DAILY QUOTE:
Among the religions of the world there are various customs, and they do not all gather in the same house [of worship]. We, however, have but one G-d, one Torah, one law, one Kohen Gadol and one Sanctuary; yet you, two hundred and fifty men, all desire the High Priesthood! I, too, desire it!--Moses to Korach and his followers (Midrash Tanchuma on Numbers 16:10)
-------
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Pekudei, 6th Portion Exodus 40:17-40:27 with Rashi
• Chapter 40
17. It came to pass in the first month, in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the Mishkan was set up. יז. וַיְהִי בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן:
18. Moses set up the Mishkan, placed its sockets, put up its planks, put in its bars, and set up its pillars. יח. וַיָּקֶם משֶׁה אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן וַיִּתֵּן אֶת אֲדָנָיו וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת קְרָשָׁיו וַיִּתֵּן אֶת בְּרִיחָיו וַיָּקֶם אֶת עַמּוּדָיו:
19. He spread the tent over the Mishkan, and he placed the cover of the tent over it from above, as the Lord had commanded Moses. יט. וַיִּפְרֹשׂ אֶת הָאֹהֶל עַל הַמִּשְׁכָּן וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת מִכְסֵה הָאֹהֶל עָלָיו מִלְמָעְלָה כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה:
He spread the tent: They are the curtains of goat hair (Exod. 26:7, 36:14).
ויפרש את האהל: הן יריעות העזים:
20. He took and placed the testimony into the ark, put the poles upon the ark, and placed the ark cover on the ark from above. כ. וַיִּקַּח וַיִּתֵּן אֶת הָעֵדֻת אֶל הָאָרֹן וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת הַבַּדִּים עַל הָאָרֹן וַיִּתֵּן אֶת הַכַּפֹּרֶת עַל הָאָרֹן מִלְמָעְלָה:
the testimony: [I.e.,] the tablets [of the testimony].
את העדות: הלוחות:
21. He brought the ark into the Mishkan and placed the screening dividing curtain so that it formed a protective covering before the Ark of the Testimony as the Lord had commanded Moses. כא. וַיָּבֵא אֶת הָאָרֹן אֶל הַמִּשְׁכָּן וַיָּשֶׂם אֵת פָּרֹכֶת הַמָּסָךְ וַיָּסֶךְ עַל אֲרוֹן הָעֵדוּת כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה:
22. He placed the table in the Tent of Meeting on the northern side of the Mishkan, outside the dividing curtain. כב. וַיִּתֵּן אֶת הַשֻּׁלְחָן בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד עַל יֶרֶךְ הַמִּשְׁכָּן צָפֹנָה מִחוּץ לַפָּרֹכֶת:
on the northern side of the Mishkan: In the northern half of the width of the Temple [i.e., the Mishkan]. -[from Yoma 33b]
על ירך המשכן צפונה: בחצי הצפוני של רוחב הבית:
side: Heb. יֶרֶ, lit., thigh, as the Targum [Onkelos renders it]: צִדָּא, the side, like the thigh that is on a person’s side.
ירך: כתרגומו צדא, כירך הזה שהוא בצדו של אדם:
23. He set upon it an arrangement of bread before the Lord as the Lord had commanded Moses. כג. וַיַּעֲרֹךְ עָלָיו עֵרֶךְ לֶחֶם לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה:
24. He placed the menorah in the Tent of Meeting, opposite the table, on the southern side of the Mishkan. כד. וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת הַמְּנֹרָה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד נֹכַח הַשֻּׁלְחָן עַל יֶרֶךְ הַמִּשְׁכָּן נֶגְבָּה:
25. He kindled the lamps before the Lord as the Lord had commanded Moses. כה. וַיַּעַל הַנֵּרֹת לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה:
26. He placed the golden altar in the Tent of Meeting in front of the dividing curtain. כו. וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לִפְנֵי הַפָּרֹכֶת:
27. He made the incense go up in smoke upon it as the Lord had commanded Moses. כז. וַיַּקְטֵר עָלָיו קְטֹרֶת סַמִּים כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה:
He made the incense go up in smoke upon it: in the morning and in the evening, as it is said: “every morning when he sets the lamps in order [he shall make it go up in smoke]” (Exod. 30:7).
ויקטר עליו אהרון קטרת: שחרית וערבית, כמו שנאמר (שמות ל ז) בבקר בבקר בהיטיבו את הנרות וגו':
-------
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 135 - 139
• Chapter 135
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Name of the Lord; offer praise, you servants of the Lord-
2. who stand in the House of the Lord, in the courtyards of the House of our God.
3. Praise the Lord, for the Lord is good; sing to His Name, for He is pleasant.
4. For God has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel as His beloved treasure.
5. For I know that the Lord is great, our Master is greater than all supernal beings.
6. All that the Lord desired He has done, in the heavens and on earth, in the seas and the depths.
7. He causes mists to rise from the ends of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain; He brings forth the wind from His vaults.
8. It was He who struck down the firstborn of Egypt, of man and beast.
9. He sent signs and wonders into the midst of Egypt, on Pharaoh and on all his servants.
10. It was He who struck down many nations, and slew mighty kings:
11. Sichon, king of the Amorites; Og, king of Bashan; and all the kingdoms of Canaan.
12. And He gave their lands as a heritage, a heritage to His people Israel.
13. Lord, Your Name is forever; Lord, Your remembrance is throughout all generations.
14. Indeed, the Lord will judge on behalf of His people, and have compassion on His servants.
15. The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the product of human hands.
16. They have a mouth, but cannot speak; they have eyes, but cannot see;
17. they have ears, but cannot hear; nor is there breath in their mouth.
18. Like them will their makers become-all who trust in them.
19. House of Israel, bless the Lord; House of Aaron, bless the Lord;
20. House of Levi, bless the Lord; you who fear the Lord, bless the Lord.
21. Blessed is the Lord from Zion, who dwells in Jerusalem. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 136
This psalm contains twenty-six verses, corresponding to the twenty-six generations between the creation of the world and the giving of the Torah.
1. Praise the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is forever.
2. Praise the God of the supernal beings, for His kindness is forever.
3. Praise the Master of the heavenly hosts, for His kindness is forever.
4. Who alone performs great wonders, for His kindness is forever.
5. Who makes the heavens with understanding, for His kindness is forever.
6. Who spreads forth the earth above the waters, for His kindness is forever.
7. Who makes the great lights, for His kindness is forever.
8. The sun to rule by day, for His kindness is forever.
9. The moon and stars to rule by night, for His kindness is forever.
10. Who struck Egypt through its firstborn, for His kindness is forever.
11. And brought Israel out of their midst, for His kindness is forever.
12. With a strong hand and with an outstretched arm, for His kindness is forever.
13. Who split the Sea of Reeds into sections, for His kindness is forever.
14. And brought Israel across it, for His kindness is forever.
15. And cast Pharaoh and his army into the Sea of Reeds, for His kindness is forever.
16. Who led His people through the desert, for His kindness is forever;
17. Who struck down great kings, for His kindness is forever.
18. And slew mighty kings, for His kindness is forever.
19. Sichon, king of the Amorites, for His kindness is forever.
20. And Og, king of Bashan, for His kindness is forever.
21. And gave their land as a heritage, for His kindness is forever.
22. A heritage to Israel His servant, for His kindness is forever.
23. Who remembered us in our humiliation, for His kindness is forever.
24. And redeemed us from our oppressors, for His kindness is forever.
25. Who gives food to all flesh, for His kindness is forever.
26. Praise the God of heaven, for His kindness is forever.
Chapter 137
Referring to the time of the destruction of the Temple, this psalm tells of when Nebuchadnezzar would ask the Levites to sing in captivity as they had in the Temple, to which they would reply, "How can we sing the song of God upon alien soil?" They were then comforted by Divine inspiration.
1. By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat and wept as we remembered Zion.
2. There, upon the willows, we hung our harps.
3. For there our captors demanded of us songs, and those who scorned us-rejoicing, [saying,] "Sing to us of the songs of Zion.”
4. How can we sing the song of the Lord on alien soil?
5. If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget [its dexterity].
6. Let my tongue cleave to my palate if I will not remember you, if I will not bring to mind Jerusalem during my greatest joy!
7. Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites the day of [the destruction of] Jerusalem, when they said, "Raze it, raze it to its very foundation!”
8. O Babylon, who is destined to be laid waste, happy is he who will repay you in retribution for what you have inflicted on us.
9. Happy is he who will seize and crush your infants against the rock!
Chapter 138
David offers awesome praises to God for His kindness to him, and for fulfilling His promise to grant him kingship.
1. By David. I will thank You with all my heart, in the presence of princes I shall praise You.
2. I will bow toward Your Holy Sanctuary, and praise Your Name for Your kindness and for Your truth; for You have exalted Your word above all Your Names.
3. On the day that I called out You answered me, You emboldened me, [You put] strength in my soul.
4. Lord, all the kings of the land will give thanks to You when they hear the words of Your mouth.
5. And they will sing of the Lord's ways, for the glory of the Lord is great.
6. For though the Lord is exalted, He sees the lowly; the High One castigates from afar.
7. If I walk in the midst of distress, keep me alive; against the wrath of my enemies stretch out Your hand, and let Your right hand deliver me.
