added together, their sum is the size of an isar.57 Similarly, if a strand [of flesh] is removed from [the windpipe], it [disqualifies the animal if its area] is the size of an isar.
With regard to a fowl, [a more stringent rule applies]:58 Whenever the strip [of flesh that was removed] or the holes that detract from the flesh [are large enough so that they] could be folded so that when placed over the opening of the windpipe, it would cover the majority [of its cavity],59 it is a nevelah. If not, it is acceptable.
כג
גרגרת שנפסק רוב חללה במקום הראוי לשחיטה הרי זו נבלה, וכן אם ניקבה כאיסר, ניקבה נקבים קטנים אם נקבים שאין בהן חסרון הם מצטרפין לרובה ואם נקבים שיש בהם חסרון מצטרפין לכאיסר, וכן אם ניטלה ממנה רצועה מצטרפת לכאיסר, ובעוף כל שאילו מקפל הרצועה או הנקבים שיש בהן חסרון ומניחן על פי הקנה אם חופה את רובו נבלה ואם לאו כשרה.
24
If the windpipe was perforated on both sides with a hole large enough for the thickness of isar60 to be inserted into it, it is a nevelah. If it is slit lengthwise, even if only the slightest portion of the place fit to slaughter [an animal] remains above and below, it is acceptable.61
כד
ניקבה הגרגרת נקב מפולש משני צדדיה כדי שיכנס איסר לרחבו נבלה, נסדקה לארכה אפילו לא נשתייר מן המקום הראוי בה לשחיטה אלא משהו למעלה ומשהו למטה כשרה. 66
25
When a windpipe has been perforated62 and it is not known whether it was perforated before the slaughter or afterwards,63 we perforate it again in another place and compare the two holes. If they resemble each other, it is permitted.64
We compare only [a hole in] a large ring to [a hole in] a large ring or [a hole in] a small [ring] to [a hole in] a small [ring], but not [a hole in] a small [ring] to a [a hole in] a large [ring]. For the entire windpipe is made up of a series of rings. Between each [large] ring is a small, soft ring.
כה
גרגרת שניקבה ואין ידוע אם קודם שחיטה ניקבה או אחר שחיטה ניקבה, נוקבין אותה עתה במקום אחר ומדמין הנקב לנקב אם נדמה לו מותרת, ואין מדמין אלא מחוליא גדולה לחוליא גדולה או מקטנה לקטנה, אבל לא מקטנה לגדולה שכל הקנה חליות חליות הוא ובין כל חוליא וחוליא חוליא אחת קטנה משתיהן ורכה.
FOOTNOTES
1.
The Rambam describes each of these terms in the subsequent halachot in this chapter.
2.
I.e., a sheep or a goat.
3.
I.e., a cow.
4.
I.e., each animal is considered according to its category. It will take more time to deal with a large animal than a smaller one and the time factor is adjusted accordingly.
5.
The Rambam's ruling favors the opinion of Shmuel over Rav. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro explains that generally, we follow the principle that the halachah follows Rav's approach with regard to the Torah prohibitions. Nevertheless, in this instance, since there are other Sages who support Shmuel's view, the Rambam favors his opinion. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 23:2), in addition to the Rambam's view, Rav Yosef Caro quotes Rashi's position which rules much more stringently with regard to shehiyah for a fowl. The Rama states that the common custom is to disqualify any ritual slaughter involving shehiyah of the slightest time for both animals and fowl.
6.
Although the Ra'avad and Rav Moshe HaCohen dispute the Rambam's ruling, it is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah23:3). The Rama reiterates the stringency stated above.
7.
In addition to the Rambam's view, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 23:5) quotes the view of Rashi cited by the Tur that as long as the cutting of the signs is not completed, shehiyah can disqualify an animal. Hence, as an initial and preferred option, one should show respect for this view. The Rama rules even more stringently, stating that even after the fact, the slaughter is disqualified. For that reason, he continues, if the majority of the signs are cut, but the animal is lingering alive, rather than cut the signs further, one should hit it on its head to kill it.
8.
For until half of the windpipe is cut, the animal is not considered as trefe.
9.
He cannot return and correct the slaughter, for the animal is already considered as a nevelah.
10.
Halachah 19.
11.
As stated in Halachah 5.
12.
As stated in Halachah 6.
13.
If the gullet was perforated, the slaughter is unacceptable. If not, it is acceptable.
14.
Theoretically, he could also cut the windpipe in the same place and complete the slaughter in that manner. Nevertheless, our Sages advised against doing so, for in this way, it is much easier to perforate the gullet when cutting the windpipe and thus he might disqualify the slaughter unnecessarily (Kessef Mishneh). See the Turei Zahav 23:6 who offers another rationale. As mentioned above, the Rama rules that whenever one waits during the slaughter of a fowl or an animal, the slaughter is disqualified.
A parallel law - slaughtering the animal in a different place - does not apply with regard to an animal. For to slaughter the animal, he must slit the gullet and we fear that he will cut at a place where it had been perforated previously (Kessef Mishneh).
15.
I.e., he should cut the gullet off at its top and/or bottom and turn it inside out. If he is able to find a drop of blood, he can assume that it is perforated and it is unacceptable. An external examination of the gullet is not sufficient for the surface of the gullet is red and a drop of blood will not be noticeable. Its inner surface, however, is skin-colored and the blood will be noticed (Kessef Mishneh).
16.
Chullin 20b states that this term is derived from the word chuldah meaning "weasel," i.e., an animal that hides in the foundation of homes. Similarly, chaladah involves "hiding" the knife when slaughtering; i.e., inserting it in a way that the blade is not open to the eye. Implied is that the proper way to slaughter is for the slaughterer to hold the animal or fowl with its neck upward and to draw the knife back and forth across the neck.
17.
Certainly, this applies when he inserted the knife below both signs and slaughtered the animal by moving the knife back and forth while pointed upward (Siftei Cohen 24:6).
18.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes other authorities who explain that this is referring to a situation where the person tied the cloth around the animal's neck, attached it with wax, or the like. If, however, he merely loosely spread the cloth over the animal, the slaughter is acceptable. He concludes, however, that the Rambam's opinion should be respected. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 24:8), he rules according to the other views, but states: "One should show concern for his (the Rambam's) opinion at the outset."
19.
The term doreis means "prey" or "strike," i.e., killing with a blow, rather than drawing back and forth as is required for ritual slaughter.
20.
The Maggid Mishneh gives two interpretations of the term hagramah:
a) "lift up," as in II Kings 9:13; i.e., he lifted the knife above its proper place; and
b) "tip," as in Bava Batra 88b; i.e., he tipped the knife upward.
21.
The Rambam speaks only with regard to the windpipe, because he defines hagramah as slaughtering the animal in an improper place. If one would slit the gullet above the proper place, the animal would become disqualified as a trefe immediately (Kessef Mishneh).
22.