8. Lord, complete [Your kindness] on my behalf. Lord, Your kindness is forever, do not forsake the work of Your hands.
Chapter 139
A most prominent psalm that guides man in the ways of God as no other in all of the five books of Tehillim. Fortunate is he who recites it daily.
1. For the Conductor, by David, a psalm. O Lord, You have probed me, and You know.
2. You know my sitting down and my standing up; You perceive my thought from afar.
3. You encircle my going about and my lying down; You are familiar with all my paths.
4. For there was not yet a word on my tongue-and behold, Lord, You knew it all.
5. You have besieged me front and back, You have laid Your hand upon me.
6. Knowledge [to escape You] is beyond me; it is exalted, I cannot know it.
7. Where can I go [to escape] Your spirit? And where can I flee from Your presence?
8. If I ascend to the heavens, You are there; if I make my bed in the grave, behold, You are there.
9. Were I to take up wings as the dawn and dwell in the furthest part of the sea,
10. there, too, Your hand would guide me; Your right hand would hold me.
11. Were I to say, "Surely the darkness will shadow me," then the night would be as light around me.
12. Even the darkness obscures nothing from You; and the night shines like the day-the darkness is as light.
13. For You created my mind; You covered me in my mother's womb.
14. I will thank You, for I was formed in an awesome and wondrous way; unfathomable are Your works, though my soul perceives much.
15. My essence was not hidden from You even while I was born in concealment, formed in the depths of the earth.
16. Your eyes beheld my raw form; all [happenings] are inscribed in Your book, even those to be formed in future days-to Him they are the same.
17. How precious are Your thoughts to me, O God! How overwhelming, [even] their beginnings!
18. Were I to count them, they would outnumber the sand, even if I were to remain awake and always with You.
19. O that You would slay the wicked, O God, and men of blood [to whom I say], "Depart from me!”
20. They exalt You for wicked schemes, Your enemies raise [You] for falsehood.
21. Indeed, I hate those who hate You, Lord; I contend with those who rise up against You.
22. I hate them with the utmost hatred; I regard them as my own enemies.
23. Search me, Lord, and know my heart; test me and know my thoughts.
24. See if there is a vexing way in me, then lead me in the way of the world.
-------
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 32
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson Friday, Adar I 28, 5774 • February 28, 2014
Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 32
וגם המקורבים אליו, והוכיחם ולא שבו מעונותיהם, שמצוה לשנאותם, מצוה לאהבם גם כן
Furthermore, even those whom one is enjoined to hate — for they are close to him, and he has rebuked them but they still have not repented of their sins — one is obliged to love them too.
But is it possible to love a person and hate him at the same time?
The Alter Rebbe explains that since the love and the hatred stem from two different causes, they do not conflict.
ושתיהן הן אמת: שנאה מצד הרע שבהם, ואהבה מצד בחינת הטוב שגנוז שבהם, שהוא ניצו׳ אלקות שבתוכם, המחיה נפשם האלקית
And both the love and the hatred are truthful emotions in this case, [since] the hatred is on account of the evil within them, while the love is on account of the good hidden in them, which is the divine spark within them that animates their divine soul. For this spark of G dliness is present even in the most wicked of one’s fellow Jews; it is merely hidden.
One may now be faced with the anomaly of a fellow-Jew whom he must both love and hate. But what attitude should he adopt toward the person as a whole who possesses both these aspects of good and evil?
When, for example, the sinner requests a favor of him, should his hatred dictate his response, or his love?
The Alter Rebbe goes on to say that one’s relationship with the sinner as a whole should be guided by love. By arousing one’s compassion for him, one restricts one’s own hatred so that it is directed solely at the evil within the sinner, not at the person himself.
וגם לעורר רחמים בלבו עליה, כי היא בבחינת גלות בתוך הרע מסטרא אחרא הגובר עליה ברשעים
One must also arouse compassion on [the divine soul of the sinner], for in the case of the wicked it is in exile within the evil of the sitra achra which dominates it.
והרחמנות מבטלת השנאה ומעוררת האהבה, כנודע ממה שכתוב: ליעקב אשר פדה את אברהם
Compassion banishes hatred and arouses love — as is known from the verse, 1 “Jacob, who redeemed Abraham.”
“Jacob” represents compassion, and “Abraham”, love. When “Abraham”, love, must be “redeemed”, i.e., brought out of concealment, it is “Jacob”, compassion, that accomplishes this redemption; for as said, compassion banishes hatred and arouses love.
ולא אמר דוד המלך עליו השלום: תכלית שנאה שנאתים וגו׳, אלא על המינים והאפיקורסים שאין להם חלק באלקי ישראל
(2As for the statement by King David, peace upon him: 3 “I hate them with a consummate hatred,” reserving no love for them whatsoever, this refers only to [Jewish] heretics and atheists who have no part in the G d of Israel,
כדאיתא בגמרא, ריש פרק ט״ז דשבת
as stated in the Talmud, beginning of ch. 16 of Tractate Shabbat.)
Any sinner who is not, however, a heretic, must not be hated with “a consummate hatred,” for the mitzvah of ahavat Yisrael embraces him as well.
——— ● ———
FOOTNOTES
1. Yeshayahu 29:22.
2. Parentheses are in the original text.
3. Tehillim 139:22.
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Adar I 28, 5774 • February 28, 2014
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 165
Resting on Yom Kippur
"[Yom Kippur] shall be a Sabbath of solemn rest for you"—Leviticus 16:31.
We are commanded to rest, by abstaining from creative work, on the tenth day of Tishrei—Yom Kippur.
Resting on Yom Kippur
Positive Commandment 165
Translated by Berel Bell
The 165th mitzvah is that we are commanded to refrain from the various categories of melachah1 and prohibited activities2 on this day [of Yom Kippur]
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,3 "It is a Sabbath of Sabbaths to you."
We have already explained many times4 that the term Shabbason indicates a positive commandment.5
FOOTNOTES
1.See first footnote in N320.
2.. Kapach, 5731, footnote 23 points out that the Arabic word, "ashgal" refers in this context to all other types of prohibited activity.
3.Lev. 16:31.
4.See P90, P135, P159, and P163.
5.Since this mitzvah prohibits melachah, it would seem to be a negative commandment. However, since the term "Shabbason" is used, the mitzvah is counted among the positive commandments.
________________________________________
Negative Commandment 329
Working on Yom Kippur
"And you shall do no work on that very day [of Yom Kippur]"—Leviticus 23:28.
We are forbidden to engage in any creative work on the tenth of Tishrei, Yom Kippur.
Working on Yom Kippur
Negative Commandment 329
Translated by Berel Bell
The 329th prohibition is that we are forbidden from performing melachah1 on Yom Kippur.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "Do not do any melachah [on this day, because it is a day of atonement]."
If one intentionally transgresses this commandment, the punishment is kores3 as explained in Scripture.4 If the act was unintentional, he must bring a sin-offering.5
The details of this commandment are explained in tractate Beitza6 and Megillah.7
FOOTNOTES
1.See first footnote in N320.
2.Lev. 23:28.
3.See Principle 14, where the Rambam defines kores as losing one's portion in the World to Come (unless the person does teshuvah before death). See also Hilchos Teshuvah, Chapter 8, Halachah. 1.
4.Lev. 23:30. "If one does any work on this day, I will destroy him [i.e. punish him with kores] from among his people."
5.See P69. This offering is called a "fixed sin-offering," to distinguish it from the offering of adjustable value (P72).
6.18b.
7.30b.
________________________________________
Positive Commandment 164
Fasting on Yom Kippur
"You shall afflict your souls"—Leviticus 16:29.
We are commanded to fast on the tenth of Tishrei, Yom Kippur. We afflict ourselves by abstaining from food and drink, the nourishment of the soul.
We are also commanded to refrain on Yom Kippur from bathing, applying creams or ointments, wearing [leather] shoes and engaging in marital relations.
Fasting on Yom Kippur
Positive Commandment 164
Translated by Berel Bell
Positive Commandment 165
The 164th mitzvah is that we are commanded to fast on the tenth of Tishrei [i.e. Yom Kippur].
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "You must afflict your lives."
The Sifra explains: "The expression 'You must afflict your lives' refers to 'affliction' that affects one's actual life. What is that? Eating and drinking."
The Oral Tradition2 explains that one must also refrain from bathing, anointing, wearing leather shoes, and engaging in marital relations.
The source that one must refrain from all these activities is the verse,3 "It is a Sabbath of Sabbaths to you, and you must afflict your lives." The verse says, "Sabbath of Sabbaths," to indicate that one must refrain [observe a "Sabbath"] from the various categories of melachah4 and prohibited activities, and that one must refrain [observe a "Sabbath"] from those things which nourish and sustain the body. The Sifra says, "What is the source that bathing, anointing, and marital relations are forbidden on Yom Kippur? From the verse, 'Sabbath of Sabbaths.' " This means that one must refrain [observe a "Sabbath"] from these activities in order to reach the state of affliction.5
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 16:29.
2.See Yoma 73a.