The Maggid Mishneh states that the windpipe is made up of many rings. Over the top ring, there is a flap (cap) of flesh which is slanted. (This is the area of the larynx. See also Chapter 1, Halachah 7, and notes.) At the top of this flap, there are two kernel-like buttons of flesh. As long as the slaughterer leaves some portion of these kernels intact, the slaughter is acceptable.
23.
The Rambam derived this concept from a comparison to the laws of shehiyah mentioned in Halachah 5. The same concept applies if one slaughters more than half the signs appropriately and then completes the slaughter through chaladah. Indeed, it can be explained that the Rambam does not mention this law with regard to chaladah, because it is obvious. For in chaladah, the slaughter is essentially correct; it is only the manner in which one inserts the knife that is unacceptable (Kessef Mishneh).
As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 5, there are opinions who differ and disqualify the slaughter. Similarly, with regard to the laws at hand, there are opinions that are more stringent, except with regard to hagramah. In that instance, they accept the leniency mentioned by the Rambam. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 24:12) quotes both of the views without stating which should be followed. The Rama goes further and states that it is customary to rule stringently even with regard to hagramah, and even with regard to fowl.
24.
This addition is necessary, for as stated above, if the gullet is perforated, the slaughter is disqualified.
25.
For the majority of the windpipe was cut in an acceptable manner and the preliminary cutting did not cause the animal to be considered as a trefe.
26.
Here also, the majority of the windpipe is cut in an acceptable manner. The fact that the two thirds were not cut directly after each other is not significant.
27.
For the majority of the windpipe has not been slit in an acceptable manner.
28.
The rationale for the Rambam's words has been discussed at length by the commentaries, because with regard to chaladah, in Halachah 10, he writes that there is an unresolved question whether the slaughter is disqualified, while here he appears to say that it is definitely unacceptable. The Rivosh (Responsum 187), the Kessef Mishneh, the Maggid Mishneh, and the Siftei Cohen 24:18 all offer lengthy - and somewhat forced - explanations to attempt to resolve the apparent contradiction. The core of the explanation of the Kessef Mishneh is that since the majority of the windpipe was slit in the proper place, it is not disqualified because a portion was not.
Needless to say, if one cuts the last third in either of these fashions, according to the Rambam, the slaughter is not disqualified, for it has already been completed (through slitting more than half of the sign[s] in an acceptable manner). The Rama, however, would disqualify the slaughter as stated above.
29.
The term ikur means "uproot." The Kessef Mishneh states that, according to the Rambam, the fact that the signs have slipped from their place does not cause the animal to be deemed a trefe (see, however, Chapter 9, Halachah 21, and notes). Nevertheless, such a condition disqualifies the animal, for it is impossible for the ritual slaughter to be carried out in the proper manner.
30.
For the slaughter was already completed in an acceptable manner. Compare to the following halachah.
31.
This applies even with regard to a fowl. Although it is only necessary for one of the signs of a fowl to be cut in the appropriate manner, the other one must be fit to be slit in an appropriate manner (Kessef Mishneh).
32.
In which instance it would disqualify it.
33.
In which instance, it would be acceptable.
34.
With regard to a fowl, the sign in question is the only sign slit. With regard to an animal, the other sign must have been slaughtered effectively.
35.
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 24:18) rule more stringently and maintain that it is necessary to slaughter another animal, displace its signs afterwards, and compare the two. Only if they are similar is the slaughter accepted. Moreover, the Shulchan Aruch continues stating that, at present, we are not expert at making this comparison and hence, forbid an animal whenever such a condition arises.
36.
Because the slaughterer will hold the signs in the proper position by hand.
37.
And we do not know whether the slaughterer held it by hand or not.
38.
See Chapter 1, Halachot 1 and 4.
39.
Since an animal is forbidden during its lifetime, its meat is permitted only when we are certain that the slaughter was acceptable (Radbaz).
40.
The addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh.
41.
I.e., even though the animal still has a certain vestige of vitality, it is considered as if it has died already and it imparts ritual impurity as a nevelah does (Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTumah 2:1).
42.
In this and the following instance, the Siftei Cohen 33:4 rules that the animal is a trefe and not a nevelah.
43.
If, however, the gullet was perforated at a higher point in the neck (see Halachah 12), it is considered as a trefe and not a nevelah.
44.
I.e., skin-colored.
45.
For the one that is not perforated is sufficient to protect the animal sufficiently for it to survive.
This leniency applies when the inner membrane is perforated due to sickness. If, however, it is perforated due to a thorn, we fear that the outer membrane may also be perforated, but that perforation cannot be detected [see Halachah 22; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 33:4)].
46.
As above, if the gullet was perforated at a higher point in the neck (see Halachah 12), it is considered as a trefe and not a nevelah (Kessef Mishneh).
47.
With regard to other organs which have two membranes, e.g., the brain and the lungs, the animal is not considered as trefe unless the holes correspond to each other. In this instance, however, the ruling is much more severe because the gullet is stretched and becomes extended. Thus even if the place of the holes do not correspond, they can match each other at times [Kessef Mishneh, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:4)].
48.
For as the gullet expands, it is possible that the scab will open (Rashi, Chullin 42a).
49.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 33:9) rules more leniently, stating that unless a trace of blood is detected on the outer side, we do not disqualify an animal because a thorn was implanted in the gullet.
50.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:9) rules that this applies even if the thorn is lying widthwise, as long as it is not implanted in the membrane. [Indeed, some versions of the Mishneh Torah substitute widthwise for lengthwise.]
51.
And yet do not suffer any internal damage.
52.
Because, as stated above (see Halachot 8, 19), since its outer membrane is red, a trace of blood will not be obvious.
53.
I.e., the slit goes from side to side in a manner in which the majority of the cavity is slit. The Rambam (based on Chullin 44a,b) is emphasizing that this measure disqualifies an animal even if when including the thickness of the flesh of the windpipe, the slit would not cover the majority of the windpipe.
54.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 7, and notes.
55.
An Italian coin, frequently used in the Talmudic era. In his commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 9:5), the Rambam states that an isar is the weight of four barley corns.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 34:2) states that we are unfamiliar with the measure of an isar. Therefore, the laws applying to an animal should resemble those applying to a fowl and if the slit covers the majority of the cavity of the windpipe, it is disqualified. The Rama states that, for an animal, an isar is smaller than the majority of the cavity of the windpipe. Therefore he states that perhaps the intent of the Shulchan Aruch, is the majority of the cavity of a fowl. He cautions anyone who has a doubt to rule stringently and disqualify the animal.
56.
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:3) speaks of perforating the windpipe "like a sifter."
57.
In his Kessef Mishneh and his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 34:3), Rav Yosef Caro writes that as long as the flesh between the holes is not larger than the holes themselves, it is included together with them in this measure.
58.
For the entire windpipe of a fowl may not be the size of an isar (Rashi, Chullin 45a).
59.
The addition is based on the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh. For each particular fowl, this measure is calculated individually (Maggid Mishneh).
60.
Our translation is based on the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh who quotes the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 34) who explains that in contrast to the previous halachah which speaks of a hole the area of an isar, this halachah is speaking about a hole through which an isar can be slipped through on its side.
It must be emphasized that the Rambam's ruling depends on the interpretation of Chullin 54a advanced by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi. Rashi advances a different interpretation of that passage on which basis, the Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 34:5-6) quotes both opinions without stating which is favored.
61.
The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rashi who explains that if the windpipe is slit across we rule more stringently, for the stress of breathing will extend the windpipe and cause the slit to expand. This does not apply when it is split lengthwise.
62.
In a manner that would disqualify the animal.
63.
Were it to have been perforated afterwards, the perforation would not be significant.
64.
For it is apparent that the first hole was also made after the animal's death. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 34:9) states that we are not proficient in inspecting the animal in this way and should disqualify it in all situations.
65. וכן אם שהה כדי שיגביהנה וירביצנה וכו'. א"א זו הסברא לא טובה היא ולא נכונה ומפירוש משובש הביאה והלא אמרו במשנה אם שהה כדי שחיטה אחרת ומיעוט שחיטה לא נכנסה בזה הספק ועוד היה לו לומר כדי מיעוט שחיטה ועוד שאין זה הפירוש מתנהג בהחליד במיעוט סימנים אבל הפירוש השוה לשניהם ששחט הרוב ושהה וגמר מי אמרינן כיון דגמר שהייה בשחיטה היא מאן מוכח או דילמא לא חיישינן להכי ובחצי קנה דעוף ליכא למיחש כלל וכל שכן לרוב ונראה לי באותן שתי הבעיות תיקו ולקולא.
66. ניקבה הגרגרת נקב מפולש משני צדדיה. א"א זה פירוש משובש ופירש אותו על נפחתה.
Shechitah - Chapter 4
1
When a Jew who does not know the five factors that disqualify ritual slaughter and the like concerning the laws of shechitah that we explained1slaughters [an animal] in private,2 it is forbidden for him and others to partake [of the animal that] he slaughtered. It is close to being considered a nevelah because of the doubt involved.3 When a person eats an olive-sized portion of its meat, he is worthy of stripes for rebellious conduct.
א
ישראל שאינו יודע חמשה דברים שמפסידין את השחיטה וכיוצא בהן מהלכות שחיטה שביארנו ושחט בינו לבין עצמו אסור לאכול משחיטתו, לא הוא ולא אחרים, והרי זו קרובה לספק נבלה והאוכל ממנה כזית מכין אותו מכת מרדות.
2
Even if [such a person] slaughtered [animals] properly in our presence four or five times and this slaughter which he performed in private appears to be a proper and complete the slaughter, it is forbidden to partake of it. Since he does not know the factors that can disqualify ritual slaughter, it is possible that he will cause the slaughter to be disqualified unknowingly.4 For example, he may wait, apply pressure to the animal's neck and slit it, slaughter with a blemished knife, or the like inadvertently.
ב
ואפילו שחט בפנינו ארבע וחמש פעמים שחיטה כשרה והרי שחיטה זו ששחט בינו לבין עצמו שחיטה נכונה וגמורה אסור לאכול ממנה, הואיל ואינו יודע דברים המפסידים אפשר שיפסיד השחיטה והוא אינו יודע כגון שישהה או ידרוס או ישחוט בסכין פגומה וכיוצא באלו בלא כונתו.
3
[Even] when a Jew knows the laws of ritual slaughter, he should not slaughter in private as an initial and preferred option until he slaughters in the presence of a wise man many times until he is familiar and ardent.5 If, however, at the outset, he slaughtered in private, his slaughter is acceptable.6
ג
ישראל שיודע הלכות שחיטה הרי זה לא ישחוט בינו לבין עצמו לכתחלה עד שישחוט בפני חכם פעמים רבות עד שיהיה רגיל וזריז, ואם שחט תחלה בינו לבין עצמו שחיטתו כשרה.
4
When one knows the laws of ritual slaughter and slaughters in the presence of a wise man until he becomes familiar with ritual slaughter, he is called an expert. Any expert may slaughter in private as an initial and preferred option. Even women7 and servants8 may slaughter as an initial and preferred option.
ד
היודע הלכות שחיטה ושחט בפני חכם עד שנעשה רגיל הוא הנקרא מומחה וכל המומחין שוחטין לכתחלה בינן לבין עצמן ואפילו נשים ועבדים אם היו מומחין הרי אלו שוחטין לכתחלה.
5
When deaf-mute,9 an intellectually or emotionally imbalanced person, a child,10 or a drunkard whose mind became befuddled11 slaughters, their slaughter is unacceptable. Since they do not have [adequate] mental control, we fear that they blundered. Therefore if they slaughtered in the presence of a knowledgeable person and he saw that they slaughtered properly, their slaughter is acceptable.
ה
חרש שוטה וקטן ושכור שנתבלבלה דעתו ששחטו שחיטתן פסולה מפני שאין בהן דעת שמא יקלקלו, לפיכך אם שחטו בפני היודע וראה אותן ששחטו כהוגן שחיטתן כשרה.
6
When a person whose reputation12 has not been established among us slaughters in private, we question him. If it is discovered that he knows the fundamental principles of ritual slaughter,13 his slaughter is acceptable.14
ו
מי שאינו יודע אצלנו ששחט בינו לבין עצמו שואלין אותו, אם נמצא יודע עיקרי הלכות שחיטה שחיטתו כשרה.
7
When we saw from a distance that a Jew slaughtered [an animal] and departed and we do not know whether or not he knows the laws of ritual slaughter or not, [the animal] is permitted. Similarly, if a person tells his agent: "Go out and slaughter an animal on my behalf," and he finds a slaughtered animal, but does not know whether his agent or another person slaughtered it, [the animal] is permitted.15 [The rationale for both these laws is] that the majority of people who slaughter are expert.16
ז
הרי שראינו ישראלי מרחוק ששחט והלך לו ולא ידענו אם יודע אם אינו יודע הרי זו מותרת, וכן האומר לשלוחו צא ושחוט לי ומצא הבהמה שחוטה ואין ידוע אם שלוחו שחטה או אחר הרי זו מותרת, שרוב המצויין אצל שחיטה מומחין הן.
8
[The following rules apply when a person] loses a kid or a chicken. If he finds it slaughtered at home, it is permitted. [The rationale is that] the majority of people who slaughter are expert. If he finds it in the market place, it is forbidden; perhaps [it was slaughtered improperly and] became a nevelah and was therefore cast into the market place.17 Similarly, if he finds it on the waste dump at home, it is forbidden.18
ח
אבד לו גדי או תרנגול ומצאו שחוט בבית מותר, שרוב המצויין אצל שחיטה מומחים הן, מצאו בשוק אסור שמא נתנבל ולפיכך הושלך, וכן אם מצאו באשפה שבבית אסור.