3.Lev. 16:31.
4.See P165.
5.Therefore the verse says, "It is a Sabbath of Sabbaths to you, and you must afflict your lives": through making a "Sabbath" (i.e. refraining from these activities), one reaches a state of affliction.
________________________________________
Negative Commandment 196
Eating on Yom Kippur
"For any soul that shall not be afflicted... shall be cut off..."—Leviticus 23:29.
It is forbidden to eat on the tenth of Tishrei, Yom Kippur.
Eating on Yom Kippur
Negative Commandment 196
Translated by Berel Bell
The 196th prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating on Yom Kippur.
There is no verse in the Torah that explicitly prohibits this act.1 However, since the punishment – that one who eats is punished by kores – is mentioned, we know that eating is counted as a prohibition.
The source which describes the punishment is G‑d's statement,2 "If anyone does not fast on this day, he shall be punished by kores."
In the beginning of Tractate Kerisus, all those who are punished by kores are listed, and one who eats on Yom Kippur is listed among them. It also explains that all mitzvos which are punishable by kores are prohibitions, except for the Pesach sacrifice and circumcision. Therefore, clearly eating on Yom Kippur counts as a prohibition.
Therefore, if one intentionally transgresses this commandment, the punishment is kores, and if the act was unintentional, he must bring a sin-offering, as explained in the beginning of Tractate Kerisus.
This [i.e. that eating on Yom Kippur counts also as a prohibition] is also explained in the Tractate Horiyos,3 which rules that one is required to bring a sin-offering only if one violates a prohibition. The proof for this is G‑d's statement4 (may He be exalted and elevated) regarding those who are required to bring a sin-offering, "[And they violate] one of the prohibitory commandments of G‑d."
The Sifra says5: "The verse, 'If anyone does not fast on this day, he shall be punished by kores", describes the punishment for not fasting. However, we do not have a verse to serve as the actual prohibition.
But [there is an "extra" verse that serves as the actual prohibition;] we do not really need a verse to tell you the punishment for doing melachah on Yom Kippur, because we could derive it from the following kal vechomer:6 if for the prohibition of fasting, which [applies only on Yom Kippur, and] not on Shabbos and holidays, one receives punishment, then certainly for the prohibition of melachah, which applies on holidays and Shabbos [and is therefore more strict] one should receive punishment. If so, why is there a verse stating the punishment for doing melachah? From it we learn the actual prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur: just as the punishment for melachah follows its prohibition, so too the punishment for eating follows its prohibition."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in Tractate Yoma.
FOOTNOTES
1.The rule is that every prohibition has one verse which tells you that the act is prohibited, and another verse which gives the punishment for the transgression. (See N195.) Regarding not eating on Yom Kippur, the only apparent verse is the one describing the punishment. The Rambam therefore first explains how we know that eating on Yom Kippur counts as a prohibition, and then explains which verse tells us the actual prohibition.
2.Lev. 23:29.
3.See Rambam's Commentary on the Mishneh, Ch. 2, Mishneh 4.
4.Lev. 4:13.
5.After having established that not eating on Yom Kippur must be a prohibition, the Rambam now quotes the Sifra, which identifies the verse that serves as the actual prohibition itself.
6.This general principle of the Oral Tradition allows one to generalize from one case to a more obvious one. Here, since the less serious prohibition (eating on Yom Kippur) is punished by kores, certainly the more serious prohibition (doing melachah on Yom Kippur) would punished by kores, even if the verse regarding melachah (Lev. 23:30, N329 above) would not have been written.
-------
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter: Hilchot Nizkei Mammon Chapter Four
Chapter Four
1. When a person gathers sheep in a corral and locks them in with a gate that can withstand an ordinary wind, and [yet the sheep were able to] leave and cause damage, the owner is not liable.1 If [the gate] cannot withstand an ordinary wind or if the walls of the corral are shaky, [the owner] is not considered to have enclosed [the sheep] in a proper manner. [Thus, if they are able to] leave and cause damage, he is liable.2
Even if [the sheep] dug beneath [the gate3 to] get out, [the gate] was broken at night,4 or thieves broke it down, the owner of the sheep is liable [for the damage his sheep cause].5
If, however, the gate was strong and it was broken at night or thieves broke in, and then [the sheep] departed and caused damage, [the owner] is not liable.6 If the thieves took the sheep out and then they caused damage, the thieves are liable.
2. [The following rules apply when] a person breaks down a fence in front of an animal belonging to a colleague. If the fence was strong and sturdy, he is liable.7 If the wall was shaky, he cannot be held liable according to mortal law,8 but he has a moral obligation.
Similarly, if a person places poison in front of an animal belonging to a colleague, he cannot be held liable according to mortal law,9 but he has a moral obligation.10
3. When a person brings an animal belonging to a colleague to crops belonging to a third individual, the person who brought the animal there is liable.11
Similarly, if a colleague hit an animal with a switch until it walked to crops belonging to a third individual, the person who switched it is liable.
4. When a person entrusts his animal to an unpaid watchman, a paid watchman, a renter or a borrower, these individuals assume the owner's responsibilities. If [the animal] causes damages, the watchman is held liable.
When does the above apply? When he did not guard the animal at all. If, however, he guarded the animal in an excellent manner, as he should,12 and it got loose and caused damage, the watchman is not liable, and the owners are liable, even if the animal kills a human being.13
Should the watchman guard the animal in an inferior manner,14 he is not held liable if he is an unpaid watchman.15 If he is a paid watchman, a renter or a borrower, he is held liable.16
5. If [a person] leaves an animal in the sun and it gets loose and causes damage, even if it must dig [under the fence to do so], the one who left it in the sun is liable. [The rationale is that because of] the discomfort [the animal] feels, it will do anything it possibly can to flee.17
6. When [a person] gives his animal to a deaf mute, a mentally incompetent individual or a minor18 to watch, the owner is liable. [This applies] even if the ox is tied, for an ox - and similarly other [animals] - will break open the knot and go out and cause damage.19
Even if the animal was guarded in an excellent manner, and it dug [under the fence] and escaped and caused damage, the owners are liable.20
7. [The following rules apply when] a person entrusts his ox to five men, one of them was negligent, and the ox escaped and caused damage. If all five are required to guard the ox, the person who was negligent is liable.21 If the ox can still be watched by the others, they share in the liability.22
8. [The following rules apply if a person] borrowed an ox under the presumption that it was an ordinary ox, and it was discovered that it had already been classified as one that gores. If the borrower knew that it had a tendency to gore,23 the owners are required to pay half the damages, for wherever the ox goes, it remains the owner's property.24 The borrower is also required to pay half the damages, because even if it had been an ordinary ox, as he had thought, he would have been required to pay half the damages, for he knew that the ox had a tendency to gore.25
If, however, the borrower did not know of this tendency, he is not liable at all,26 and the owners must pay the entire amount of the damages.
9. When a borrower borrows an ox that is classified as an ordinary ox, and it becomes classified as a goring ox when in the possession of the borrower, it is removed from that category when it is returned to its owner. Since the domain [under which the animal is] changes, its classification also changes. [If the ox gores,] the owners must pay half the damages, and the borrower is not held liable at all, for he returned it to its owners.
10. When a watchman accepts responsibility only for watching the body of an animal [entrusted to him], but [does not accept responsibility] for the damage it causes, if [the animal] causes damage the watchman is not held liable, and its owners are.27
If [the watchman] accepted responsibility [only] for the damages [the animal] causes, he is liable if it causes damage. If it is injured, the watchman is not liable, and the owners should sue the person who caused the injury.
11. When a watchman entrusts [an animal] to another watchman, [and it causes damage], the first watchman is liable to pay the person whose property was damaged. For whenever one watchman delegates [an entrusted object] to another watchman, he is liable.28 For the person whose property was damaged will tell him: "Why didn't you watch it yourself instead of delegating it to someone else? Pay me yourself, and sue the watchman to whom you delegated it."
If, however, the watchman entrusted [the animal] to his son, a member of his household or one of his helpers, they assume the responsibility that was the watchman's, and they are liable.29
12. [The following rule applies when] a watchman is liable to pay [for the damages an animal caused], but he is insolvent. If the animal that caused the damage is considered to be an ordinary animal, in which case half the damages must be paid from the body of the animal itself, the person whose property was damaged should take his due from the animal, and the sum that he collects should be considered to be a debt owed by the watchman to the owner of the animal.30
13. Whenever an animal causes damage to crops that are growing, the damage is assessed by comparison with a field sixty times the size of the crops that were damaged. The one who is liable - either the owner or the watchman - is obligated to pay that sum.31
What is implied? If [an animal] ate the amount of produce that would grow when a se'ah [of seeds] were sown in that field, we calculate the worth of an area in which sixty se'ah [of seeds] could be sown in that field, [evaluating] how much it would be worth [before the animal ate from it] and how much it is worth now. [The owner or the watchman] is liable for the remainder.
Similarly, if the animal ate an amount of produce that would grow when a kav or a quarter of a kav were sown - [or even if it ate] one stalk of grain - the damages are assessed by comparison with a field sixty times the size of the crops that were damaged.