9
When an expert [slaughterer] loses his power of speech, but he is [still] capable of understanding, he can hear and he is of sound mind, he may slaughter as an initial and preferred option.19 Similarly, a person who does not hear,20 may slaughter.
ט
מומחה שנשתתק והרי הוא מבין ושומע ודעתו נכונה הרי זה שוחט לכתחלה, וכן מי שאינו שומע הרי זה שוחט.
10
A blind man should not slaughter as an initial and preferred option unless others supervise him.21 If he slaughters, his slaughter is acceptable.22
י
הסומא לא ישחוט לכתחלה אלא אם כן אחרים רואים אותו ואם שחט שחיטתו כשרה.
11
When a gentile slaughters, even though he slaughters in the presence of a Jew, [using] a finely [honed] knife,23 and even if he was a minor,24 his slaughter is a nevelah. According to Scriptural Law, one is liable for lashes for partaking of it,25 as [implied by Exodus 34:15]: "[Lest] he shall call you and you shall partake of his slaughter." Since the Torah warns lest one partake of his slaughter, you can infer that his slaughter is forbidden. He cannot be compared to a Jew who does not know the laws of ritual slaughter.
יא
עכו"ם ששחט אע"פ ששחט בפני ישראל בסכין יפה ואפילו היה קטן שחיטתו נבלה ולוקה על אכילתה מן התורה, שנאמר וקרא לך ואכלת מזבחו, מאחר שהזהיר שמא יאכל מזבחו אתה למד שזבחו אסור ואינו דומה לישראל שאינו יודע הלכות שחיטה.
12
[Our Sages] established a great safeguard concerning this matter, [decreeing] that even [an animal] slaughtered by a gentile who does not serve false deities26 is a nevelah.27
יב
וגדר גדול גדרו בדבר שאפילו עכו"ם שאינו עובד ע"ז שחיטתו נבלה.
13
If a gentile began to slaughter and slit the minority of the signs and a Jew completed the slaughter or a Jew began the slaughter and a gentile completed it,28 it is invalid.29 [The rationale is that] slaughter [is considered an integral act, a single continuity] from the beginning to the end.30 If, however, a gentile slit [a portion of] an organ that does not cause the animal to be considered a nevelah, e.g., he slit half the windpipe and a Jew completed the slaughter, it is acceptable.31
יג
התחיל העכו"ם לשחוט מיעוט סימנין וגמר ישראל או התחיל ישראל וגמר העכו"ם פסולה, ישנה לשחיטתו מתחלה ועד סוף, אבל אם שחט העכו"ם דבר שאינו עושה אותו נבלה כגון ששחט חצי הגרגרת בלבד וגמר ישראל הרי זו כשרה.
14
A Jew who is an apostate because of his transgression of a particular transgression32 who is an expert slaughterer may slaughter as an initial and preferred option.33 A Jew of acceptable repute must check the knife and afterwards give it to this apostate to slaughter with, for it can be presumed that he will not trouble himself to check [the knife].34
If, by contrast, he was an apostate because of worship of false deities, one who violates the Sabbath in public,35 or a heretic who denies the Torah and [the prophecy of] Moses our teacher, as we explained in Hilchot Teshuvah,36 he is considered as a gentile and [an animal] he slaughters is a nevelah.
יד
ישראל מומר לעבירה מן העבירות שהיה מומחה הרי זה שוחט לכתחלה וצריך ישראל כשר לבדוק את הסכין ואח"כ יתננה למומר זה לשחוט בה מפני שחזקתו שאינו טורח לבדוק, ואם היה מומר לעבודה זרה או מחלל שבת בפרהסיא או אפיקורוס והוא הכופר בתורה ובמשה רבינו כמו שביארנו בהלכות תשובה הרי הוא כעכו"ם ושחיטתו נבלה.
15
[Even though] a person is disqualified as a witness because of his violation of a Scriptural prohibition,37 he may [still] slaughter in private if he was an expert.38 For he would not leave something which is permitted and partake of something that is forbidden.39 This is a presumption that applies with regard to all Jews, even those who are wicked.
טו
מי שהוא פסול לעדות בעבירה מן העבירות של תורה הרי זה שוחט בינו לבין עצמו אם היה מומחה, שאינו מניח דבר מותר ואוכל דבר איסור שזו חזקה היא על כל ישראל ואפילו הרשעים מהן.
16
These Tzadukkim, Beotosim, 40 their disciples and all that err, following their path, who do not believe in the Oral Law - their slaughter is forbidden. If, however, they slaughtered [an animal] in our presence, it is permitted. For their slaughter is forbidden only because it is possible they blunder. Since they do not believe in the laws of ritual slaughter, we do not accept their word when they say, "We did not blunder."41
טז
אלו הצדוקין והבייתוסין ותלמידיהן וכל הטועים אחריהן שאינן מאמינים בתורה שבעל פה שחיטתן אסורה, ואם שחטו בפנינו הרי זו מותרת, שאין איסור שחיטתן אלא שמא יקלקלו והם אינן מאמינין בתורת השחיטה לפיכך אינן נאמנין לומר לא קלקלנו.
17
When the Jews were journeying through the desert, they were not commanded to slaughter non-sacrificial animals.42 Instead, they would cut off their heads or slaughter them and eat as the other nations do. In the desert, they were commanded that everyone who desires to slaughter an animal [in the prescribed way] should slaughter only for the sake of a peace offering, as [Leviticus 17:3-5] states: "When a man from the house of Israel will slaughter an ox... and he will not bring it to the Tent of Meeting... [it will be considered as (spilled) blood]... so that the Children of Israel will bring their sacrifices... and slaughter these sacrifices as peace-offerings." If, however, a person desired to cut an animal's head off and partake [of the animal], in the desert, this was allowed.
יז
כשהיו ישראל במדבר לא נצטוו בשחיטת החולין אלא היו נוחרין או שוחטין ואוכלין כשאר האומות, ונצטוו במדבר שכל הרוצה לשחוט לא ישחוט אלא שלמים שנאמר איש איש מבית ישראל אשר ישחט שור וגו' ואל פתח אהל מועד וגו' למען אשר יביאו וגו' וזבחו זבחי שלמים לה' וגו', אבל הרוצה לנחור ולאכול במדבר היה נוחר.
18
This mitzvah43 is not observed forever, nor in the desert alone, at the time it was permitted to kill animals [and partake of them]. There they were commanded that when they would enter Eretz Yisrael, killing animals [for food] would be forbidden and ordinary animals could only be eaten after ritual slaughter. They would be allowed to slaughter in every place except the Temple Courtyard,44 as [Deuteronomy 12:20-21] states: "When God your Lord will expand your boundaries... and you shall slaughter from your cattle and your sheep which God your Lord gave you." This is the mitzvah to be observed for generations - to slaughter and then to eat.