14. When, [by contrast,] an animal ate fruit that ripened and no longer needed [the nurture of] the land, [the owner of the animal is required to] pay the full value of ripe produce. If [the animal ate] a se'ah, he must pay for a se'ah. If [it ate] two se'ah, he must pay for two se'ah.
[The following laws apply if an animal] ate the fruit of one date palm, or a person gathered the fruit of a colleague's date palm and ate it. If it was a Roman date palm, whose fruit is not of very high quality, it should be measured in comparison with a orchard of date palms sixty times the size of its land. If it was a Persian date palm or the like, whose fruit is of very high quality, the date palm should be evaluated individually. An assessment should be made of its worth before the fruit was eaten and its worth after the fruit was eaten.
FOOTNOTES
1. For he has done all that could be expected of him to watch his sheep.
2. For he is considered to be negligent.
3. If, however, they dug under another part of the corral, the owner is not liable, for their exit has nothing to do with his negligence (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 396:1).
4. If the walls were broken during the day, and the owner did not fix them, he is considered to be negligent.
5. Although the damage is considered to have been caused by forces beyond the owner's control, since this damage was preceded by acts of negligence on the part of the owner, he is liable. See Chapter 2, Halachah 15.
6. The damage is considered to have been caused by forces beyond the owner's control. Even if the owner is informed that the gate to his corral was broken at night, he is not obligated to fix it until the following day (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:2).
7. The Ra'avad and the Tur maintain that the person who broke the fence is not liable unless he leads the animal out. The Rambam's ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 396:3), while the Ramah cites the other views.See the Maggid Mishneh, who questions the difference between this law and the previous one, which states that thieves are not liable unless they actually take the animal out of the corral.
8. Since the owner is considered negligent in leaving the fence shaky, he is held liable for the damage the animal caused. Needless to say, the person who broke the wall down is liable for the damage to the wall, even though it was shaky.
9. He is considered to have been merely an indirect cause (grama).
10. See Chapter 2, Halachah 19.
11. He is considered to be a direct cause of the damage.
12. I.e., enclosing it behind a gate capable of withstanding winds of unusual force.
13. The wording of this halachah has raised questions for there is an obvious difficulty: If the watchmen guarded the animal in an excellent manner, why is the owner liable? The Maggid Mishneh explains that the liability refers only to damage caused by the animal by goring. (See Chapter 7, Halachah 1.) The Kessef Mishneh refers to a responsum purported to have been sent by the Rambam to the Sages of Lunil, which states that there was a printing error and the text should read: If, however, they guarded the animal in an excellent manner, as they should, and it got loose and caused damage, the watchman is not liable. If the watchman guarded the animal in an inferior manner, he is not held liable if he is an unpaid watchman. Instead, the owners are liable, even if the animal kills a human being. The watchman is held liable if he is a paid watchman, a renter or a borrower.In his Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 396:8), Rav Yosef Karo quotes the interpretation of the Maggid Mishneh. The Sefer Me'irat Einayim 396:18 questions this, referring to Karo's Kessef Mishneh.
14. Enclosing it behind a gate capable of withstanding ordinary winds.
15. For an unpaid watchman is not expected to take as thorough care of an animal as a paid watchman. See, however, note 13.
16. Such watchmen are expected to watch the animal in a thorough manner.
17. The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 396:5) state that even if the person tied the animal with a strong rope, he is liable if it breaks loose in these circumstances.
18. All of these three types of people are considered mentally incompetent. They are not responsible for their actions, and the owner is considered negligent for charging them with watching his animal.
19. The owner is considered negligent because these individuals will frequently play with the rope, and by doing so loosen the knot, enabling the animal to break free.
20. Although escaping in this manner is considered to be a factor beyond the owner's control, since he was originally negligent in entrusting the animal to a mentally incompetent person, he must bear the consequences.The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling. It is, however, accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 396:6).
21. For the damage is due to his negligence.
22. For had they not been negligent as well, the ox would not have escaped. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 396:7) appears to favor the Rambam's ruling, it also quotes the opinion of the Tur, which states that the person who is negligent shares the liability only when the others tell him that because of his negligence, they are withdrawing their responsibility. Otherwise, it is they who are liable, and not he.
23. But did not know that it had been placed in the category of a goring ox.
24. I.e., when an animal is sold, its status is changed with the change in ownership. (See Chapter 6, Halachah 6.) This, however, does not apply when it is merely borrowed (Kessef Mishneh).
25. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, explaining that it applies only when the court takes possession of the ox.
26. For it is more difficult to guard an ox that has a tendency to gore, and the borrower did not accept this responsibility.
27. The Rambam's statements imply that if the watchman makes no specific statement with regard to whether or not he is responsible for the damages the animal causes, he is liable for the damage it causes (Maggid Mishneh). The Ra'avad understands the Rambam as making such an implication, and he objects, maintaining that the watchman should not be held liable. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 396:8) follows the Maggid Mishneh's conception. They maintain that the principle followed by the Rambam should be accepted with the exception of a goring ox.
28. The first watchman is considered negligent in entrusting it to a second watchman (even if an unpaid watchman entrusts it to a paid watchman). Therefore, the first watchman is liable, even in an instance when the object was destroyed by forces beyond the second watchman's control.
29. The rationale is that a watchman will frequently delegate an entrusted article to these individuals. The owner should have taken this into account when he entrusted the article to the watchman at the outset.
30. If the animal was already classified as prone to cause damages, this law would not apply, because the obligation would rest solely on the watchman's person. When, however, the animal is not placed in that category, since its own body is on lien for the damages, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 7, it is expropriated in lieu of payment.
31. Since the produce was growing, it would be unfair for the person whose animal caused the damages to be required to pay for it as if it were harvested fruit that was damaged. Instead, one considers the damaged crops as a part in a larger whole, thus reducing the amount of the damages. A compromise is accepted that takes in consideration the positions of both the owner of the land and the owner of the animal.The produce is not evaluated individually, for this would inflate the amount of damages paid. Nor is its share evaluated in comparison with the entire field, for then the amount of damages would be unfairly low. Instead, it is evaluated when compared with an area sixty times its size as explained.A se'ah is six kabbin. A kab is 1.376 kilograms according to Shiurei Torah. Thus a se'ah is 8.256 kilograms. The area where a se'ah of seeds would be sown is 50 cubits by 50 cubits.
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Shevitat Asor Chapter One, Shevitat Asor Chapter Two, Shevitat Asor Chapter Three
Chapter One
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment1 to refrain from all work on the tenth [day] of the seventh month2, as [Leviticus 16:31] states: "It shall be a Sabbath of Sabbaths3 for you." Anyone who performs a [forbidden] labor negates the observance of [this] positive commandment and violates a negative commandment4, as [Numbers 29:7] states, "You shall not perform any labor."
What liability does a person incur for performing a [forbidden] labor on this day? If he performs [the forbidden labor] willfully, as a conscious act of defiance,5 he is liable for karet.6If he performs [the forbidden labor] inadvertently, he is liable to bring a sin offering whose nature is fixed.7
Halacha 2
All the [forbidden] labors8 for which one is liable to be executed by stoning for performing on the Sabbath cause one to be liable for karet if performed on the tenth [of Tishrei].9 Any activity that incurs the obligation of a sin offering on the Sabbath incurs the obligation of a sin offering on Yom Kippur.
Any activity that is forbidden to be performed on the Sabbath10- although it is not a forbidden labor - is forbidden to be performed on Yom Kippur. If one performs such an act, one is punished by stripes for rebellion, as one is punished [for performing the same act] on the Sabbath.11
Whatever is forbidden to be carried on the Sabbath is forbidden to be carried on Yom Kippur.12 Whatever is forbidden to be said or done at the outset on the Sabbath is likewise forbidden on Yom Kippur.13 The general principle is that there is no difference between the Sabbath and Yom Kippur14 in this regard, except that a person who willfully performs a forbidden labor on the Sabbath is liable for execution by being stoned to death, and on Yom Kippur [such an act warrants merely] karet.
Halacha 3
It is permitted to trim a vegetable on the day of Yom Kippur from mid-afternoon15 onward.16 What is meant by trimming a vegetable? To remove the wilted leaves, and to cut the others to prepare them for consumption. Similarly, it is permitted to crack open nuts and to open pomegranates on Yom Kippur from mid-afternoon onward. [These leniencies were granted] so that one will not endure hardship.17
When Yom Kippur falls on the Sabbath, it is forbidden to trim vegetables and open nuts and pomegranates the entire day.18 It has already become the universally accepted custom in Babylon and in North Africa not to perform these activities during the fast.19Instead, [Yom Kippur is observed] as the Sabbath is with regard to all its particulars.
Halacha 4
There is another positive commandment on Yom Kippur, to refrain from eating and drinking, as [Leviticus 16:29] states: "You shall afflict your souls." According to the Oral Tradition, it has been taught: What is meant by afflicting one's soul? Fasting.20
Whoever fasts on this day fulfills a positive commandment.21 Whoever eats or drinks on this day negates the observance of [this] positive commandment and violates a negative commandment22, as [ibid. 23:29] states, "Any soul that does not afflict itself will be cut off." Since the Torah punishes a person who does not fast with karet, we can derive from this that we are forbidden to eat and drink on this day.23
A person who eats or drinks inadvertently on this day is liable to bring a sin offering of a fixed nature.
Halacha 5
Similarly, according to the Oral Tradition, it has been taught that it is forbidden to wash, anoint oneself, wear shoes, or engage in sexual relations on this day.24 It is a mitzvah to refrain from these activities in the same way one refrains from eating and drinking.
This is derived from [the exegesis of the expression,] "A Sabbath of Sabbaths." "A Sabbath" implies refraining from eating; "of Sabbaths," refraining from these activities.25
One is liable, however, for karet or a sin offering only for eating and drinking. If one washes, anoints oneself, wears shoes, or engages in sexual relations, one receives stripes for rebelliousness.
Halacha 6
Just as [the obligation to] refrain from work applies both during the day and at night, so too, [the obligation to] refrain from [these activities and thus to] afflict oneself applies both during the day and at night.
It is obligatory to add [time]26 from the mundane to the sacred at both the entrance and departure of the holiday, as [implied by ibid. 23:32]: "And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth of the month in the evening."27 [Since the date of the fast is the tenth,] the intent is [obviously] that one begin fasting and afflicting oneself in the afternoon of the ninth, which directly precedes the tenth.
Similarly, at the departure [of the holiday], one should prolong the affliction slightly, [entering] the night of the eleventh, which follows the tenth, as [implied by ibid.]: "From evening to evening, you shall keep this day of refraining."
Halacha 7
When women eat and drink until nightfall, without knowing that we are obligated to add [time] from the weekday to the holiday, they should not be rebuked,28 lest they perform [the transgression] willfully. It is impossible for there to be a policeman in every person's house to warn his wives. Thus, it is preferable to let [the situation] remain [as it is], so that they will transgress unintentionally, instead of intentionally. The same [principle] applies in other similar instances.29
FOOTNOTES
1.Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 165) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 317) both include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
2.I.e., Tishrei, which is the seventh month when reckoning from Nisan.
3.Shabbat 24b states that the word shabbaton, literally, "a day of rest," implies a positive mitzvah.
4.This is also considered to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah [Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 329) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 315)].
5.The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1510) notes that the Rambam uses the expression "willingly, as a conscious act of defiance" with regard to the transgressions of idolatry (Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 3:1), the Sabbath laws (Hilchot Shabbat 1:1), and the laws of Yom Kippur. With regard to all other transgressions punishable by כרת, the Rambam merely states "as a conscious act of defiance."
The Radbaz explains that it is possible that the Rambam mentioned the concept of "willingly" with regard to these three transgressions because they are the first cases of כרת mentioned in the Mishneh Torah. After mentioning the concept on these three occasions, he does not consider that further repetition is necessary.
6.כרת means "cut off." Mo'ed Katan 28a relates that a person liable for כרת would die prematurely, before reaching the age of fifty. The Rambam (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1) emphasizes that being "cut off in this world" is not the sum total of Divine retribution for such a transgression. In addition, the person's soul is also cut off and prevented from reaching the world to come.
7.The Rambam uses this term to differentiate the sin offering required here from a קרבן עולה ויורד - a guilt offering - which differs depending on the financial status of the person bringing it. (See Hilchot Shegagot 1:4.)
8.The 39 labors forbidden on the Sabbath are listed in Hilchot Shabbat 7:1 and explained in the subsequent chapters there. Unlike the holidays, on which the forbidden labors involved in the preparation of food are permitted, on Yom Kippur these activities are forbidden.
9.The Or Sameach notes that in contrast to the remainder of the halachah, in this instance the Rambam does not refer to the day with the name Yom Kippur. He explains that the name Yom Kippur, meaning "the day of atonement," is not relevant to a person who performs a forbidden labor on this day. Since the person acts in contrast to the holy nature of the day, he is not granted atonement.
10.The commentaries explain that this refers to the activities defined as sh'vut, which are forbidden by the Torah. The specification of which activities should be included in this category was, however, made subject to our Sages' definitions. (See Hilchot Shabbat, Chapters 21-23.)
11.See Hilchot Shabbat 1:3. (See Hilchot Edut 18:6 for a definition of this punishment.)
12.This refers to the laws of muktzeh mentioned in Hilchot Shabbat, Chapters 25-26.
13.This refers to the prohibitions mentioned in Hilchot Shabbat, Chapter 24, which are not associated with forbidden labors, but are prohibited in order to make the Sabbath distinct from the other days of the week.
14.On a theoretical basis, there are commentaries that take issue with the Rambam's statements, explaining that there is another difference. On the Sabbath, we follow the principle of chiluk melachot, that one can incur liability for every forbidden labor as a separate entity. Therefore, if a person inadvertently performed two different types of forbidden labor, he would have to bring two sin offerings.
These authorities maintain that on Yom Kippur (as on the holidays) this principle does not apply, and one is liable for only a single sin offering even when one inadvertently performs several types of forbidden labor. (See Sha'agat Aryeh, Responsum 70.)
15.Mid-afternoon refers to minchah katanah, 3:30 PM (according to seasonal hours).
16.Earlier it is forbidden, lest one eat from the vegetable. Nevertheless, by this late hour one is conscious that the evening is approaching and will refrain from breaking the fast (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 611:7).
17.The Maggid Mishneh explains that the intent is the hardship a person would suffer if he had to labor to prepare food at night after fasting the entire day.
18.So as not to distinguish between this and the other Sabbaths of the year, and thereby to emphasize that the leniency was granted only because of the fast (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 611:6).
19.Shabbat 115a relates that even in the time of the Talmud, this restriction was observed.
20.In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Yoma 8:1), the Rambam explains that since the connection between the body and the soul is established through nourishment, withholding such nourishment is considered an affliction to the soul. See Yoma 74b.
21.Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 164) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 313) both include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
22.This is also considered one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah [Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 196) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 316)].
23.It is an established tradition that there are only two positive commandments - circumcision and offering a Pesach sacrifice - whose lack of observance are punishable by karet. Therefore, the fact that eating on Yom Kippur is punishable by karet indicates that it violates a negative commandment [Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 196)].
24.In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Yoma 8:1), the Rambam explains that the Torah mentions the concept of afflicting oneself on Yom Kippur five times. As such, the Oral Tradition (Yoma 76a) explains that there are five different activities forbidden on that day and cites (ibid. 76a-77a) various allusions to these five prohibitions. The terms he uses for allusions, asmachta'ot, indicates that he does not view the four prohibitions other than eating and drinking as having the status of a Torah commandment.
Similarly, the punishment that he states should be given for these activities, "stripes for rebellion," is the punishment received for transgressing a Rabbinic commandment.
[It must be noted that this matter was a question on which the Rambam deliberated. For an early edition of his Commentary on the Mishnah states that one should receive lashes for performing these activities, indicating that, at that time, he saw them as forbidden by the Torah itself. Similarly, the Rambam's wording in Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.) appears to indicate that these prohibitions are forbidden by the Torah itself. This view is advanced by several authorities including Rabbenu Nissin, the Magen Avraham 611, and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 611:2.]
Based on the explanations above, it would appear that the term "according to the Oral Tradition" as used in this halachah has a different meaning from that in the previous halachah. In the previous halachah, the term denoted an interpretation of a verse in the Torah. Therefore, the prohibition was given the status of a Torah commandment. In this halachah, the term refers to a concept that has been transmitted through a chain of tradition extending back to Moses. Nevertheless, it is a decree that does not stem from a Biblical verse and is therefore considered to be Rabbinic in origin.
Other Rabbinic authorities (Rabbenu Asher and the Ashkenazic authorities) clearly state that the prohibitions against these other activities are Rabbinic in nature. Therefore, certain leniencies are granted in their regard, as reflected in Chapter 3, Halachah 1 (Kessef Mishneh).
25.The reference to the phrase "a Sabbath of Sabbaths" is taken from Yoma 74a. The interpretation is, however, the Rambam's.
Based on the concepts explained above - that the prohibition against the remaining four types of afflictions is Rabbinic in origin and is not based on the explanation of a verse in the Torah - the Ma'aseh Rokeach suggests amending the text to read, "'A Sabbath' from work; 'of Sabbaths' from these other matters." He supports this view by noting that in Halachah 1, the Rambam had cited this expression as a proof-text for the commandment to refrain from work on Yom Kippur.
26.The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 608:1) states that there is no limit to the amount of time one must add to the fast. This addition must, however, be made before (and after) beyn hash'mashot.
27.From the Rambam's citation of a proof-text, it is clear that the obligation to add time to the fast of Yom Kippur stems from the Torah itself. The Maggid Mishneh adds that the Rambam's wording indicates that the obligation to add "from the mundane to the sacred" - i.e., to include some of the previous day in the fast - applies only with regard to the prohibition against eating and drinking, but not to the prohibition against performing labor.
He mentions that other authorities do not share this opinion and maintain that this obligation applies also to the prohibition against work, and that it applies also on the Sabbath and on other holidays aside from Yom Kippur.
The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1486) differs with the Maggid Mishneh. Although he agrees that the fact that, in his discussion of the prohibition of labor on the Sabbath, the Rambam does not mention the need to add "from the mundane to the sacred" supports the Maggid Mishneh's view, he is reluctant to state that the Rambam differs with all the other authorities on this issue.