יח
ומצוה זו אינה נוהגת לדורות אלא במדבר בלבד בעת היתר הנחירה, ונצטוו שם שכשיכנסו לארץ תאסר הנחירה ולא יאכלו חולין אלא בשחיטה, וישחטו בכל מקום לעולם חוץ לעזרה שנאמר כי ירחיב ה' אלהיך את גבולך וגו' וזבחת מבקרך ומצאנך אשר נתן ה' אלהיך וגו', וזו היא המצוה הנוהגת לדורות לשחוט ואחר כך יאכל..
FOOTNOTES
1.
The five factors mentioned in the previous chapter and how to prepare a knife [Kessef Mishneh; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:2)].
2.
If, however, a wise man supervises his actions, the slaughter is acceptable, as indicated by Halachah 5. The Maggid Mishneh quotes the Rashba as ruling that such a person may slaughter in the presence of a wise man even as an initial and preferred option. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:3) accepts this ruling, but the Rama does not.
3.
There is no factor that we see that would cause us to disqualify the slaughter. Nevertheless, since it is highly probable that he slaughtered the animal in a way that disqualified it and rendered it a nevelah, the animal is prohibited and placed in this category.
4.
Moreover, even if afterwards, he is taught the laws of ritual slaughter and states that he observed them when he slaughtered the animal, the ruling is not revised. Since he did not know the laws at that time, we fear that he did not observe them (Kessef Mishneh).
5.
This training process is still observed in the present age. Even though a person is familiar with the laws of ritual slaughter, he must first undergo apprenticeship under the guidance of a master and receive authorization to slaughter [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:1).
6.
I.e., after the fact, since he knows the laws, we do not disqualify the slaughter.
7.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:1) states that woman should not be allowed to slaughter as an initial and preferred option.
8.
This refers to Canaanite servants whose Halachic status is the same as women. The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 1) rules that in general servants may not serve as ritual slaughterers. See Siftei Cohen 1:2.
9.
See Halachah 9 which grants a person with only one of these handicaps to slaughter.
10.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:5) states that this refers to a child who does not know how to maneuver his hands for ritual slaughter. If he knows how to maneuver his hands he may be given an animal to slaughter at the outset. The Rama emphasizes that even so, the child may only slaughter in the presence of others. He may not slaughter alone. Furthermore, the Rama states that it is not customary for a person to receive authorization to slaughter until he is eighteen. The Siftei Cohen 1:25, however, rules more stringently.
11.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:8) states that one who becomes as drunk as Lot (see Genesis, ch. 19) may not slaughter. One who has not reached this stage of inebriation may slaughter at the outset. The Rama rules more stringently, stating that a person should never slaughter when drunk, for it is likely that he will disqualify the slaughter.
12.
With regard to his proficiency in the laws of ritual slaughter.
13.
Those mentioned in the previous chapter and how to check a knife; there is no need for him to be knowledgeable with regard to all the particulars of the laws of ritual slaughter.
14.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that when there is no alternative (see the following halachah), we rely on the principle that most of those who slaughter are knowledgeable regarding its laws. Nevertheless, in this instance, since we have the opportunity to clarify the matter, we do so.
15.
With regard to questions of business law, we rely on the presumption that an agent will perform the mission with which he was charged. We do not, however, accept this principle with regard to questions involving the Torah's prohibitions (Hilchot Terumot 4:6). Nevertheless, even if we know for certain that the agent did not slaughter the animal, we consider it as permitted because of the reason stated by the Rambam.
16.
And when there is no alternative we can rely on this presumption.
From the statements of the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:1), it appears that there is a slight difference between the present age and the Talmudic period. In the Talmudic era, most people were proficient in both the laws and practice of ritual slaughter. In the present age, this applies only to those who are occupied professionally in this field. Nevertheless, the laws remain the same, for we assume that only a person who is knowledgeable will actually slaughter animals.
17.
We are not speaking about a waste dump in the market place. In such an instance, all opinions would agree that the animal is forbidden. Instead, we are speaking about a situation where it was found in the marketplace at large. Chullin 12b records a dispute between two Sages concerning this matter and the Rambam chooses the more stringent ruling.
18.
For the circumstances indicate that it was discarded.
As mentioned, there is a difference of opinion in the Talmud regarding this issue. Most Rishonim follow the more lenient view and rule that if the slaughtered animal is found in an ordinary place in the marketplace or in a waste dump at home, it is permitted. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:4) also follows this view.
19.
Another person should recite the blessing for him [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:7)].
20.
As long as he has the ability to speak, he is not considered to be intellectually underdeveloped.
Rabbenu Asher explains that such a person should not slaughter as an initial and preferred option, because there is a difficulty with his recitation of the blessing. For a person must recite a blessing in a manner that enables him to hear it and that is impossible for such an individual. Indeed, the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 1:6) rules that a person who is dumb should not separate terumah at the outset for that reason [Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:6)].
21.
For we fear that he will err and not detect his error. The Siftei Cohen 1:35 quotes opinions that rule that a blind person should not slaughter even when others are watching him.
22.
In this instance as well, the Siftei Cohen 1:36 mentions views that maintain that a person who was never able to see should not slaughter. Even after the fact, one should not partake of his slaughter.
23.
And is well-versed in the laws of ritual slaughter [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 1:1)].
24.
One might think that the slaughter of a minor has an advantage, because a minor's worship of idols is not significant.
25.
Thus a gentile's slaughter is not recognized by Scriptural Law. See, however, the following halachah.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that the reason the animal is forbidden is that, in general, when a gentile slaughters, his intent is that the animal is an offering to his false deity, it is, however, permissible to benefit from the animal. We do not consider it as a sacrifice to idols (Chullin 13b; see Chapter 2, Halachah 2), because we assume the gentile is not really sincere in his worship, he is merely mimicking his ancestors.
Rabbeinu Asher differs and explains that the Scriptural command for ritual slaughter states: "And you shall slaughter," implying that the slaughtering must be a Jew. Hence, a gentile is inherently disqualified; his thoughts are of no consequence. See the Siftei Cohen 2:2 and the Turei Zahav 2:1 who discuss this issue.
26.
E.g., a resident alien who accepts the Seven Universal Laws Commanded to Noah and his descendants (see Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 14:7).
27.
According to the Rambam, if he does not serve false deities and knows the laws of ritual slaughter, his slaughter is acceptable according to Scriptural Law.
One might ask: If so, why is an animal slaughtered by a child a nevelah? A child is not liable for the service of false deities. The Lechem Mishneh answers that ultimately, the child will grow up and worship false deities.
28.
See the Siftei Cohen 2:27 maintains that if the Jew slit the majority of the gullet and windpipe, the slaughter is acceptable even if the gentile completed it.
29.
Thus if a gentile slit the majority of the windpipe or any portion of the gullet, the slaughter is disqualified [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 2:10)].
30.
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:18 for another application of this principle.
31.
For, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 11, even if the windpipe is half slit because of other factors, it can be slaughtered acceptably.
32.
As the Rambam states in Hilchot Teshuvah 3:9, there is a concept of an apostate with regard to one transgression, i.e., "a person who has made a fixed practice of willfully violating a certain transgression [to the extent that] he is accustomed to transgressing and his deeds are public knowledge... provided he does so with the intent of angering God."
33.
Although he repeatedly violates that particular transgression, we do not assume that he will not slaughter correctly.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro cites Chullin 4a which states that as long as if given a choice whether to eat kosher meat or non-kosher meat, the person would choose the kosher meat - even if he would partake of the non-kosher meat if kosher meat was not available - it is permitted to partake of an animal he slaughtered. The Kessef Mishneh continues, explaining that as long as one does not transgress with the intent of angering God, one may partake of an animal he slaughtered. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 2:5), he rules that an apostate who transgresses with the intent of angering God resembles a gentile and his slaughter is inherently unacceptable.
Kin'at Eliyahu notes that there is some difficulty with the Kessef Mishneh's interpretation, because Hilchot Teshuvah specifically states that a person is deemed an apostate only when his transgression is performed with the intent of angering God.
34.
Although we do not assume that he will definitely transgress, it is logical to presume that he will not be careful in his observance.
Although it also cites the Rambam's view, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 2:6) mentions the opinion of the Tur and others who rule that if the person is not an apostate with regard to partaking of non-kosher meat, it is not even necessary to check his knife. He may slaughter in private. If, however, he is an apostate with regard to partaking of non-kosher meat, his knife must be checked. Moreover, if he shows no concern for kashrut at all, his slaughter is not acceptable [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 2:50].
35.
See the conclusion of Hilchot Shabbat.
36.
Hilchot Teshuvah 3:8.
37.
See Hilchot Edut 10:1-3.
38.
In this instance, the Rambam does not even require him to have another person observe him. Since his disregard for Jewish observance is not as severe as that of an apostate, he is allowed to slaughter on his own.
39.
I.e., he would not slaughter the animal in an invalid way when it would be just as easy for him to slaughter it in an acceptable way.
40.
Tzadok and Beotus were two of the greatest students of Antigonus of Socho. As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avot 1:3), after they heard Antigonus teach: "Do not be as servants who serve their master for the sake of receiving a reward," they forsook Jewish practice, saying: "Is it just that we labor without receiving a reward?"
They began splinter sects with the intent of swaying the people after them. At first, they sought to abandon Jewish practice entirely. They saw, however, the people would not accept this and so they focused their complaints on the Oral Law, arguing that although the Written Law was of Divine origin, the Oral Law was not. Their intent, however, was to deny the entire Torah.
41.
The Rambam appears to be saying that there is no inherent difficulty with these individuals slaughtering an animal. The only question is whether or not they slaughtered correctly. Hence, when it is possible to verify that the slaughter was performed correctly, the animal is permitted. They are not placed in the same category as apostates. Kin'at Eliyahu adds that, based on the previous halachah, these Tzadukim must also be Sabbath observant.
42.
There is a difference of opinion concerning this point among the Sages (Chullin 17a). The Rambam follows Rabbi Akiva's perspective.
43.
The obligation to offer as a sacrifice an animal which one desires to ritually slaughter.
44.
See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
Shechitah - Chapter 5
1
We have already explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot1that the term trefe employed by the Torah refers to an animal that is on the verge of death. The term trefe - which literally means "torn apart" - was employed only because the Torah speaks with regard to prevalent situations, e.g., a lion or the like attacked it and wounded it, but it had not died yet.
א
כבר ביארנו בהלכות איסורי מאכלות שהטרפה האמורה בתורה היא הנוטה למות, ולא נאמר טריפה אלא שדבר הכתוב בהווה כגון שטרפה ארי וכיוצא בו ושברה ועדיין לא מתה.
2
There are other maladies which if they affect an animal will cause it to be considered trefe. They were transmitted as a halachah to Moses at Sinai. [In particular,] eight [conditions that cause an animal to be considered as] trefe were transmitted to Moses at Sinai.2 They are derusah, nekuvah, chaseirah, netulah, pesukah, keru'ah, nefulah, and sheburah.3
ב
ויש שם חלאים אחרים אם יארעו לה תחשב טריפה והן הלכה למשה מסיני, ושמונה מיני טרפות נאמרו לו למשה בסיני ואלו הן: דרוסה, נקובה, חסרה, נטולה, פסוקה, קרועה, נפולה, ושבורה.
3
Although they were all transmitted as halachot to Moses at Sinai,4since only derusah is explicitly mentioned in the Torah,5 [our Sages] ruled more stringently with regard to it. Any questionable situation that arises with regard to derisah [causes the animal] to be forbidden. There are, by contrast, questionable situations that may arise with regard to the seven other conditions [that render an animal] trefe in which [the animal] is permitted as will be explained.6
ג
אע"פ שכולן הלכה למשה מסיני הן, הואיל ואין לך בפירוש בתורה אלא דרוסה החמירו בה, וכל ספק שיסתפק בדרוסה אסור, ושאר שבעה מיני טרפות יש בהן ספקין מותרים כמו שיתבאר.
4
Derusah refers to a situation where a lion or the like will attack an animal and assault it with its paw or a hawk, an eagle, or the like will assault a fowl.7 [The laws of] derisah apply with regard to a large domesticated animal8 or a large wild beast only when it is attacked by a lion.9 [The laws of derisah apply with regard to] a small domesticated animal10 or a small wild beast only when it is attacked by a wolf or a larger animal. [The laws of] derisah apply with regard to kids and lambs even when attacked by cats, foxes, martens,11 and the like. Needless to say, this applies with regard to fowl.12
ד
הדרוסה הוא שיטרוף הארי וכיוצא בו הבהמה וידרוס עליה בידו, או ידרוס הנץ והנשר וכיוצא בהן על העוף, ואין דריסה בבהמה גסה ובחיה גסה אלא לארי בלבד, ובבהמה דקה מן הזאב ולמעלה, ובגדיים וטלאים אפילו חתול ושועל ונמייה וכיוצא בהן יש להן דריסה וכל שכן בעופות.
5
When a hawk attacks, the laws of derisah apply even with regard to a larger fowl.13 With regard to other birds of prey the laws of derisah apply only with regard to fowl their size and not with regard to fowl which are larger than they are.14
ה
והנץ יש לו דריסה ואפילו בעוף גדול ממנו, אבל שאר עופות הדורסים יש להן דריסה בעוף שכמותן, ואין להן דריסה בעוף שהוא גדול מהן.
6
[The laws of] derisah apply [when] a weasel attacks a fowl. [The laws of] derisah do not apply at all when a dog attacks, not when it attacks a fowl, an animal, or a beast. [The laws of] derisah apply [when] an hawk attacks kids or lambs should its claws penetrate to [the animal's] inner cavity.15
ו
ויש לחולדה דריסה בעופות, וכלב אין לו דריסה כל עיקר לא בעוף ולא בבהמה וחיה, והנץ יש לו דריסה בגדיים וטלאים והוא שיקוב בצפרניו לבית החלל.