(See Likkutei Sichot, Vol. XV, which explains the difference between the two perspectives. If we derive the concept of adding "from the mundane to the sacred" from Yom Kippur, the obligation revolves around the person, a chiyuv gavra in yeshivah terminology. If, by contrast, the obligation is derived from the prohibition against working on the Sabbath, it is a function of the cheftza, a result of the atmosphere of Sabbath holiness that prevents labor from being performed.)
28.Shulchan Aruch HaRav 608:4 and the Mishnah Berurah 608:3 explain that this applies only when one is absolutely sure that the women will not accept the admonishment. If there is the possibility that they will accept the admonishment and modify their conduct, they should be admonished.
29.The Maggid Mishneh and the Ramah (Orach Chayim 608:2) explain that this refers to any prohibition that is not explicitly stated in the Torah, even if it has its source in the interpretation of one of the Torah's verses.
If, however, a prohibition is explicitly mentioned in the Torah, rebuke should be given even when one is certain that the person committing the transgression will not accept the reproof. Further laws governing the situations when and how rebuke should be given are mentioned in Hilchot De'ot 6:7-8.
Chapter Two
Halacha 1
On Yom Kippur, a person is liable for eating [an amount of] food that is fit for humans to eat1 and is equivalent to the size of a large ripe date2 - i.e., slightly less than the size of an egg.3 All foods [that one eats] are combined to produce this measure.
Similarly, one who drinks a cheekful of liquid fit to be drunk by humans is liable. The size of a cheekful is [not a standard measure,] but rather dependent on the size of the cheek of every individual.
What is meant by a cheekful? Enough [liquid] for a person to swish to one side of his mouth and for his cheek to appear full. For an ordinary person, this measure is less than a revi'it.4
All liquids [that one drinks] are combined to produce this measure. Foods and liquids are not combined in a single measure.5
Halacha 2
One is liable for karet for eating on Yom Kippur if one eats food that is fit for human consumption, regardless of whether it is permitted or forbidden.6 [This includes] piggul,7 notar,8 tevel,9 the flesh of an animal that died without ritual slaughter, the flesh of an animal that is trefah,10 fat, or blood.11
Halacha 3
If a person eats or drinks less than the above-mentioned measures, he is not liable for karet. Although the Torah forbids partaking of less than the measure [for which punishment is given], one is not liable for karet unless [one partakes of] that measure.12
A person who eats or drinks less than the minimal measure is given "stripes for rebellion."
Halacha 4
[The following rules apply when] a person eats a small amount, [pauses,] and eats again: If the time from when he begins eating until he concludes eating is less than the time it takes to eat an amount of bread and relish equal in size to three eggs, [the food that he eats] is included in the same measure.13 If not, it is not included in the same measure.14
[Similar rules apply when] a person drinks, [pauses,] and drinks again: If the time from when he begins drinking until he concludes drinking is less than the time it takes to drink a revi'it,15 [the liquid that he drinks] is included in the same measure. If not, it is not included in the same measure.
Halacha 5
When a person eats foods that are not fit for human consumption - e.g., bitter herbs or foul-tasting syrups - or drinks liquids that are not fit to to be drunk - e.g., fish brine, pickle brine16 or undiluted vinegar - he is not liable for karet17 even if he eats or drinks a substantial amount. He should, however, be given "stripes for rebellion."
Halacha 6
A person who drinks vinegar mixed with water is liable. One who chews dried pepper, dried ginger, or the like is not liable. [If, however, one chews] fresh ginger, one is liable.18
A person who eats the leaves of the vine is not liable,19 but one who eats the buds of the vine is liable.20 What is meant by the buds of the vine? The buds that have sprouted in Eretz Yisrael from Rosh HaShanah until Yom Kippur. If they sprouted earlier, they are considered as wood, and the person is not liable. The same rules apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 7
When a person eats roast meat that has been salted, the salt is included in the mass of the meat.21 Similarly, brine on a vegetable is included,22 because condiments that make food fit to be eaten and are mixed together with the food are considered to be part of the food.
If a person was already sated [because he] had overeaten to the extent that he was jaded by food, and then ate more,23 he is not liable. It is comparable to a person who eats food that is not fit for consumption. Although this additional amount is fit to be eaten by a person who is hungry, it is not fit for a person who is sated to this extent.24
Halacha 8
When a person who is dangerously ill25 asks to eat on Yom Kippur, he should be fed26 because of his request until he says, "It is enough,"27 even though expert physicians say that it is unnecessary.28
When the sick person says that it is unnecessary for him to eat,29 and a physician says that it is necessary, he should be fed according to [the physician's] instructions, provided the physician is an expert.30
When one physician says that it is necessary [for a sick person to eat], and another physician says that it is unnecessary, the person should be fed. If several physicians say that it is necessary [for a sick person to eat], and other physicians say that it is unnecessary, [the ruling] follows the majority, or those with the most expertise.31 [This applies] provided the sick person does not himself say that it is necessary [for him to eat]. If, however, he makes such a statement, he should be fed.
If the sick person does not say that he must [eat], the physicians were divided on the issue, they were all experts, and an equal number took each side, he should be fed.
Halacha 9
When a pregnant woman smells food, [and is overcome by desire for it,] we should whisper in her ear that today is Yom Kippur.32If this reminder is sufficient to calm her senses, it is desirable; if not, she should be fed until her desire ceases.
Similarly, if a person is overcome by ravenous hunger,33 he should be fed until he sees clearly. He should be fed immediately, even if it necessitates giving him non-kosher meat34 or [meat from a] loathsome species.35 We do not require that he wait until permitted food becomes available.
Halacha 10
[From the time] a child is nine or ten years old36 [onward], he should be trained [to fast] for several hours. What is implied? If he is used to eating two hours after daybreak, he should be fed in the third hour. If he is used [to eating] after three hours, he should be fed in the fourth. According to the child's stamina, we should add hours to his anguish.
When a child is eleven years old, whether male or female,37 it is a Rabbinic ordinance that he complete his fast so that he be trained in [the observance of] the mitzvot.
Halacha 11
A female who is twelve years old and one day38 and a male who is thirteen years old and one day, who manifest [signs of physical maturity - i.e.,] two [pubic] hairs, are considered to be adults with regard to [the observance of] all the mitzvot, and are obligated to complete their fast according to the Torah. If, however, they did not manifest [signs of physical maturity], they are still considered to be minors, and are obligated to complete their fast only by virtue of Rabbinic decree.39
A child who is less than nine years old should not be afflicted at all on Yom Kippur, lest this lead to danger.40
FOOTNOTES
1.If, however, the foods are not fit for human consumption, different rules apply. (See Halachah 5.)
2.Although most prohibitions against forbidden foods involve a smaller measure - a k'zayit (the size of an olive) - an exception is made in this instance, because a person's appetite will not be sated if he eats an amount of food smaller than the size of a date. In contrast to the measure for drinking, this is a standard measure, regardless of a person's size (Yoma 80a).
3.According to Shiurei Torah an egg is 57.6 cubic centimeters; according to Chazon Ish (when the smaller measure is more stringent), it is 41 cubic centimeters. Thus, the size of a date would be a slightly smaller figure. The laws regarding eating less than this amount are mentioned in Halachah 3.
4.The commentaries interpret this to mean slightly less than a revi'it. Note, however, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 271:13), which states that this measure is slightly more than half a revi'it with regard to the laws of kiddush. (Note the comments of the Be'ur Halachah 271.)
5.For this will sate neither one's appetite nor one's thirst (Yoma 81a).
6.For even forbidden food will sate one's hunger (Rabbenu Manoach).
7.A sacrifice that was offered with the intent that it - or any of its sacred elements - be offered on the altar or eaten at a time when it is forbidden to be eaten; e.g., a peace offering the blood of which one thought to have poured on the altar at nightfall, or to have its flesh consumed on the third day after its sacrifice (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 13:1).
8.Sacrificial meat that was left over past the time during which it is allowed to be eaten - e.g., a sin offering on the morning of the following day or a peace offering on the morning of the third day (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:10).
9.Produce from which the agricultural requirements of terumah and the tithes were not separated (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 10:19).
10.An animal that will not live longer than twelve months, because of a wound or blemish (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 4:6-8; Hilchot Shechitah 5:1).
11.By eating from this prohibited food on Yom Kippur, one violates two prohibitions: the consumption of the prohibited food and eating on Yom Kippur (Merkevet HaMishneh). See Hilchot Shegagot 6:4 and the conclusion of Chapter 14 of Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot.
12.Since the substance that he is eating is forbidden, it is merely lacking in quantity (Rabbi Yochanan's view, Yoma 74a).
13.Our translation is based on the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Tu'mat Tzara'at 16:6.
Whenever the Torah mentions a prohibition - and similarly, a mitzvah - that involves eating, the intent is that the person partake of a minimum measure within a specific time. The standard time for all prohibitions (and mitzvot) is כדי אכילת פרס, which the Rambam defines as the time it takes to eat the above amount. [There are opinions that state an amount of bread equivalent to four eggs (Maggid Mishneh). This opinion is mentioned in the notes on Halachah 8.]