7
[The laws of] derisah apply only [when] the attacking animal [strikes its victim] with its forelegs. If it strikes it with its hindlegs,16 we show no concern.17 [Similarly, the laws of] derisah apply only [when the attacking animal strikes its victim] with its claw. If it bites it, we show no concern unless it penetrates to its internal cavity.18 We then check if it perforated one of the organs [that cause an animal to be considered trefe if] even the tiniest perforation was made.
[The laws of] derisah apply only [when] the attacking animal has that intent. If, however, the beast of prey fell and its claws became lodged in the other animal, [the laws of] derisah do not apply.19 [Similarly, the laws of] derisah apply only [when the attacking animal] is alive. If, however, it attacked and was killed, but its claws remained lodged in the victim and were not removed until after [the attacker's] death, we are not concerned.20
ז
אין דריסה אלא ביד הטורף אבל ברגליו אין חוששין לה, ואין דריסה אלא בצפורן אבל בשן אין חוששין לה אלא אם כן נקב עד בית החלל בודקין שמא נקב אחד מן האיברים שנטרפת בנקיבתן, ואין דריסה אלא בכוונת הטורף, אבל אם נפל הדורס ונשתקעו צפרניו בנטרף אין זו דריסה, ואין דריסה אלא מחיים, אבל אם דרס ונהרג ועדיין ידו בדרוסה ולא שמט צפרניו ממנה אלא אחר מותו אין חוששין לה.
8
What are the laws applying to an animal that was attacked? Whenever we stated that "we show concern," the attacked animal should be slaughtered and its entire internal cavity - from its feet to its forehead - must be checked. If it is found to be flawless with regard to all the factors [that render an animal] trefe and there is no sign that it was attacked,21 it is permitted.22 If there is a sign that it was attacked, it is trefe and forbidden by Scriptural Law.
ח
וכיצד דין הדרוסה, כל מקום שאמרנו חוששין לה שוחטין את הנטרף ובודקין כל החלל שלו מכף הירך עד הקדקד, אם נמצאת כולה שלימה מכל מיני טרפות ולא נמצא בה רושם הדריסה הרי זו מותרת, ואם נמצא בה רושם הדריסה הרי זו טריפה ואסורה מן התורה.
9
What is meant by "a sign that it was attacked"? That the flesh above the intestines turns red.23 If the flesh above the intestines decays to the extent it becomes like flesh which a doctor would scrape from a wound, we consider that flesh as if it were lacking and [rule that the animal is] trefe.24
ט
אי זה הוא רושם הדריסה, שיאדים הבשר כנגד בני מעים ואם נמוק הבשר כנגד בני מעים עד שנעשה כבשר שהרופא גוררו מן החבורה, רואין אותו הבשר כאילו חסר וטרפה.
10
If [the predator] attacked the "signs" [which must be cut for ritual slaughter, the animal is] trefe if they turn red.25 The slightest wound [is significant]. If even the smallest portion of them becomes red because of an attack, [the animal is] trefe.26
י
ואם דרס בסימנין משיאדימו טריפה ודריסתן במשהו כיון שהאדים בהן כל שהוא מחמת דריסה טריפה.
11
When there is a question whether [an animal] has been attacked or not, we do not permit it unless it is checked as one would [an animal] that had definitely been attacked.27
What is implied? When a lion enters among oxen and a claw was found in the back of one of them,28 we suspect that the lion attacked it. We do not rationalize and say: "Maybe it scratched itself on a wall."29
Similarly, if a fox or a marten enter among fowls, [the predator] is silent and they crowing, we fear that he attacked.30 If, however, the predator is roaring and they are crowing, [we assume that] they are crowing out of fear of him and his roaring. Similarly, if he cuts off the head of one of them,31 we assume his fury has subsided. Similarly, if both [the predator] and [the fowl] are silent, we do not suspect [anything]. For if he had harmed them, they would crow.32
יא
ספק דרוסה אסורה עד שתבדק כדרוסה ודאית, כיצד ארי שנכנס לבין שוורים ונמצא צפורן בגבו של אחד מהן חוששין שמא ארי דרסו, ואין אומרים שמא בכותל נתחכך, וכן שועל או נמייה שנכנס לבין העופות והוא שותק והן מקרקרין חוששין שמא דרס, אבל אם היה הוא נוהם והם מקרקרין מיראתו ומנהימתו הן מקרקרין, וכן אם קטע ראש אחד מהן הנה נח רגזו, וכן אם שתק הוא והם אין חוששין שאילו הזיק היו מקרקרין.
12
When there is a question of whether or not a predator entered [a place where animals are kept] or we saw [an animal] enter [such a place], but were unable to see if it is one of the predators or not, we do not harbor suspicions.33
Similarly, if a fowl entered a woods or reeds and came out with its head or neck dripping blood, we do not suspect that it was attacked. Instead, we say: "Perhaps it was wounded among the trees."34
יב
ספק שנכנס לכאן טורף או לא נכנס, או שראינו ולא נודע אם זה מן הטורפין או אינו מן הטורפין אין חוששין, וכן עוף שנכנס לבין העצים או לבין הקנים ויצא וראשו מנטף דם או צוארו אין חוששין לו שמא נטרף אלא אומרים שמא בעצים ניזק..
FOOTNOTES
1.
Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 4:8-9.
2.
All the 70 conditions the Rambam mentions in Chapter 10 are included in these eight general categories.
3.
These terms are defined in this and the following chapters.
4.
And thus all are judged with the severity appropriate for questions of Scriptural Law.
5.
Exodus 22:30 speaks of "meat torn apart in the field."
6.
The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 29) questions the Rambam's statements, for since these other conditions are considered questions of Scriptural Law, whenever a doubt arises, we rule stringently. The Turei Zahav 29:1 explains that the severity involving derisah concerns a sefek seifkah, a condition of multiple doubt. See also the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh which offers several resolutions to this question.
7.
As will be explained in the following halachot, the laws of derisah do not concern only the wounds to the victim's organs that the attacking animal causes. Instead, the concern is that even a superficial wound can cause the victim to die, because there is poison in the attacker's claws that will affect the victim. (Exactly, what that means in contemporary terms is difficult to understand. Some have suggested that the attacker's claws are infected with bacteria which could be considered comparable to poison. That explanation, however, cannot be easily resolved with some of the points in the subsequent halachot.)
The intent of this and the following halachah is that "the poison" of certain animals or fowl is effective in harming some and not in harming others.
8.
An ox.
9.
If, however, it is attacked by smaller animals of prey, even a tiger, we assume that its strength will enable it to defend itself (Kessef Mishneh). The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 57:1) follows a more stringent opinion which rules that the laws of derisah apply when any predator larger than a wolf attacks a large animal.
10.
A sheep or a goat.
11.
We have quoted the definition of this term given by Rashi. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bava Batra 2:5), the Rambam defines the term in Arabic as alnamas, a small predator.
12.
See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:5) which discusses the question whether leniency can be granted when a cat enters a chicken coop.
13.
For it can harm fowl larger than itself.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:3) qualifies this matter, saying that these laws do not apply when a hawk attacks a chicken. The Tur and the Rama, however, state that this applies only to large chickens, but not to smaller ones.
14.
Here also, the Tur and the Rama (loc. cit.) add a further point, stating that the laws of derisah apply with regard to a falcon regardless of the size of the bird it attacks.
15.
Compare to the following halachah. The Kessef Mishneh explains that in this halachah, the Rambam is not concerned with the question of whether the attacker perforated one of the organs whose perforation disqualifies an animal. For if so, it would not have been necessary for the Rambam to mention derisah. If such an organ was perforated, even a large animal is disqualified. Instead, the intent is whether the "poison" of the attacker is sufficient to kill the victim.
16.
This refers to a beast. The laws of derisah apply, by contrast, when a fowl attacks with its feet (Turei Zahav 57:10; Siftei Cohen 57:19).
17.
Needless to say, if it delivers a mortal wound with its hindlegs, the victim is disqualified. Here, however, we are speaking about "poisoning" an animal through derisah and that applies only when it attacks with its foreleg and with its claws [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:6)].
18.
With regard to this and wounding with its legs, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states, "they are no different than a thorn," i.e., there is no question of "poison."
19.
For then it will not release its poison.
20.
For it releases its "poison" only when it withdraws its claws and only when it is alive.
For this same reason, if ritual slaughter is performed on the animal that is being attacked before the attacking animal removes its claws, the slaughtered animal is permitted [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:8)].
21.
As explained in the following halachah.
22.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:18) mentions a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if such an examination can be relied upon in the present age. The Rama rules that we should be stringent, not rely on the examination, and hence, declare any animal that was attacked - or there is a question whether it was attacked - forbidden.
23.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro explains that the fact that the flesh turns red indicates that the poison from the predator has penetrated the animal's flesh and will ultimately, cause the intestines to be perforated. The Kessef Mishneh questions, however, why the Rambam mentions only the intestines. Since - as mentioned in the previous halachah - it is necessary to inspect the entire body, seemingly (and indeed, the Tur rules accordingly), the same laws would apply if red marks were found on the flesh above any organ whose perforation can disqualify the animal. He explains that perhaps this is indeed the Rambam's intent and he mentions the intestines only because there are many disqualifying factors involved with them. Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:16), he quotes the Rambam's wording without emendation. The Siftei Cohen 57:38) quotes the Tur's ruling.
24.
Here also we assume that the poison will ultimately cause the organ below the flesh to become perforated (Kessef Mishneh).
25.
Here too the rationale is that once the poison has begun to have an effect, it will ultimately penetrate through and perforate the entire organ. There is, however, a difference between the signs and the other organs. With regard to the other organs, as soon as the flesh above the organ is affected, the animal is considered trefe. With regard to the signs, they themselves must be affected. It is possible to explain that the signs are tougher and more resilient than the other organs. Hence, the fact that the flesh above them is affected is no proof that they will also be affected (Kessef Mishneh).
26.
This applies even when a small portion of the windpipe becomes red. Although a perforation in the windpipe does not disqualify it unless it is the size of the majority of its cavity (Chapter 3, Halachah 23), we assume that the poison of the predator will ultimately cause such a perforation (Siftei Cohen 57:40).
27.
As mentioned in Halachah 8. As stated in the notes to that halachah, there are authorities - and this is the custom cited by the Rama - it is customary in the present era not to rely on this examination and to regard any animal that was attacked - or even if there is a doubt whether it was attacked - as trefe.
28.
An animal does not release its poison until the claw is removed (Halachah 7), and is this instance, it is implanted in the animal. We, nevertheless, disqualify it, for in this instance, we say that the animal released its poison when it lost its claw (Turei Zahav 57:21). Alternatively, we fear that it was also attacked with another claw and that claw was removed (Rambam LeAm).
29.
And the claw which had been implanted in the wall became stuck in it. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:14) emphasizes that this ruling is followed even if the claw is dried out (and thus is unlikely to have come from an animal recently).
30.
And that is why they are clamoring.
31.
The Rama 57:9 states that this applies when we do not see that he attacked others. If, however, we see that he attacked others, we do not assume that his rage subsided.
32.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:11) states that this applies only when we see that he did not attack any animals. If, however, we saw an attack, the fact that he and the victims were silent is not significant.
33.
For there is a multiple doubt involved. Perhaps the predator entered and perhaps it did not. Even if it entered, perhaps it wounded the animal and perhaps it did not (see Chullin 53b).
34.
I.e., it scratched itself and caused itself a wound. We must, however, check to see that the gullet was not perforated (Radbaz). The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 57:13) states in the present age we do not rely on our inspection and therefore forbid any fowl that comes to us with a neck that is bleeding.
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class
Friday, Tevet 18, 5778 · 05 January 2018
"Today's Day"
Shabbat, Tevet 18, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vay'chi, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 88-89.
Tanya: Ch. 11. "One is (p. 43)...hovers the Shechinah."
The one called for the last aliya (concluding each Book of the Chumash), also says chazak chazak venit'chazeik (as does the congregation).
In saying viyhi noam (p. 116) on Saturday night, repeat the verse orech yamim...; but not at Shacharit (of Shabbat, p. 154).
When the Tzemach Tzedek was a boy and learned the passage, "Yaakov lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years,"1 his teacher translated according to the Baal Haturim commentary: "Our father Yaakov lived his seventeen best years in Egypt." When he returned home from Cheder he asked his grandfather, the Alter Rebbe: How can it be that our father Yaakov, the elect of the Patriarchs, should have as the best years of his life the seventeen that he lived in Egypt, the land of corruption?2
The Alter Rebbe answered: It is written, "And Yehuda he sent before him to Yosef to give instructions for Goshen."3 The Midrash states, and Rashi quotes this, R. Nechemya said - to establish a house of study so Torah would be there and the tribes would study Torah. "To give instructions4 for Goshen" means (in a deeper sense), when one learns Torah he comes closer5 to The Al-mighty, may He be blessed, so even in Egypt it was true to say vay'chi - he lived.
FOOTNOTES
1.Bereishit 47:28.
2.See Rashi on Bereishit 12:19 and Vayikra 18:3.
3.Bereishit 46:28.
4.Lehorot (lit. "to teach") related to the word "Torah."
5."...comes closer...", related to the word "Goshen."
Daily Thought:
Bittersweet
There are two types of events in life: Good and very good. Sweet and bitter-sweet.
Sweet, because from each event in life we grow.
Bitter-sweet, because it is so painful to tear ourselves away from who we once were.
---
No comments:
Post a Comment