In time, כדי אכילת פרס is defined as six minutes by the Tzemach Tzedek in one place and seven minutes in another (Sha'ar HaMiluim, sec. 9). Other opinions mention nine minutes, 8, 7 1/2, 6, 5, 4 1/2, 4. (See Ketzot HaShulchan 3:15.)
14.And it is considered as if the person ate less than the minimum measure. For this reason, as mentioned in the notes on Halachah 8, when a person must eat on Yom Kippur, there are times when at first he is given less than the minimal amount, his eating is interrupted, and then he is given less than the minimal amount again, so as to minimize the extent of his transgression.
15.I.e., the amount of time it takes to drink a revi'it leisurely (Radbaz, Vol. V, Responsum 1554). This is, nevertheless, a much smaller measure than the amount of time it takes to eat three eggs.
The Ra'avad (in his gloss on Hilchot Terumah 10:3) differs and states that even regarding drinking, the minimum measure is the amount of time it takes to eat three eggs. (Significantly, the source on which his opinion is based, Keritot 13a, is cited by the Rambam as halachah in Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTum'ah 8:11.)
Although the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 612:10) appears to favor the Rambam's view, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 612:15 and the Mishnah Berurah 612:31 suggest following the more stringent view.
16.Our translation is taken from Rav Kapach's translation of an Arabic term in his edition of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Yoma 8:2, Nedarim 6:4). In the latter source, the Rambam also states that the brine is sometimes made from fish. The Mishnah Berurah 612:28 renders the Hebrew term as referring to fat that exudes from a fish.
17.When describing the fast, Leviticus 23:29 uses the expression, "Every soul that will not afflict itself shall be cut off." Eating food that is not fit for human consumption is also a form of affliction. Hence, one is not liable for punishment (Rabbenu Manoach).
18.From the fact that the text mentions only fresh ginger, and not fresh peppers, the Maggid Mishneh states that one might infer that one is not liable for eating fresh peppers. He differs with this conclusion and suggests amending the text based on the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Berachot 8:7. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 612:8) also makes a distinction between fresh and dried peppers.
19.The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:7) quotes the version of Yoma 81b that we have, which states, "the leaves of reeds." The Rambam's wording is based on the version quoted by Rabbenu Chanan'el.
20.I.e., the leaves just as they emerge from the stem of the vine.
21.I.e., when calculating whether or not a person ate a quantity of food equivalent to the size of a date.
22.Although the brine is a liquid, and liquids and foods are not ordinarily combined (Halachah 1), since the brine is used to flavor the vegetable, it is considered to be a food (Yoma 80b).
23.The Rambam's wording requires some clarification. He is referring to a person who had overeaten before the commencement of Yom Kippur, and then despite being disgusted by food, continued to eat on Yom Kippur itself (Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 612:6). If a person began eating in the midst of the fast and then overate, he would be liable, because of the first morsels of food that he ate.
24.If, however, the person is not jaded with the taste of the food, e.g., because the food is prepared in a very flavorful manner, he is liable even though he overate.
25.Compare to Hilchot Shabbat 2:5, which explains that the classification "dangerously ill" means that "he has a wound in his body cavity, from his lips inward." Such a person does not need the assessment of a physician to determine whether or not the Sabbath should be violated on his behalf. In situations where the seriousness of the person's ailment is not as obvious, the Sabbath may be violated on his behalf based on a physician's pronouncement. Also, in this category is a women within three days after childbirth.
Significantly, when stating this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 618:1) mentions only "a sick person who must eat," without stating that he must be dangerously ill. The Be'ur Halachah emphasizes that in many instances, even mildly serious conditions can become life-threatening if the person fasts.
26.See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 5:6, which states that with the exception of the prohibitions against idol worship, murder, and incestuous or adulterous relations, any of the Torah's prohibitions may be violated to save a person's life. As mentioned in Hilchot Shabbat 2:1, even if there is a doubt regarding the matter, the Sabbath should be violated, and moreover, it should be the leaders of the people and the wise who violate the Sabbath on the sick person's behalf, so that the people at large will appreciate that this is the course of action that should be taken.
27.Significantly, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:7) mentions that when a sick person is fed on Yom Kippur, he should first be fed less than the size of a date within the amount of time it takes to eat four eggs (the more stringent view regarding the time of כדי אכילת פרס). If, however, that is not sufficient, the more lenient opinions concerning the measure of כדי אכילת פרס can be relied upon. If even that is not sufficient, the person should be fed in the normal manner.
28.The sick man's own opinion should followed, because "the heart knows the bitterness of his soul." Nevertheless, the person should be reminded that it is Yom Kippur. If he persists in his desire to eat, we assume that he does not desire to transgress, but cannot bear the fast (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 618:1; Mishnah Berurah 618:5).
29.This is speaking about a person who genuinely does not think that it is necessary for him to eat. It must be emphasized that the Rabbis frowned on the supposed "piety" of a sick person who knows that he should eat, but refrains from doing so because of the fast, and applied the verse (Genesis 9:5): "I will demand an account of the blood of your own lives" (Mishnah Berurah, loc. cit.). He should be forced to eat, even against his will.
30.The Mishnah Berurah 618:1 quotes opinions that state that a Jew need not be an expert physician to render such an opinion. Since he is aware of a threat to life and knows the seriousness of Yom Kippur, his view is accepted. A gentile, however, must be an expert physician for his view to be considered.
31.The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 618:4) differs and states that if two physicians say that the sick person should eat, their opinion should be followed. Since two physicians have made such a statement, no further risks should be taken with a person's life.
32.Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi gave this suggestion when asked regarding such a problem (Yoma 83a).
33.This refers to a sense of infirmity that overcomes a person because of lack of nourishment; he becomes, dizzy, faint, and unable to focus his eyes.
34.If all that is immediately available is non-kosher food, he should be fed food that involves a prohibition that is least severe first. [See Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 14:17, the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Yoma 8:4), and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 618:9). See the Noda BiY'hudah, Vol. I, Orach Chayim, Responsum 36, which focuses on this issue.]
35.The intent is non-kosher species. Even if their flesh is tasty, they are considered loathsome by Jewish law.
36.The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 616:2) explains that when a child's constitution is strong, his training to fast should begin at age nine. If he is weak, the training can be postponed a year.
37.The Ra'avad differs and maintains that since males and females reach maturity at different ages, that factor should be taken into account in this law. According to his view, a male child is not obligated to complete the fast until he is twelve, and a female must complete the fast at age eleven.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim, loc. cit.) quotes the Rambam's view. The Ramah mentions a third opinion, which does not require children to complete a fast at all. He states that when a child's constitution is weak, this view should be followed.
38.Even a fraction of a day is considered to be a day. Therefore, if a girl's birthday is on Yom Kippur, she is obligated to fast from her twelfth birthday onward.
39.In this instance, however, even a child with a weak constitution should make every effort to complete the fast. For it is possible that the child had pubic hairs, which would cause him or her to be considered to be an adult, but they fell off (Ramah, Orach Chayim 616:2).
40.Even if a child desires to fast, he should be prevented from doing so (Ramah, Orach Chayim, loc. cit.).
Chapter Three
Halacha 1
It is forbidden to wash on Yom Kippur,1 whether using hot or cold water.2 One may not wash one's entire body [at one time], nor any individual limb. It is even forbidden to immerse one's small finger in water.
A king and a bride may wash their faces:3 a bride so that she will not appear unattractive to her husband, and a king so that he will appear splendorous, as [Isaiah 33:17] states: "Your eyes shall behold the king in his splendor."4 Until when is a wife considered to be a "bride"? For thirty days.5
Halacha 2
When a person is soiled with filth or mud, he may wash off the dirt in an ordinary manner without reservation.6 [Similarly,] a woman may wash one hand in water and give a piece of bread to a child.7
A person who is ill may wash in an ordinary manner even though he is not dangerously ill. Similarly, all those who are obligated to immerse themselves [for the sake of ritual purity] should immerse themselves in an ordinary manner. This applies both on Tish'ah B'Av and on Yom Kippur.8
Halacha 3
[The following rules apply] in the present age9 when a man has a seminal emission on Yom Kippur: If it is still moist, he should wipe it off with a cloth; this is sufficient. If it is dry, or he has become soiled, he may wash the soiled portions of his body and pray.10 It is, however, forbidden for him wash his entire body or to immerse himself.
For a person who immerses himself in the present age is not ritually pure11 - [he is impure regardless - ] because of ritual impurity contracted from a human corpse.12 The practice of washing after a nocturnal emission before prayer in the present age is only a custom. And a custom may not nullify a prohibition; it may only prohibit that which is permitted.13
The statement that a person who had a seminal emission on Yom Kippur should immerse himself was applicable only [in the era] when it was required to immerse oneself after a seminal emission and, as explained, this ordinance has already been nullified.
Halacha 4
It is forbidden to sit on mud that is moist14 enough that if a person places his hand on it, sufficient moisture will rise up with it so that if he joins this hand to his other hand, the other hand will also become moist.15
A person should not fill an earthenware container with water and use it to cool himself, for the water permeates through its walls. It is even forbidden to use a metal container [for this purpose], lest water sprinkle on his flesh.16 It is permitted to cool off [by holding] fruit [against one's flesh].
Halacha 5
On the day preceding Yom Kippur, a person may take a handkerchief and soak it in water, wring it out slightly,17 and place it under clothes [so that it will not be exposed to the heat of the sun]. On the following day, he may wipe his face with it without any reservation,18 despite the fact that it is very cold.
Halacha 6
A person who is going to greet his teacher,19 his father,20 or someone who surpasses him in knowledge, and similarly, a person who is going to study in the House of Study, may pass through water21 that is neck-high22 without any reservation.23
[Moreover, after] he performs the mitzvah that he intended to perform, he may return to his home via the water. For if we did not allow him to return, he would not go, [and with this restriction, we would] thwart [his observance of] the mitzvah.
Similarly, a person who goes to guard his produce may pass through water that is neck-high without any reservation.24 These leniencies are granted], provided one does not extend his hands out from under the fringes of the garments, as one would do during the week.25
Halacha 7
It is forbidden to wear a [leather] shoe or a sandal,26 even on one foot. It is, however, permitted to wear a sandal made of reeds, rushes,27or the like. Similarly, a person may wind cloth over his feet or the like, for his feet remain sensitive to the hardness of the ground and he feels as if he is barefoot.28
Although children are allowed to eat, drink, wash, and anoint themselves, they should be prevented [from wearing] shoes and sandals.29
Halacha 8
All people are allowed to wear sandals [to protect themselves] from being bitten by scorpions and the like.
A woman who has just given birth may wear sandals for thirty days, lest she be chilled. The same law applies to other people who are sick, even if their illness is not dangerous.30
Halacha 9
[Just as it is forbidden to anoint] one's entire body, so too, is it forbidden to anoint a portion of one's body. [This restriction applies] both to anointment that brings one pleasure and to anointment that does not bring one pleasure.31
When a person is sick, however, or if he has sores on his scalp, he may anoint himself in an ordinary manner without any reservation.
Halacha 10
There are communities where it is customary to light a candle on Yom Kippur, so that one will be modest with regard to one's wife and thus not be prompted to engage in sexual relations. There are, by contrast, other communities where it is customary not to light a candle, lest one see one's wife, be attracted to her, and be prompted to engage in sexual relations.32
If Yom Kippur falls on the Sabbath, it is an obligation to light [a candle incumbent on the members] of all communities. For lighting a candle on the Sabbath is an obligation.33
Blessed be God who grants assistance.
FOOTNOTES
1.Our Sages instituted this prohibition based Solomon's description (I Kings 2:26) of David's affliction, which included being forced to go without washing (Yoma 77a).
2.With regard to the prohibition against washing on the Sabbath and holidays, a distinction is made between washing with hot water and washing with cold water, because that prohibition was instituted lest the keepers of the baths heat water on these holy days. On Yom Kippur, the prohibition was instituted to prohibit washing per se. In this regard, we find a verse (Proverbs 25:25), "Like cold water on a wearied soul," including even cold water.
3.From this leniency, some authorities infer that the prohibition against washing is Rabbinic in origin. If its source had been in the Torah, the Sages would not have granted such a leniency. Nevertheless, it is possible to explain that since the Torah's prohibition applies only to washing for the sake of pleasure, washing for other reasons is permitted when necessary.
4.See Hilchot Melachim 2:5.
5.The Mishnah Berurah 613:26 mentions opinions that do not allow this leniency in the present age.
6.For it is only washing for the sake of pleasure that is forbidden, and not washing for the sake of cleanliness (Yoma 77b).
7.Yoma, ibid. explains that this refers to shibta, which Rashi interprets as meaning a spirit of impurity that rests on one's hands after sleep. For this reason, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 613:2) allows one to wash one's hands upon arising in the morning.
8.This applied only in the ages when the people observed the laws of ritual purity. At present, since we do not possess the ashes of the red heifer, there is no way we can purify ourselves from the impurity contracted through contact with a human corpse, and we are all ritually impure. Hence, it is forbidden to immerse oneself on Yom Kippur and Tish'ah B'Av. Even a woman who is obligated to immerse herself on this day to purify herself from the niddah state should postpone her immersion. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 613:12, 554:8.)
9.I.e., in contrast to the era of Ezra, who ordained that a person who saw a nocturnal emission must immerse himself in the mikveh before reciting the Shema, praying, or engaging in Torah study. (See Hilchot Kri'at Shema 4:8, Hilchot Tefillah 4:4-6 and notes.)
10.For it is forbidden to pray while there is a trace of semen on one's body.
11.I.e., although a seminal emission conveys ritual impurity and immersion in a mikveh removes that impurity, this is not of consequence in the present age.
12.Which can be removed only when the ashes of the red heifer are sprinkled on a person.
13.I.e., a person may accept a custom that requires more stringent conduct than that obligated by the letter of Torah law for various reasons. He may not, however, adopt any leniency in Torah law for such reasons.
14.This would also be done for the purpose of cooling off (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 613:9).
15.This is the explanation of the Rabbinic expression, טופח על מנת להטפיח.
16.One may, however, use an empty container for this purpose (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).
17.I.e., he must wring it out so that it will no longer be טופח על מנת להטפיח, as explained in the previous halachah.
18.The Ramah (Orach Chayim 613:9) forbids this, lest the person squeeze water from the cloth and thus perform one of the forbidden labors.
19.For it is a mitzvah to greet one's teacher (Chaggigah 5b).
20.Since honoring one's parents is a mitzvah.
21.For his intent is to perform the mitzvah and not to take pleasure in bathing.
22.The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit. 613:5) emphasizes that one should not enter water in which the current is fast-moving, because of the danger involved.
23.The Ramah (Orach Chayim 613:8) states that even if there is a circuitous route that does not require one to pass through water, one may take a direct route through the water. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 613:13 and the Mishnah Berurah 613:22 differ, and prohibit passing through water if there is an alternative route, even one that is much longer.
24.Although guarding one's produce is not a mitzvah, this leniency was granted because of a person's concern for his money. In this instance, the person is not allowed to return through water on Yom Kippur (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 613:12).
25.Forcing the person to deviate from his ordinary pattern will remind him not to squeeze the water from his garments (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 613:8).
26.Yoma 77a also regards going without shoes as an affliction, based on Solomon's statements describing David's afflictions (I Kings 2:26) cited previously, for II Samuel 15:30 describes how David walked barefoot when fleeing from Avshalom.
27.Our translation for שעם is based on the gloss of Rabbenu Manoach. He also offers an alternative meaning of the word, "tree bark." In modern Hebrew, שעם means cork.
28.The Mishnah Berurah 614:5 states that in his time, it was customary to wear socks and not shoes or sandals made of rubber or similar materials. Nevertheless, at present it has become customary to wear such shoes or sandals.
29.Refraining from any of the other four activities mentioned could affect the child's health and growth. This is not true with regard to wearing shoes and sandals. On the contrary, children often go without shoes.
30.The halachic equivalence between a woman who has just given birth and a sick person is established in Hilchot Shabbat 2:14.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 614:3) also grants this leniency to a person who has a wound on his foot. The Ramah (loc. cit.:4) states that shoes may also be worn outside if the streets are very muddy.
31.The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 614:1) interprets this to mean that it is prohibited to anoint oneself even for purposes of cleanliness.
32.Shulchan Aruch HaRav 610:1 explains that it is an obligation to honor Yom Kippur by kindling lights, just as it is a mitzvah to honor other holidays. Nevertheless, because of the fear that one might be prompted to engage in sexual relations, certain communities adopted the custom of nullifying this mitzvah in homes where a husband and wife live together. Pesachim 53b applies the verse (Isaiah 60:21) "And your nation are all righteous" to both customs.
In all communities, it is customary to light candles for Yom Kippur, either at home or in the synagogue. The above explanation clarifies the decision of the Ramah, who maintains that one should recite a blessing over these candles. There are, however, other explanations, and for this reason, there are authorities (see Sha'ar HaTziyun 610:5) who maintain that a blessing should not be recited.
33.See Hilchot Shabbat 5:1.
-------
Hayom Yom:
• "Today's Day" Friday, Adar I 28, 5774 • 28 February 2014
Friday, 28 Adar I 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayakheil, Shishi.
Tehillim: 135-139.
Tanya: Even with regard (p. 147)...of ch. 16). (p. 147).
In the sh'ma before retiring (p. 118): On Shabbat and Festivals we do not say Ribono shel olam or lam'natzei'ach (p. 122). But we do say them on other days that tachanun is not said. After the three paragraphs of sh'ma (p. 120), add the word "emet." Ya'alzu is said once. Hinei and y'varech'cha are said three times. In tikun chatzot do not say lam'natzei'ach...b'vo on days tachanun is omitted.
-------
Daily Thought:Open Eyes
After 33 centuries, all that’s needed has been done. The table is set, the feast of Moshiach is being served with the Ancient Wine, the Leviathan and the Wild Ox—and we are sitting at it.
All that’s left is to open our eyes and see.
[Adapter’s Note: These words I write, but I do not understand. But then, if I understood them, I suppose I would not need to be told to open my eyes.]
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment