Today in Judaism: TODAY IS: MONDAY, ADAR II 1, 5774 • MARCH 3, 2014 ROSH CHODESH ADAR II

Today in Judaism: TODAY IS: MONDAY, ADAR II 1, 5774 • MARCH 3, 2014 ROSH CHODESH ADAR II

TODAY'S LAWS & CUSTOMS:

• ROSH CHODESH OBSERVANCES 

Today is the second of the two Rosh Chodesh ("Head of the Month") days for the month of "Adar II" (when a month has 30 days, both the last day of the month and the first day of the following month serve as the following month's Rosh Chodesh).

Special portions are added to the daily prayers: Hallel (Psalms 113-118) is recited -- in its "partial" form -- following the Shacharit morning prayer, and the Yaaleh V'yavo prayer is added to the Amidah and to Grace After Meals; the additional Musaf prayer is said (when Rosh Chodesh is Shabbat, special additions are made to the Shabbat Musaf). Tachnun (confession of sins) and similar prayers are omitted.

Many have the custom to mark Rosh Chodesh with a festive meal and reduced work activity. The latter custom is prevalent amongst women, who have a special affinity with Rosh Chodesh -- the month being the feminine aspect of the Jewish Calendar.

Links: The 29th Day; The Lunar Files

TODAY IN JEWISH HISTORY:

• PLAGUE OF DARKNESS (1313 BCE) 

The 9th plague to strike the Egyptians for their refusal to release the Children of Israel from slavery -- a thick darkness that blanketed the land so that "no man saw his fellow, and no man could move from his place" (Exodus 10:23) -- commenced on the 1st of Adar, six weeks before the Exodus.

Link: More on The Plague of Darkness

• PASSING OF IBN EZRA (1164) 

The highly regarded Biblical commentator, Rabbi Avraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra (1089?-1164), passed away on Adar 1.

• PASSING OF SHACH (circa 1663) 

Adar 1 is also the yahrtzeit (anniversary of the passing) of the great Halachist Rabbi Shabtai Hakohen Katz (1621-1663?), author of the Siftei Cohen commentary on Rabbi Yosef Caro's Code of Jewish Law. He is known as "Shach" -- an acronym of the name of his work, which serves to this day as a primary source of Halachah (Jewish law).

DAILY QUOTE:

The people of Israel did not believe in Moses because of the miracles he performed. So why did they believe in him? Because when we stood at Sinai, our own eyes saw and our own ears heard the fire, the sounds and the flames, and how Moses approached the cloud and G-d's voice called to him...--Maimonides

DAILY STUDY

CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY: 

Chumash: Vayikra, 2nd Portion Leviticus 1:14-2:6 with Rashi

• Chapter 1

14. And if his sacrifice to the Lord, is a burnt offering from birds, he shall bring [it] from turtle doves or from young doves. יד. וְאִם מִן הָעוֹף עֹלָה קָרְבָּנוֹ לַיהֹוָה וְהִקְרִיב מִן הַתֹּרִים אוֹ מִן בְּנֵי הַיּוֹנָה אֶת קָרְבָּנוֹ:

from birds: But not all birds. Since it is stated: “an unblemished male, from cattle, from sheep, or from goats” (Lev. 22:19), [denoting that the requirement of] perfection and maleness apply [only] to animals, but [the requirement of] perfection and maleness does not apply to birds. One might think that even a bird that lacks a limb [may be brought for this offering]. Scripture, therefore, says [here]: “from birds” [but not all birds, excluding a bird lacking a limb]. — [Torath Kohanim 1:71]

מן העוף: ולא כל העוף, לפי שנאמר (ויק' כב יט) תמים זכר בבקר בכשבים ובעזים, תמות וזכרות בבהמה, ואין תמות וזכרות בעופות, יכול אף מחוסר אבר, תלמוד לומר מן העוף:

turtle-doves: [Because the verse specifies “young” doves, whereas it simply says “turtle-doves” without stating “young, ” it must refer to] adult ones [only that may be offered], and not young ones.

התרים: גדולים ולא קטנים:

young doves: young ones [only may be offered], and not adult ones. - [Torath Kohanim 1:74]

בני היונה: קטנים ולא גדולים:

from turtle-doves or from young doves: [The word “from” occurring twice in this verse comes] to exclude [birds] whose feathers have just begun to become reddish in both species, that they are unfit [for sacrifice], for they are too old to be qualified as “young doves,” and they are too young to be qualified as [adult] “turtle-doves.” - [Torath Kohanim 1:75]

מן התרים או מן בני היונה: פרט לתחלת הציהוב, שבזה ושבזה שהוא פסול, שגדול הוא אצל בני יונה וקטן אצל תורים:

15. And the kohen shall bring it near to the altar, and nip off its head, and cause it to [go up in] smoke on the altar, and its [the bird's] blood shall be pressed out upon the wall of the altar. טו. וְהִקְרִיבוֹ הַכֹּהֵן אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּמָלַק אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ וְהִקְטִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחָה וְנִמְצָה דָמוֹ עַל קִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ:

shall bring it: One may bring even a single bird. - [Torath Kohanim 1:77] \b the \b0kohen shall …

והקריבו: אפילו פרידה אחת יביא:

nip off: The nipping [of the bird’s head] must not be done with anything but with the body of kohen. He would cut with his [thumb]nail adjacent to the back of the head, cutting right through its spine, until he reached the simanim [literally, “the signs”; in the context of slaughtering, this refers to the esophagus (gullet) and the trachea (wind-pipe)], and cuts through them [see Rashi on Lev. 5:8].

הכהן ומלק: אין מליקה בכלי אלא בעצמו של כהן. קוצץ בצפרנו ממול העורף וחותך מפרקתו עד שמגיע לסימנין וקוצצן:

and its [the bird’s] blood shall be pressed out: [The word וְנִמְצָה] an expression similar to “the pressing out (מִיץ) of wrath” (Prov. 30:33); and, “for the milking (הַמֵּץ) has come to an end” (Isa. 16:4). He presses the slaughtering area [of the bird’s neck] against the wall of the altar, and thereby, the blood is pressed out and runs down [the wall].

ונמצה דמו: לשון מיץ אפים (משלי ל לג), כי אפס המץ (ישעיה טז ד), כובש בית השחיטה על קיר המזבח והדם מתמצה ויורד:

and cut…and cause it to go up in smoke…shall be pressed out: [According to the sequence of these terms, one would think that Scripture is commanding the kohen to first cut the bird’s neck, send the bird up in smoke, and only then to press out its blood. But] is it possible to suggest this? Since [the kohen] has already caused the bird to go up in smoke, he presses its blood out? Rather, [the meaning is clearly not so, and the procedure of causing the bird to go up in smoke appears in the verse after that of nipping off the head, to teach us that] just as with the procedure of causing it to go up in smoke, the bird’s head [is smoked] separately and its body separately, so is it with the procedure of nipping [the bird’s head, i.e., the head is cut at the neck, to become virtually separate from its body-even though it is still attached to the body by the skin] (Torath Kohanim 1:81). According to the simple meaning of the verse, it is transposed [and is to be understood as]: and nip off its head, and cause it to [go up in] smoke on the altar, and its [the bird’s] blood shall already have been pressed out.

ומלק, והקטיר, ונמצה: אפשר לומר כן, מאחר שהוא מקטיר הוא מוצה, אלא מה הקטרה הראש בעצמו והגוף בעצמו, אף מליקה כן. ופשוטו של מקרא מסורס הוא ומלק והקטיר, וקודם הקטרה, ונמצה דמו כבר:

16. And he shall remove its crop along with its entrails, and cast it next to the altar on the east side, to the place of the ashes. טז. וְהֵסִיר אֶת מֻרְאָתוֹ בְּנֹצָתָהּ וְהִשְׁלִיךְ אֹתָהּ אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ קֵדְמָה אֶל מְקוֹם הַדָּשֶׁן:

its crop: Heb. מֻרְאָתוֹ, the place of the רְעִי, the digested food or waste, i.e., the crop, [known in the Talmud as זֶפֶק The word מֻרְאָתוֹ stems from רְאִי, which is equivalent to רְעִי, since an “aleph” is sometimes interchangeable with an “ayin.”]- [Torath Kohanim 1:84]

מראתו: מקום הראי וזה הזפק:

with its entrails: Heb. בְּנֹצָתָהּ, with its entrails (Zev. 64b). The word נוֹצָה denotes something disgusting, as [in the verse], “for they are foul (נָצוּ), even slipping” (Lam. 4:15). And this is what Onkelos means [when he translates this word as]: בְּאוּכְלֵיהּ, “with its digested food” [i.e., the excrement found in its entrails]. This is the explanation given by Abba Yose ben Hanan, who states: The kohen removes the gizzard with it. But our Rabbis, of blessed memory, [understanding נוֹצָה to mean “feathers,”] explain [the verse as follows]: With a knife, he cuts an opening around the crop, like a window, and takes it [together] with the feathers (נוֹצָה) that are on the skin (Zev. 65a). In the case of the burnt offering of an animal, which eats exclusively from the feeding trough of its owner, it says, “And the innards and the legs, he shall wash with water. … and cause it to [go up in] smoke [on the altar]” (verse 13). However, regarding birds, which feed themselves on things stolen [from other people’s property], the verse says here, “And he shall [remove its crop]…and cast” the entrails, which ate from stolen property. — [Vayikra Rabbah 3:4]

בנצתה: עם בני מעיה. ונוצה לשון דבר המאוס, כמו כי נצו גם נעו (איכה ד טו) וזה שתרגם אנקלוס באוכליה. וזהו מדרשו של אבא יוסי בן חנן, שאמר נוטל את הקורקבן עמה. ורז"ל אמרו קודר סביב הזפק בסכין כעין ארובה ונוטלו עם הנוצה שעל העור. בעולת בהמה, שאינה אוכלת אלא באבוס בעליה, נאמר (פסוק יג) והקרב והכרעים ירחץ במים והקטיר, ובעוף, שנזון מן הגזל, נאמר והשליך, את המעים, שאכל מן הגזל:

next to the altar on the east side: At the eastern side of the כֶּבֶשׁ [the ramp leading up to the altar]. — [Torath Kohanim 1:86]

אצל המזבח קדמה: במזרחו של כבש:

to the place of the ashes: I.e., the place where each morning they deposit the ashes removed [from the outer altar], and the ashes removed from the inner altar and the menorah. All these were [miraculously] absorbed there in their place. — [Yoma 21a]

אל מקום הדשן: מקום שנותנין שם תרומת הדשן בכל בוקר ודישון מזבח הפנימי והמנורה. וכולם נבלעים שם במקומן:

17. And he shall split it open with its wing feathers [intact], but he shall not tear it completely apart. The kohen shall then cause it to [go up in] smoke on the altar, on top of the wood which is on the fire. It is a burnt offering, a fire offering [with] a pleasing fragrance to the Lord. יז. וְשִׁסַּע אֹתוֹ בִכְנָפָיו לֹא יַבְדִּיל וְהִקְטִיר אֹתוֹ הַכֹּהֵן הַמִּזְבֵּחָה עַל הָעֵצִים אֲשֶׁר עַל הָאֵשׁ עֹלָה הוּא אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַיהֹוָה:

And he shall split it open: Heb. וְשִׁסַּע. The term שִׁסּוּעַ refers only to [splitting open] with the hand. Similarly, [Scripture] says regarding Samson: “and he split it open (וַיְשַׁסְּעֵהוּ) as he would have split open (כְּשַׁסַּע) a kid” (Jud. 14:6). - [Zev. 65b]

ושסע: אין שיסוע אלא ביד, וכן הוא אומר בשמשון (שופטים יד ו) וישסעהו כשסע הגדי:

with its wing feathers: [I.e.,] with its wings; he need not pluck out its wing feathers.

בכנפיו: עם כנפיו, אינו צריך למרוט כנפי נוצתו:

with its wing feathers: [Lit., “its wings.” Here, it refers to] the actual feathers [of its wings]. But surely you will not find even the simplest of people [i.e., even a person who is not particular,] who, when smelling the odor of burnt feathers, does not find it repulsive. Why then does Scripture command us to send [the feathers] up in smoke? [The feathers are left intact] so that the altar should appear sated and adorned with the sacrifice of the poor man [who could afford only a bird]. — [Vayikra Rabbah 3:5]

בכנפיו: נוצה ממש. והלא אין לך הדיוט שמריח ריח רע של כנפים נשרפים ואין נפשו קצה עליו, ולמה אמר הכתוב והקטיר, כדי שיהא המזבח שבע ומהודר בקרבנו של עני:

but he shall not tear it completely apart: [Although the kohen splits open the bird,] he must not tear it apart completely into two [separate] pieces. Rather, he must tear it along its back. Now, regarding a bird [offering], it says here: “a pleasing fragrance [to the Lord],” and regarding animals, it says, “a pleasing fragrance [to the Lord]” (verse 9) [as well. From here we see that both in the case of a large animal or a small bird, the fragrance is pleasing to God]. This teaches us: Whether one offers much or little, [it is equally pleasing to God,] provided that he directs his heart to Heaven. — [Toroth Kohanim 1:91]

לא יבדיל: אינו מפרקו לגמרי לשתי חתיכות, אלא קורעו מגבו. נאמר בעוף ריח ניחוח, ונאמר בבהמה ריח ניחוח, לומר לך אחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט, ובלבד שיכוין את לבו לשמים:

Chapter 2

1. And if a person brings a meal offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour. He shall pour oil over it and place frankincense upon it. א. וְנֶפֶשׁ כִּי תַקְרִיב קָרְבַּן מִנְחָה לַיהֹוָה סֹלֶת יִהְיֶה קָרְבָּנוֹ וְיָצַק עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְנָתַן עָלֶיהָ לְבֹנָה:

And if a person brings: [literally, “And if a soul brings.”] Regarding all the sacrifices which were donated voluntarily, the only instance where Scripture states the word נֶפֶשׁ “soul” is in the case of the meal-offering. Now, who usually donates a meal-offering? A poor man [because flour is less expensive than birds or animals]. [Hence,] the Holy One Blessed is He, says: “I account if for him as if he has sacrificed his very soul!” - [Men. 104b]

ונפש כי תקריב: לא נאמר נפש בכל קרבנות נדבה אלא במנחה, מי דרכו להתנדב מנחה, עני, אמר הקב"ה מעלה אני עליו כאלו הקריב נפשו:

his offering shall be from fine flour: If a person says, “I hereby take upon myself to bring a meal-offering,” without specifying which type of meal-offering, then he shall bring מִנְחַת סֹלֶת, a meal-offering of fine flour, which is the first of the meal-offerings [mentioned in this chapter] (Men. 104b), and קֹמֶץ [fistful of the offering] is scooped out while it is [still in the form of] flour, as is explained in this passage. Since five kinds of meal-offerings are enumerated here, all of which had to be brought ready-baked before the קְמִיצָה [scooping took place], with the exception of this one, it is, therefore, called מִנְחַת סֹלֶת, “a meal-offering of fine flour.”

סלת יהיה קרבנו: האומר הרי עלי מנחה סתם, מביא מנחת סלת, שהיא הראשונה שבמנחות ונקמצת כשהיא סלת, כמו שמפורש בענין. לפי שנאמרו כאן חמשה מיני מנחות, וכולן באות אפויות קודם קמיצה חוץ מזו, לכך קרויה מנחת סלת:

fine flour: סֹלֶת. [The term] סֹלֶת always denotes [fine flour of] wheat, as the verse says, “fine flour (סֹלֶת) of wheat” (Exod. 29:2). - [Torath Kohanim 2:96] No meal-offering consists of less than one עִשָּׂרוֹן [“one tenth” of an ephah of flour], as it is said, “one tenth measure for a meal-offering (עִשָּׂרוֹן)” (Lev.14:21), [implying that] one tenth measure [shall be used] for each meal-offering. — [see Men. 89a]

סלת: אין סלת אלא מן החטין, שנאמר (שמות כט ב) סלת חטים, ואין מנחה פחותה מעשרון, שנאמר (ויק' יד כא) ועשרון סלת למנחה, עשרון לכל מנחה:

He shall pour oil over it: Over all of it. [However,]

ויצק עליה שמן: על כולה:

and place frankincense upon it: Upon part of it; the kohen places a fistful of frankincense upon it at one side [of the offering]. Now what makes you say this? Because an inclusion after an inclusion in the Torah means only to exclude. [Now, here, the expression עָלֶיהָ, upon it or over it, is inclusive in nature, for its assumed meaning is “upon all of it,” i.e., the kohen shall pour the oil over all of the offering. In the continuation of the verse, “and place frankincense upon it (עָלֶיה),” however, the second mention of the word עָלֶיה represents a רִבָּוי after a רִבָּוי, and so, the second עָלֶיה becomes preclusive, meaning that the frankincense is to be placed only upon part of the offering.] Another explanation: Oil [is poured] over all of it, because it [the oil] has to be mixed with it and scooped with it, as it is said, “[scoop out a fistful] from its fine flour and its oil.” However, the frankincense because it is neither mixed nor scooped with it, as it is said, “in addition to] all its frankincense” (verse 2), for, after he has completed the קְמִיצָה procedure, he collects all the frankincense from the meal-offering and makes it go up in smoke. — [Torath Kohanim 2:98]

ונתן עליה לבנה: על מקצתה, מניח קומץ לבונה עליה לצד אחד. ומה ראית לומר כן, שאין ריבוי אחר ריבוי בתורה אלא למעט. דבר אחר שמן על כולה, מפני שהוא נבלל עמה ונקמץ עמה, כמו שנאמר (פסוק ב) מסלתה ומשמנה, ולבונה על מקצתה, שאינה נבללת עמה ולא נקמצת עמה, שנאמר (פסוק ב) על כל לבונתה, שלאחר שקמץ מלקט את הלבונה כולה מעליה ומקטירה:

He shall pour [oil]…and place [frankincense] …and he shall bring [it to…the kohanim]: [Because Scripture mentions the “pouring” of the oil before the individual “brings” it to the kohanim ,] this teaches [us] that pouring and mixing may be performed [even] by a non- kohen. [And how do we know this concerning the mixing? Because in verses 5-6 below, Scripture states of a meal-offering, “mixed with oil,” before the pouring procedure is to take place, thus, if pouring may be performed by a non- kohen, then mixing, which precedes pouring, may surely be performed by a non- kohen]. — [Torath Kohanim 2:100] [However,]

ויצק, ונתן, והביאה: מלמד שיציקה ובלילה כשרים בזר:

2. And he shall bring it to Aaron's descendants, the kohanim, and from there, he [the kohen] shall scoop out his fistful of its fine flour and its oil, in addition to all its frankincense. Then, the kohen shall cause its reminder to [go up in] smoke on the altar; [it is] a fire offering [with] a pleasing fragrance to the Lord. ב. וֶהֱבִיאָהּ אֶל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים וְקָמַץ מִשָּׁם מְלֹא קֻמְצוֹ מִסָּלְתָּהּ וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ עַל כָּל לְבֹנָתָהּ וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת אַזְכָּרָתָהּ הַמִּזְבֵּחָה אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַיהֹוָה:

[And he shall bring it to…] the kohanim, and he [the kohen] shall scoop out: From the קְמִיצָה scooping procedure and onwards, it is exclusively the priesthood who is commanded [to perfo rm these remaining procedures]. — [Torath Kohanim 2:100]

הכהנים וקמץ: מקמיצה ואילך מצות כהונה:

And from there, he [the kohen] shall scoop out: [From where?] From the place where the feet of the non- kohen were standing. — [Torath Kohanim 2:104] This teaches us that scooping may be performed any place within the courtyard of the Holy Temple, even within the eleven cubits [span of courtyard grounds] in which ordinary Israelites [i.e., non- kohanim were permitted] to walk. — [Yoma 16b]

וקמץ משם: ממקום שרגלי הזר עומדות, ללמדך שהקמיצה כשרה בכל מקום בעזרה, אף בי"א אמה של מקום דריסת רגלי ישראל:

his fistful: One might think [that the fistful may be] full to overflowing, bursting through his fist and coming out on every side! Scripture, therefore, states in another passage, “And from it, he shall lift up in his fist” (Lev. 6:8), [i.e., only what is contained within his fist is valid to be burnt]. But since [we now know that the amount shall be only] what is contained within his fist, one might suggest that it means less than a fistful. Scripture, therefore, states here, מְלֹא, “full” [i.e., it shall be a full fist]. How then [does the kohen scoop out exactly a fistful, not more and not less]? He covers the palm of his hand with his three fingers, [and then, with the remaining thumb from above and little finger from below, he levels off any overflowing mixture, so that exactly a full measure of “three fingers” is attained]. — [Torath Kohanim 2:105; Men. 11a] This is the definition of קֹמֶץ, a “fistful” in the Hebrew language [while in other languages, a “fistful” of something might mean four fingers full of something].

מלא קמצו: יכול מבורץ, מבצבץ ויוצא לכל צד, תלמוד לומר במקום אחר (ויק' ו ח) והרים ממנו בקמצו, אין לך כשר אלא מה שבתוך הקומץ. אי בקמצו יכול חסר, תלמוד לומר מלא. הא כיצד, חופה שלש אצבעותיו על פס ידו, וזהו קומץ במשמע לשון העברית:

in addition to all its frankincense: In addition to all the frankincense, the fist shall be full.

על כל לבונתה: לבד כל הלבונה יהא הקומץ מלא:

its frankincense. Then, [the kohen] shall cause…to [go up in] smoke: The frankincense is also to be burnt. — [Torath Kohanim 2:107]

לבונתה והקטיר: אף הלבונה בהקטרה:

his fistful of its fine flour and its oil: but if he scooped, and a grain of salt or a particle of frankincense went up into his hand, it is unfit. - [Torath Kohanim 2:107]

מלא קמצו מסלתה ומשמנה: הא אם קמץ ועלה בידו גרגיר מלח או קורט לבונה פסולה:

its reminder: The fistful offered up to the Most High [God], is the “reminder” of the meal-offering, because through it, its owner [who brought that sacrifice] is remembered for the good, [causing God] contentment.

אזכרתה: הקומץ העולה לגבוה הוא זכרון המנחה, שבו נזכר בעליה לטובה ולנחת רוח:

3. And what remains of the meal offering shall belong to Aaron and to his descendants; [it is] holy of holies from the fire offerings of the Lord. ג. וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת מִן הַמִּנְחָה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים מֵאִשֵּׁי יְהֹוָה:

to Aaron and his descendants: The Kohen Gadol [signified by “Aaron” here,] takes a portion [of what remains of the meal-offering] first, without having to take part in the equal division of the meal offering, while [after this,] the ordinary kohen [signified by “and his descendants” here,] takes his share in the equal division of the meal-offering. — [Torath Kohanim 2:112]

לאהרן ולבניו: כהן גדול נוטל חלק בראש שלא במחלוקת, וההדיוט במחלוקת:

[it is] holy of holies: for the Kohanim.

קדש קדשים: היא להם:

from the fire-offerings of the Lord: They may take their share in it only after the offerings to the fire [i.e., only after the fistful has been scooped out and burnt, thereby becoming a fire-offering to God. Before this, however, they may not partake of the meal-offering]. — [Torath Kohanim 2: 113]

מאשי ה': אין להם חלק בה אלא לאחר מתנות האישים:

4. And if one brings a meal offering baked in an oven, it shall consist of [either] unleavened loaves [made] of fine flour mixed with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil. ד. וְכִי תַקְרִב קָרְבַּן מִנְחָה מַאֲפֵה תַנּוּר סֹלֶת חַלּוֹת מַצֹּת בְּלוּלֹת בַּשֶּׁמֶן וּרְקִיקֵי מַצּוֹת מְשֻׁחִים בַּשָּׁמֶן:

And if you bring [a meal-offering which was baked in an oven]: [Namely: If a person] said, “I hereby take upon myself to bring a meal-offering baked in an oven.” Scripture teaches [us] that he may bring either loaves or wafers. — [Torath Kohanim 2:115] The loaves are to be mixed up (בְּלוּלֹת) [with olive oil], while the wafers are to be anointed (מְשֻׁחִים) [with olive oil]. — [Torath Kohanim 2:117; Men. 74b] Now, our Rabbis (Men. 75a) differ regarding the anointing procedure (מְשִׁיחָה) [for the wafers]: Some say that one must anoint them and again anoint them until all the oil in the log [a volume of liquid] has been used up, for all meal-offerings require one log of oil [each]. Others say that [some of] the oil was smeared [on the wafer] in the form of a Greek “chi” [shaped like the Hebrew נ, see Rashi Exod. 29:2], while the remaining oil was eaten separately by the kohanim. [Now, the verse here says, “mixed with oil…anointed with oil.”] What does the repetition of the word “oil” come to teach us? [It teaches us that for meal-offerings, oil used need not be only from the initial extract from the olives, but] may also be from the second and third extract out of the olives. The only case where the initial extract of oil is required, is the menorah, because regarding it, Scripture says (Exod. 27:20), שֶׁמֶן זַיִת זָ‏, “clear olive oil.” - [Torath Kohanim 2:118] And we learned in Men. (76a): All meal-offerings baked before the קְמִיצָה [scooping out] procedure, and consequently whose קְמִיצָה is performed by breaking the offering into pieces (see verse 6), all shall be offered in [parcels of] ten loaves [regarding those about which Scripture says חַוֹת, “loaves,” and parcels of] ten wafers, for those offerings about which Scripture says רְקִיקִין, “wafers.”

וכי תקרב וגו': שאמר הרי עלי מנחת מאפה תנור, ולימד הכתוב שיביא או חלות או רקיקין, החלות בלולות, והרקיקין משוחין. ונחלקו רבותינו במשיחתן יש אומרים, מושחן וחוזר ומושחן עד שיכלה כל השמן שבלוג, שכל המנחות טעונות לוג שמן. ויש אומרים מושחן כמין כי יונית ושאר השמן נאכל בפני עצמו לכהנים. מה תלמוד לומר בשמן בשמן שתי פעמים, להכשיר שמן שני ושלישי היוצא מן הזיתים, ואין צריך שמן ראשון אלא למנורה, שנאמר בו (שמות כז כ) זך. ושנינו במנחות (עו א) כל המנחות האפויות לפני קמיצתן ונקמצות ע"י פתיתה, כולן באות עשר עשר חלות, והאמור בה רקיקין, באה עשרה רקיקין:

5. And if a meal offering on a pan is your sacrifice, it shall be [made] of fine flour, mixed with oil; it shall be unleavened. ה. וְאִם מִנְחָה עַל הַמַּחֲבַת קָרְבָּנֶךָ סֹלֶת בְּלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן מַצָּה תִהְיֶה:

And if a meal-offering on a pan [is your sacrifice]: מִנְחָה עַל הַמַּחֲבַת Namely: If one said, “I hereby take upon myself to bring מִנְחַת הַמַּחֲבַת, a pan-fried meal offering.” [מַחִבַת] was a vessel in the Holy Temple, in which [certain] meal-offerings were baked in oil upon the fire. This vessel is not deep, but shallow. And therefore, meal-offerings made in it were hard, for since the pan was shallow, [the oil spread thin and consequently,] the fire consumed the oil [causing the product to become hard]. — [Men. 63a] And all [meal-offerings] require three applications of oil: יְצִיקָה [pouring], בְּלִילָה [mixing] and placing oil in the vessel before their preparation. — [Torath Kohanim 2: 121, Men. 75a]

ואם מנחה על המחבת: שאמר הרי עלי מנחת מחבת. וכלי הוא שהיה במקדש, שאופין בו מנחה על האור בשמן, והכלי אינו עמוק אלא צף, ומעשה המנחה שבתוכו קשין, שמתוך שהיא צפה, האור שורף את השמן. וכולן טעונות שלש מתנות שמן יציקה, ובלילה, ומתן שמן בכלי קודם עשייתן:

fine flour, mixed with oil: [This] teaches [us] that he must mix them while they are [still] fine flour [and not mixing the oil with the already-fried cakes]. — [Torath Kohanim 2:122]

סלת בלולה בשמן: מלמד שבוללן בעודן סלת:

6. Break it into pieces, and you shall [then] pour oil over it. It is a meal offering. ו. פָּתוֹת אֹתָהּ פִּתִּים וְיָצַקְתָּ עָלֶיהָ שָׁמֶן מִנְחָה הִוא:

Break it into pieces, […It is a meal-offering]: [The clause at the end of this verse, “It is a meal-offering,” appears superfluous. However, it] comes to include all meal-offerings baked before the קְמִיצָה procedure, to [have their קְמִיצָה performed by] פְּתִיתָה, breaking them into pieces. — [Men. 75a]

פתות אתה פתים: לרבות כל המנחות, הנאפות קודם קמיצה, לפתיתה:

and you shall [then] pour oil over it. It is a meal-offering: This includes all meal-offerings for יְצִיקָה, “pouring of the oil.” One might think that this applies also to a meal-offering baked in an oven. Scripture, therefore, says, “[You shall then pour oil] עָלֶיהָ, over it, ” [but not over that baked in an oven.] Perhaps we should exclude חַות, loaves [of oven-baked meal-offerings only], while not excluding the רְקִיקִין wafers [of oven baked meal-offerings]? Scripture, therefore, says, הִיא [i.e., “It,” to have both cases of loaves and wafers of an oven-baked meal-offering excluded from יְצִיקָה]. — [Men. 75a]

ויצקת עליה שמן מנחה הוא: לרבות כל המנחות ליציקה. יכול אף מנחת מאפה תנור כן, תלמוד לומר עליה, אוציא את החלות ולא אוציא את הרקיקין, תלמוד לומר הוא:

-------

Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 1 - 9

• Chapter 1

This psalm inspires man to study Torah and avoid sin. One who follows this path is assured of success in all his deeds, whereas the plight of the wicked is the reverse.

1. Fortunate is the man that has not walked in the counsel of the wicked, nor stood in the path of sinners, nor sat in the company of scoffers.

2. Rather, his desire is in the Torah of the Lord, and in His Torah he meditates day and night.

3. He shall be like a tree planted by streams of water, that yields its fruit in its season, and whose leaf does not wither; and all that he does shall prosper.

4. Not so the wicked; rather, they are like the chaff that the wind drives away.

5. Therefore the wicked will not endure in judgement, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.

6. For the Lord minds the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.

Chapter 2

This psalm warns against trying to outwit the ways of God. It also instructs one who has reason to rejoice, to tremble—lest his sins cause his joy to be overturned.

1. Why do nations gather, and peoples speak futility?

2. The kings of the earth rise up, and rulers conspire together, against the Lord and against His anointed:

3. “Let us sever their cords, and cast their ropes from upon us!”

4. He Who sits in heaven laughs, my Master mocks them.

5. Then He speaks to them in His anger, and terrifies them in His wrath:

6. “It is I Who have anointed My king, upon Zion, My holy mountain.”

7. I am obliged to declare: The Lord said to me, “You are my son, I have this day begotten you.

8. Ask of Me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, and the ends of the earth your possession.

9. Smash them with a rod of iron, shatter them like a potter’s vessel.”

10. Now be wise, you kings; be disciplined, you rulers of the earth.

11. Serve the Lord with awe, and rejoice with trembling.

12. Yearn for purity—lest He become angry and your path be doomed, if his anger flares for even a moment. Fortunate are all who put their trust in Him

Chapter 3

When punishment befalls man, let him not be upset by his chastisement, for perhaps--considering his sins—he is deserving of worse, and God is in fact dealing kindly with him.

1. A psalm by David, when he fled from Absalom his son.

2. Lord, how numerous are my oppressors; many rise up against me!

3. Many say of my soul, “There is no salvation for him from God—ever!”

4. But You, Lord, are a shield for me, my glory, the One Who raises my head.

5. With my voice I call to the Lord, and He answers me from His holy mountain, Selah.

6. I lie down and sleep; I awake, for the Lord sustains me.

7. I do not fear the myriads of people that have aligned themselves all around me.

8. Arise, O Lord, deliver me, my God. For You struck all my enemies on the cheek, You smashed the teeth of the wicked.

9. Deliverance is the Lord’s; may Your blessing be upon Your people forever

Chapter 4

This psalm exhorts man not to shame his fellow, and to neither speak nor listen to gossip and slander. Envy not the prosperity of the wicked in this world, rather rejoice and say: “If it is so for those who anger Him . . . [how much better it will be for those who serve Him!”]

1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music, a psalm by David.

2. Answer me when I call, O God [Who knows] my righteousness. You have relieved me in my distress; be gracious to me and hear my prayer.

3. Sons of men, how long will you turn my honor to shame, will you love vanity, and endlessly seek falsehood?

4. Know that the Lord has set apart His devout one; the Lord will hear when I call to Him.

5. Tremble and do not sin; reflect in your hearts upon your beds, and be silent forever.

6. Offer sacrifices in righteousness, and trust in the Lord.

7. Many say: “Who will show us good?” Raise the light of Your countenance upon us, O Lord.

8. You put joy in my heart, greater than [their joy] when their grain and wine abound.

9. In peace and harmony I will lie down and sleep, for You, Lord, will make me dwell alone, in security.

Chapter 5

A prayer for every individual, requesting that the wicked perish for their deeds, and the righteous rejoice for their good deeds.

1. For the Conductor, on the nechilot,1 a psalm by David.

2. Give ear to my words, O Lord, consider my thoughts.

3. Listen to the voice of my cry, my King and my God, for to You I pray.

4. Lord, hear my voice in the morning; in the morning I set [my prayers] before you and hope.

5. For You are not a God Who desires wickedness; evil does not abide with You.

6. The boastful cannot stand before Your eyes; You hate all evildoers.

7. You destroy the speakers of falsehood; the Lord despises the man of blood and deceit.

8. And I, through Your abundant kindness, come into Your house; I bow toward Your holy Sanctuary, in awe of You.

9. Lead me, O Lord, in Your righteousness, because of my watchful enemies; straighten Your path before me.

10. For there is no sincerity in their mouths, their heart is treacherous; their throat is an open grave, [though] their tongue flatters.

11. Find them guilty, O God, let them fall by their schemes; banish them for their many sins, for they have rebelled against You.

12. But all who trust in You will rejoice, they will sing joyously forever; You will shelter them, and those who love Your Name will exult in You.

13. For You, Lord, will bless the righteous one; You will envelop him with favor as with a shield.

Chapter 6

This is an awe-inspiring prayer for one who is ill, to pray that God heal him, body and soul. An ailing person who offers this prayer devoutly and with a broken heart is assured that God will accept his prayer.

1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music for the eight-stringed harp, a psalm by David.

2. Lord, do not punish me in Your anger, nor chastise me in Your wrath.

3. Be gracious to me, O Lord, for I languish away; heal me, O Lord, for my bones tremble in fear.

4. My soul is panic-stricken; and You, O Lord, how long [before You help]?

5. Relent, O Lord, deliver my soul; save me for the sake of Your kindness.

6. For there is no remembrance of You in death; who will praise You in the grave?

7. I am weary from sighing; each night I drench my bed, I melt my couch with my tears.

8. My eye has grown dim from vexation, worn out by all my oppressors.

9. Depart from me, all you evildoers, for the Lord has heard the sound of my weeping.

10. The Lord has heard my supplication; the Lord accepts my prayer.

11. All my enemies will be shamed and utterly terrified; they will then repent and be shamed for a moment.

1

Chapter 7

Do not rejoice if God causes your enemy to suffer—just as the suffering of the righteous is not pleasant. David, therefore, defends himself intensely before God, maintaining that he did not actively harm Saul. In fact, Saul precipitated his own harm, while David’s intentions were only for the good.

1. A shigayon 1 by David, which he sang to the Lord concerning Kush the Benjaminite.

2. I put my trust in You, Lord, my God; deliver me from all my pursuers and save me.

3. Lest he tear my soul like a lion, crushing me with none to rescue.

4. Lord, my God, if I have done this, if there is wrongdoing in my hands;

5. if I have rewarded my friends with evil or oppressed those who hate me without reason—

6. then let the enemy pursue and overtake my soul, let him trample my life to the ground, and lay my glory in the dust forever.

7. Arise, O Lord, in Your anger, lift Yourself up in fury against my foes. Stir me [to mete out] the retribution which You commanded.

8. When the assembly of nations surrounds You, remove Yourself from it and return to the heavens.

9. The Lord will mete out retribution upon the nations; judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness and my integrity.

10. Let the evil of the wicked come to an end, but establish the righteous—O righteous God, Searcher of hearts and minds.

11. [I rely] on God to be my shield, He Who saves the upright of heart.

12. God is the righteous judge, and the Almighty is angered every day.

13. Because he does not repent, He sharpens His sword, bends His bow and makes it ready.

14. He has prepared instruments of death for him; His arrows will be used on the pursuers.

15. Indeed, he conceives iniquity, is pregnant with evil schemes, and gives birth to falsehood.

16. He digs a pit, digs it deep, only to fall into the trap he laid.

17. His mischief will return upon his own head, his violence will come down upon his own skull.

18. I will praise the Lord according to His righteousness, and sing to the Name of the Lord Most High

Chapter 8

This psalm is a glorious praise to God for His kindness to the lowly and mortal human in giving the Torah to the inhabitants of the lower worlds, arousing the envy of the celestial angels. This idea is expressed in the Yom Kippur prayer, “Though Your mighty strength is in the angels above, You desire praise from those formed of lowly matter.”

1. For the Conductor, on the gittit,1 a psalm by David.

2. Lord, our Master, how mighty is Your Name throughout the earth, You Who has set Your majesty upon the heavens!

3. Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings You have established might, to counter Your enemies, to silence foe and avenger.2

4. When I behold Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars which You have set in place—

5. what is man that You should remember him, son of man that You should be mindful of him?

6. Yet, You have made him but a little less than the angels, and crowned him with honor and glory.

7. You made him ruler over Your handiwork, You placed everything under his feet.

8. Sheep and cattle—all of them, also the beasts of the field;

9. the birds of the sky and the fish of the sea; all that traverses the paths of the seas.

10. Lord, our Master, how mighty is Your Name throughout the earth.

Chapter 9

One should praise God for saving him from the hand of the enemy who stands over and agonizes him, and for His judging each person according to his deeds: the righteous according to their righteousness, and the wicked according to their wickedness.

1. For the Conductor, upon the death of Labben, a psalm by David.

2. I will thank the Lord with all my heart; I will recount all Your wonders.

3. I will rejoice and exult in You; I will sing to Your Name, O Most High.

4. When my enemies retreat, they will stumble and perish from before You.

5. You have rendered my judgement and [defended] my cause; You sat on the throne, O righteous Judge.

6. You destroyed nations, doomed the wicked, erased their name for all eternity.

7. O enemy, your ruins are gone forever, and the cities you have uprooted—their very remembrance is lost.

8. But the Lord is enthroned forever, He established His throne for judgement.

9. And He will judge the world with justice, He will render judgement to the nations with righteousness.

10. The Lord will be a stronghold for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble.

11. Those who know Your Name put their trust in You, for You, Lord, have not abandoned those who seek You.

12. Sing to the Lord Who dwells in Zion, recount His deeds among the nations.

13. For the Avenger of bloodshed is mindful of them; He does not forget the cry of the downtrodden.

14. Be gracious to me, O Lord; behold my affliction at the hands of my enemies, You Who raises me from the gates of death,

15. so that I may relate all Your praises in the gates of the daughter of Zion, that I may exult in Your deliverance.

16. The nations sank into the pit that they made; in the net they concealed their foot was caught.

17. The Lord became known through the judgement He executed; the wicked one is snared in the work of his own hands; reflect on this always.

18. The wicked will return to the grave, all the nations that forget God.

19. For not for eternity will the needy be forgotten, nor will the hope of the poor perish forever.

20. Arise, O Lord, let not man prevail; let the nations be judged in Your presence.

21. Set Your mastery over them, O Lord; let the nations know that they are but frail men, Selah.

-------

Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 34

• Lessons in Tanya

• Today's Tanya Lesson Monday, Adar II 1, 5774 • March 3, 2014

Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 34

ומשחרב בית המקדש אין להקב״ה בעולמו משכן ומכון לשבתו, הוא יחודו יתברך, אלא ארבע אמות של הלכה

Ever since the Temple was destroyed, “the four cubits of the Halachah” — i.e., Torah study — is the only sanctuary and abode which the Holy One, blessed be He, has in His world; i.e., Torah is the only abode for the revelation of His unity.

שהוא רצונו יתברך וחכמתו, המלובשים בהלכות הערוכות לפנינו

For the halachot set out before us are the actual embodiment of G d’s Will and wisdom, which are one with G d; the halachic ruling represents the Divine Will, and what underlies it is Divine wisdom. Hence in the Torah, G d’s unity stands revealed.

ולכן אחר שיעמיק האדם מחשבתו בענין ביטול הנ״ל כפי יכלתו, זאת ישיב אל לבו

Therefore, after one meditates deeply, according to his ability, on the subject of this above-mentioned self-nullification, let him reflect in his heart as follows:

כי מהיות קטן שכלי ושרש נשמתי מהכיל להיות מרכבה ומשכן ליחודו יתברך באמת לאמיתו

“The capacity of my intelligence and of my soul’s root is too limited to constitute a chariot and an abode for G d’s unity in perfect truth.

מאחר דלית מחשבה דילי תפיסא ומשגת בו יתברך כלל וכלל שום השגה בעולם

“For my thought cannot grasp or apprehend His unity at all with any degree of comprehension in the world;

ולא שמץ מנהו מהשגת האבות והנביאים

not an iota, in fact, of that which was grasped by the Patriarchs and Prophets, who were G d’s chariot and abode by virtue of their awareness of G d’s unity, as they grasped it.

אי לזאת אעשה לו משכן ומכון לשבתו, הוא העסק בתלמוד תורה כפי הפנאי שלי בקביעות עתים ביום ובלילה

“This being so, I will make Him a sanctuary and an abode by studying Torah at fixed times by day and by night, to the extent of my free time,

כדת הניתנה לכל אחד ואחד בהלכות תלמוד תורה

as stipulated by the law governing each individual’s situation, set forth in the Laws of Torah Study.

וכמאמר רז״ל: אפילו פרק אחד שחרית כו׳ 

”As our Sages say,1 ‘Even one chapter in the morning and one at night...’ suffice, for one who can manage no more, for him to be regarded as ‘engaging in Torah study day and night.’ Therefore, by fulfilling this minimal quota, I too will become an abode for G dliness.”

ובזה ישמח לבו ויגיל, ויתן הודאה על חלקו בשמחה ובטוב לבב

Thereby, his heart shall rejoice; he shall be glad and offer joyous thanks for his fortune

על שזכה להיות אושפזיכן לגבורה פעמים בכל יום כפי העת והפנאי שלו, כמסת ידו אשר הרחיב ה׳ לו

in meriting to be the Almighty’s “host”2 through his study of Torah, which causes him to be a “sanctuary” for G d twice each day, according to the extent of his available time, and according to the capacity which G d has granted him.

FOOTNOTES

1. Menachot 99b.

2. 12a.

-------

Rambam:

• Daily Mitzvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:

Today's Mitzvah

A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"

Positive Commandment 166

Resting on the First Day of Sukkot

"On the first day [of Sukkot] there shall be a holy convocation"—Leviticus 23:35.

We sanctify the fifteenth of Tishrei, the first day of Sukkot, by resting on that day—defined as abstaining from any creative work, with the exception of work needed for food purposes.

Resting on the First Day of Sukkot

Positive Commandment 166

Translated by Berel Bell

The 166th mitzvah is that we are commanded to refrain from doing melachah on the first640 day1 of Sukkos.

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "The first day [of Sukkos] shall be a sacred holiday."

FOOTNOTES

1.See above note 30.

2.Lev. 23:35.

________________________________________

Negative Commandment 327

Working on the First Day of Sukkot

"...You shall do no servile work"—Leviticus 23:35.

It is forbidden to engage in creative work – with the exception of work needed for food purposes – on the fifteenth of Tishrei, the first day of Sukkot.

Working on the First Day of Sukkot

Negative Commandment 327

Translated by Berel Bell

The 327th prohibition is that we are forbidden to perform melachah on the first640 day of Sukkos.

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement, "No servile melachah may be done."

________________________________________

Positive Commandment 167

Resting on Shemini Atzeret

"On the eighth day, there shall be a holy convocation for you"—Leviticus 23:36.

We sanctify Shemini Atzeret, the twenty-second of Tishrei, the eighth day from the first day of Sukkot, by resting on that day—defined as abstaining from any creative work, with the exception of work needed for food purposes.

Resting on Shemini Atzeret

Positive Commandment 167

Translated by Berel Bell

The 167th mitzvah is that we are commanded to refrain from doing melachah on the eighth1 day of Sukkos.

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "The eighth day is a sacred holiday for you."

You must know that the command to refrain from melachah is identical for all of these six days,3 and not a single one of these days has a prohibited melachah unique to it that does not apply to the other. So too, we are allowed to prepare food on each one of them. Therefore, the same law of refraining from melachah applies to all Yomim-Tovim, the details of which are explained in Tractate Yom-Tov [Beitzah].

However, the law of refraining from melachah on Shabbos and Yom Kippur includes these types of melachah and many others as well, because preparation of food was not allowed on these two days. There are some categories of melachah4 which, although they do not involve food preparation, are still permitted on Yom-Tov and forbidden on Shabbos, as explained in Tractate Yom-Tov.5

FOOTNOTES

1.Outside of Israel, this mitzvah is for the eighth and ninth day.

2.Lev. 23:36.

3.The 1st and 7th days of Pesach, Shavuos, Rosh HaShanah, the 1st and 8th days of Sukkos.

4.Such as making a fire and carrying.

5.12a.

________________________________________

Negative Commandment 328

Working on Shemini Atzeret

"...You shall do no servile work"—Leviticus 23:36.

It is forbidden to engage in creative work – with the exception of work needed for food purposes – on Shemini Atzeret, the twenty-second of Tishrei.

Working on Shemini Atzeret

Negative Commandment 328

Translated by Berel Bell

The 328th prohibition is that we are forbidden to perform melachah on Shemini Atzeres [the eighth1 day of Sukkos].

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement, "No servile melachah may be done" [on that day].

You must know that anyone that does any melachah on any of these six days is punished by lashes, unless it is a type of melachah used in preparing food, as the verse2 says regarding one Yom-Tov [Pesach], "The only [melachah] that you may do is that which is needed so that everyone will be able to eat." The same law applies to the other Yomim Tovim.

The details of this commandment are explained in Tractate Beitzah.

FOOTNOTES

1.Outside of Israel, this mitzvah is for the eighth and ninth day.

2.Ex. 12:16.

________________________________________

Negative Commandment 199

Eating Chametz after Noon of the Fourteenth of Nissan

"You shall eat no leavened bread upon it"—Deuteronomy 16:3.

We are forbidden to eat chametz (leavened foods) after midday of the fourteenth of Nissan. As the Torah says, "You shall eat no leavened bread upon it"—"it" referring to the Paschal Offering, which was offered after midday on the eve of Passover.

(The Sages extended this prohibition to include a time period before midday, to prevent anyone from inadvertently consuming chametz after midday, when it is biblically forbidden.)

Eating Chametz after Noon of the Fourteenth of Nissan

Negative Commandment 199

Translated by Berel Bell

The 199th prohibition is that we are forbidden to eat chometz [leaven] on the 14th [of Nissan] after noon.

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not eat any chometz with it."

This expression ["with it"] refers to the Pesach lamb which we are required to sacrifice between noon and sundown on the 14th [of Nissan]. Therefore, the verse means that when the time to bring the sacrifice begins [i.e. noon], you may not eat chometz.

Tractate Pesachim2 says, "What is the source of the prohibition not to eat chometz after the sixth hour [i.e. noon]? The verse, 'Do not eat any chometz with it.' " It also says there,3 "According to all opinions, [eating chometz] after the sixth hour is a Biblical prohibition." This is the version of all the reliable copies which were read by the Talmudic Sages.4

The reason for the prohibition of eating chometz during the sixth hour5 is said there:6 "The Sages made an additional prohibition in order that people not come to a Biblical prohibition." Anyone who transgresses and eats chometz after noon is punished by lashes.

The details of this commandment are explained in the beginning of tractate Pesachim.

FOOTNOTES

1.Deut. 16:3.

2.28b.

3.Ibid., 4b.

4.Our version of this passage reads "prohibited" (which could mean by Rabbinic law), rather than "Biblical." However, the copies of the Gemara which were used by the Geonim (referred to as "Talmudic Sages") read "Biblical." See Kapach 5731, footnote 99.

5.I.e., the hour before noon.

6.Ibid., 2b.

________________________________________

Rambam:

• 1 Chapter: Hilchot Nizkei Mammon Chapter Seven 

Chapter Seven

1. [The following rules apply when] an ox breaks loose and causes damage after its owner had tied it with a rope and locked it [in a corral] in an acceptable manner.1 If it is a tam, he is required to pay only half the damages.

If it is mu'ad, he is not liable at all,2 as [implied by Exodus 21:29]: "[If the owners were warned,] and they did not guard him." [One can infer that] if they did guard, they are not liable. [And in the above instance, the ox] was guarded.3

Similarly, if an ox caused damage through an activity for which he is mu'ad at the outset - e.g., it ate a type of food that it usually eats or it broke objects by treading on them - [the owner] is not liable [in the above instance].

2. If the ox has been classified as mu'ad with regard to its right horn, but it is not mu'ad with regard to its left horn, and it got loose after it had been guarded in an acceptable manner, [the owner is required to] pay half the damages.4 [This applies] regardless of whether it gored with its right horn or its left horn.

3. [The following rules apply when] an animal injures a human being, whether intentionally or unintentionally. If the animal is a tam, half the damages must be paid from the body of the animal. If it is mu'ad, [the owner] must pay the entire amount of the damages.5

He is, however, not liable for compensation for unemployment, embarrassment, pain and medical expenses. For the Torah required redress for these matters only when one person injured a colleague.6 When, by contrast, it is an animal which caused the injury, it is as if [the animal] damaged the person's property, and [the owner] is liable for only half of the damages.

For this reason, if a person's ox causes [another individual] embarrassment, he is not liable. If, however, he causes that embarrassment himself, he is liable, as will be explained.7

If a person's ox injures his father or mother, or it sets fire to a person's grain heap on the Sabbath, [the owner] is liable, although if the person performed these same actions himself, he would not be liable.8

4. [The following rules apply when] a person brings his ox into a courtyard belonging to another person without his permission. If the [uninvited ox] was gored by an ox belonging to the owner or bitten by the owner's dog, the owner is not liable.

If the [uninvited ox] gored an ox belonging to the owner [of the courtyard], [the owner of the uninvited ox is liable.] If [his ox] is tam, [its owner] must pay half the damages. If it is mu'ad, he must pay the entire damages, as if it had gored [the other ox] in the public domain.9

5. [In the above situation, the following rules apply if the uninvited ox] falls into a cistern in this courtyard and spoils its water. If it spoiled the water immediately upon falling within,10 [the owner of the ox] is liable for the loss caused by the ruining of the water. If [the water] was not spoiled until afterwards,11 [the owner] is not liable. [The rationale is that] the ox is considered to be an obstruction in the cistern, and the water is considered to be a utensil. And one is never liable for damage to utensils caused by an obstruction.12

If [the owner of the ox received] permission to bring in his ox, the owner of the ox is not liable for any damage the ox caused.13 If the owner of the courtyard accepted responsibility for the ox,14 he is liable for the damages it suffers from falling into the cistern.

6. [The following rules also apply when] a person brings his ox into a courtyard belonging to another person without his permission. If the [uninvited ox] injures the owner of the courtyard, the owner of the courtyard suffers injury [because of the ox], or [the ox] digs pits or trenches, or burrows in the courtyard, the owner of the ox is liable for the damage to the courtyard [or to the owner]. [If another person] is injured because of these pits,15 the owner of the courtyard is liable, for it is his responsibility to fill them up.

7. [The following rules apply if] the owner of the courtyard damaged the ox: If he caused the damage unknowingly, he is not liable. For he can tell [the owner of the ox], "Why did you bring [your ox] in without permission. I was not aware of it until I [damaged it] unknowingly."16 If he caused the damage knowingly, he is liable for the full extent of the damage. He has the right to take the [intruding animal] out of his property; he does not have the right to damage it.

8. We evaluate the amount of damages caused.

What is implied? If either a person or his ox broke a utensil belonging to a colleague, we do not tell the person who caused the damage, "Take the broken utensil and pay its worth to its owner."17 Instead, we evaluate the loss caused to the utensil. This amount is paid by the person who caused the damage. [If the damage was caused by his ox, and the ox] was mu'ad, he is liable for the full amount of the damages. If it is tam, he is liable for half the damages.

[This is implied by Exodus 21:36]: "And the carcass will be his" - i.e., it belongs to the one whose property was damaged. If the carcass loses value, the person whose property was damaged suffers the loss. If its value rises, the increase is divided between the person who caused the damage and the person whose property was damaged.

9. What is implied? When an ox that is worth 200 [zuz] is gored and dies - its carcass was worth 100 [zuz] at the time of its death,18 but at the time of the trial, it decreased in value and was worth only 80. [In such an instance,] the person whose [ox] caused the damage is required to pay only 100 [zuz],19 if [the ox] was mu'ad. If it was a tam, the owner is required to pay only 50 [zuz] from the body of the ox.

10. If the value of the carcass increased, and it is worth 120 [zuz] at the time of the trial, the one who caused the damage must pay 9020 if the ox was mu'ad, and 45 from the body of the ox if it was a tam. [This is implied by Exodus 21:35]: "And they shall also divide the dead [ox]" - i.e., they shall divide the profit from the dead ox.21

11. [The amount that the person whose ox caused the damage must pay is subject to change in some, but not in all, circumstances. To illustrate:] An ox that was worth 200 [zuz] gored another ox worth 200 [zuz], causing it to depreciate 50 [zuz]. At the time of the trial, its value increased and it was worth 400 zuz. If, however, it had not been gored, it would have been worth 800 [zuz]. Whether its value increased because it was fattened or because of market fluctuations,22 the damages are evaluated according to the loss at the time the damage took place.23

If the ox became weak because of the injury it received and the damages amounted to 100 zuz at the time of the trial, the damages are evaluated according to the loss at the time of the trial.24

12. [The following rules apply if] the value of the ox that caused the damage increased at the time of the trial.25 If its value increased because the owner fattened it, only its value at the time it caused the damage is considered to be on lien for payment.26 If its value increased because of market fluctuations, half of the damages may be collected from its value at the time of the trial.27

13. It is the responsibility of the person who caused the damage to make the effort to bring the carcass of the ox that was damaged to the person [whose ox] was damaged.

What is implied? An ox fell into a cistern and died. [The owner of the cistern] must raise the carcass [of the ox]28 from the cistern and give it to its owner. Then we evaluate the extent of the loss.

[This is derived from Exodus 21:34]: "He shall give monetary recompense to the owners, and the carcass will be [the owners']." This teaches that he is obligated to return the carcass and the decrease in the value of the ox [from the time]29 when it was alive, to its owner. If [the ox that caused the damage was a tam], [its owner is required to pay only] half the damages, as explained above.30

FOOTNOTES

1. I.e., with a gate that can withstand an ordinary wind. According to the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 396:1), this halachah is speaking about guarding the animal in an inferior manner as explained in the notes to Chapter 4, Halachah 4. If the animal is guarded in an excellent manner, there is no liability.

2. According to the Rambam, the owner is not liable for even half the damages. Rabbenu Asher and others differ. According to their view, since he did guard the ox to some degree, he is not liable for the full damages. He is, however, liable for half the damages, for there is no reason why the laws governing him should be more lenient than those governing an ordinary ox. See Sefer Me'irat Einayim 396:1.

3. Note the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Kama, conclusion of Chapter 4), which states that since this ox frequently gores, it is a mitzvah to slaughter it.

4. Since the ox is considered to be a tam with regard to one element of goring, the owner is never freed from the obligation to pay the half damages that the owner of an ordinary ox would pay.

5. Although these principles are stated in the Torah explicitly with regard only to damage done to another animal, Bava Kama 33a explains how an equation to human injury is derived.

6. For Leviticus 24:19, the source for the laws applying to human injury, states: When a man will cause a blemish to a colleague.... Implied is that these laws apply only when the injury is caused by another man.

7. Hilchot Chovel UMazik 1:1,9.

8. A human being is not liable in these instances. The rationale is that he is liable for capital punishment for injuring his parents or desecrating the Sabbath. Whenever a person incurs both liability for capital punishment and monetary restitution with the performance of a single deed, he is freed of responsibility for the monetary claim. See Hilchot Chovel UMazik 4:5,7.

9. The words as if it had gored in the public domain refer to the fact that the owner of an ox that is tam pays for only half the damages. One might draw a comparison to the damage caused by eating or treading, in which instance the owner of the ox is not held liable for damage caused in the public domain, but he is liable for the entire amount of damages caused in the domain of the owner of the produce. To counter this hypothesis, the Rambam emphasizes that with regard to goring, one is liable as in the public domain, but not more.

10. E.g., the ox was covered with filth at the time it fell into the cistern.

11. E.g., the ox spoiled it with its wastes.

12. See Chapter 13, Halachah 1.

13. The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachot 8-9, when an ox causes damage in a courtyard belonging jointly to its owner and another person, the owner of the ox is liable for the damage it causes. Why then, asks the Ra'avad, is the owner of the ox not liable in this situation? The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 398:5), however, quotes the Rambam's ruling.

14. As mentioned in the notes on Chapter 3, Halachot 13-15, the Tur differs with Rambam and maintains that granting the owner of the ox permission to bring his ox into the courtyard is equivalent to accepting responsibility for any damage to it caused by the owner or his property. With regard to damages caused by others, however, the owner of the courtyard is not liable unless he accepts responsibility. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) quotes the Rambam's wording, while the Ramah follows the perspective of the Tur.

15. The Maggid Mishneh and Sefer Me'irat Einayim 398:2 state that the owner of the courtyard is generally not liable for the injury another person suffered because of these pits, since he can always claim: Who gave you permission to enter my property? Only when the owner gives up ownership of his property or gives others the right to enter is he liable.

16. This phrase has attracted the attention of the commentaries, for it implies that if the owner of the courtyard knew that the animal had entered his property, he would be liable even when he caused the damage accidentally. From Hilchot Chovel UMazik 1:16, 6:3, however, it appears that he would not be liable in such an instance. See Migdal Oz, Lechem Mishneh.

17. Note the contrast to Hilchot Geneivah 1:15. See Sefer Me'irat Einayim 403:1.

18. The Tur maintains that the time that is significant is not the time of the animal's death, but the time when its owner is notified regarding its death. Until that time, the one who caused the damage is responsible for the loss. The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 403:2) mentions this view.

19. And not 120.

20. I.e., the 100 zuz that the owner of the ox lost, minus 10 zuz, which is the share of the profit given to the person who caused the damage.

21. The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 403:2) emphasize that although the person who caused the damage is given a share in the value of the dead ox, this applies only with regard to the loss. If the price of meat rises to the extent that the meat of the ox is worth more than the ox was worth when it was alive, the one who caused the damages is not given a share of the profits.

22. I.e., the price of cattle increased.

23. I.e., 50 zuz if the ox was mu'ad. With regard to the larger sum, the matter is considered one of grama, an indirect cause of damage. Therefore, the owner of the ox is not liable (Sefer Me'irat Einayim 404:2).

24. Tosafot, Bava Kama 10b draws a distinction between this instance and Halachah 8, which states that the increased loss to the carcass is suffered by its owner. The rationale for this distinction is that once the ox died, its owner should have sold it immediately. In this instance, since the ox was still alive, its owner thought that it would recover and that the loss would be less.

25. This increase is significant, because the owner of the ox that was damaged can collect the payment (half of the damage) for the damages, only from the body of the ox that caused the damage. Thus, if the damage to an ox was 200 zuz, and the ox that caused the damage was worth only 80 zuz, the fact that its value increased to 100 zuz could affect the amount the owner of the damaged ox receives.

26. I.e., in the above instance, the payment would be only 80 zuz. The rationale is that the owner of the ox who caused the damage will say: Did I fatten my ox so that you will take the profit?The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 404:2) differ and maintain that if the increase in the value of the ox exceeds the cost of fattening it, the cost of fattening it is deducted from its value, and the person whose ox was damaged receives half of the difference.

27. I.e., in the above instance, the payment would be 100 zuz. The rationale is that since the body of the ox that caused the damage is on lien for the damages, and now that body is worth 100 zuz, the entire amount may be expropriated. Note the Or Sameach, who emphasizes that although the payment is taken from the body of the ox that caused the damages, the lien is not established until the time of the trial. Thus, if the owner of the ox that caused the damage consecrates it, it is consecrated, and the owner of the damaged ox receives no payment at all.

28. The Tur (Choshen Mishpat 403) writes that although the responsibility to raise the ox is that of the owner of the cistern, if the owner of the ox becomes aware that his ox fell into the cistern, he must raise it and then bill the owner of the cistern for his costs. Sefer Me'irat Einayim 403:8 quotes this ruling.

29. It is as if the verse reads He shall give monetary recompense and the carcass to the owners (Bava Kama 10b).

30. Halachah 8.

-------

Rambam:

• 3 Chapters: Shevitat Yom Tov Chapter Seven, Shevitat Yom Tov Chapter Eight, Chometz U'Matzah Chapter One 

Chapter Seven

Halacha 1

Although Chol HaMo'ed is not referred to as a Sabbath,1 since it is referred to as "a holy convocation" and it was a time when the Chagigah sacrifices were brought in the Temple, it is forbidden to perform labor2 during this period, so that these days will not be regarded as ordinary weekdays that are not endowed with holiness at all. A person who performs forbidden labor on these days is given stripes for rebelliousness, for the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin.3

Not all the types of "servile labor" forbidden on a holiday are forbidden on it, for the intent of the prohibition is that the day not be regarded as an ordinary weekday with regard to all matters. Therefore, some labors are permitted on it, and some are forbidden.

Halacha 2

These are [the labors that are permitted]: Any labor may be performed if it would result in a great loss if not performed, provided it does not involve strenuous activity.

What is implied? We may irrigate parched land on [Chol Ha]Mo'ed,4but not land that is well-irrigated. For if parched land is not irrigated, the trees on it will be ruined.

When a person irrigates [such land], he should not draw water and irrigate [the land, using water] from a pool or rain water, for this involves strenuous activity.5 He may, however, irrigate it [using water] from a spring:6 whether an existing spring, or a spring that must be uncovered anew. He may extend the spring and irrigate [his land using this water]. The same applies in all similar situations.

Halacha 3

A person may turn over his olives during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed,7 grind them, press them, fill jugs up with oil, and seal them as he does on weekdays. Whenever the failure to perform a labor would lead to a loss, one may perform the labor in its ordinary way without deviating from one's regular practice.

Similarly, a person may bring in his produce [to protect it] from thieves, provided he does so discreetly.8 A person may remove his flax from soaking so that it will not be spoiled, and one may harvest a vineyard during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed if the time to harvest it has come.9

Halacha 4

It is forbidden for a person to delay the performance of these or similar labors intentionally so that he will be able to perform them during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed when he has free time. Whenever a person ignores his work, leaving it for [Chol Ha]Mo'ed with the intention of performing it then, and actually [begins] to do so, the [Jewish] court must destroy [the fruits of this labor] and/or declare it ownerless, [free to be acquired] by anyone.10

If a person [delayed] his work, with the intention [of performing it on Chol HaMo'ed] and died, we do not punish his son, and cause him a loss. [On the contrary,] we do not prevent the son from performing the labor on [Chol Ha]Mo'ed so that he will not suffer a loss.

Halacha 5

[The following rules apply when] a person must sew a garment or build a structure during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed: If he is an ordinary person and not skilled in the performance of that labor, he may perform it in his ordinary manner. If, however, he is a skilled craftsman, he [must deviate from his ordinary practice, and] perform the labor as an ordinary person would.

What is implied? When sewing, he should sew stitches as a weaver would.11 When building, he should place the stones down, but should not put mortar upon them. One may smooth [plaster over] cracks [in a roof] with a roller, with one's hands and with one's feet as one would do with a trowel.12 The same applies in other similar situations.

Halacha 6

[The following rule applies when] a person has grain that is still growing in the ground, and he has no other food to eat except this [grain]:13 Although he would not suffer a loss [if he did not harvest the grain], we do not require him to buy what he needs at the marketplace and [wait] until after the festival to harvest.

Instead, he may harvest [the grain] he needs,14 collect it in sheaves, thresh it, winnow it, separate it, and grind it, provided he does not thresh it with oxen.15 For any labor performed [during Chol HaMo'ed] that does not involve a loss must be [performed] in a manner departing from the norm. The same applies in other similar situations.

Halacha 7

[Food]16 that one desires to pickle that can be eaten during a festival may be pickled [during Chol HaMo'ed]. If, however, the pickled food will not be ready until after the festival, it is forbidden to pickle it [during Chol HaMo'ed].

One may catch as many fish as one can17 during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed and salt them all, for it is possible for him partake of them during the festival if he squeezes them many times by hand until they become soft.

Halacha 8

One may set beer to ferment during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed for the sake of the festival. If it is not for the sake of the festival, it is forbidden. This applies both to beer made from dates18 and beer made from barley.

Even if a person has aged beer, he may act with guile and [prepare fresh beer to] drink, for the guile of this act would not be noticeable to an observer.19 The same applies in other similar situations.

Halacha 9

Whenever labors that are necessary for the festival are performed [during Chol HaMo'ed] by professionals, they must be performed in a private manner.20 What is implied? Hunters, millers, and grape-harvesters, whose intent is to sell their products in the marketplace, must perform these activities in a private manner for the sake of the festival. If these activities are not performed for the sake of the festival, [the products] are forbidden. If they perform these activities for the sake of the festival and the products remain afterwards, they may be used.

Halacha 10

We may perform [any labors that are] necessary for the sake of the community at large during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed.21

What is implied? We may fix breaches in waterworks in the public domain; we may fix the highways and the roads; we may dig cisterns, trenches, and grottos for the public;22 we may dig rivulets so that they will have water to drink; we may store water in cisterns and grottos belonging to the public and may fix the cracks [in their walls];23 we may remove brambles from the roads; and we may measure mikvaot.24 When the amount of water in a mikveh is lacking, we may direct water to it to complete its measure.

Halacha 11

The agents of the court may go out to declare ownerless fields that contain a mixture of species.25 We may redeem captives [taken by gentiles], endowment evaluations,26 entitlements,27 and consecrated articles.28

We may have a woman suspected of adultery drink [the required mixture],29 we may burn a red heifer,30 we may break the neck of a calf,31 we may pierce the ear of a slave,32 and we may purify a leper.33 We may also designate the site of graves whose markings were washed away by rain, so that the priests will not walk there.34 All these are activities necessary for the community at large.

Halacha 12

Similarly, we may judge monetary disputes,35 cases involving the punishment by lashing, and capital cases during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed. When a person does not accept a judgment, a ban of ostracism may be issued against him during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed. Just as cases may be judged during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed, we may write court documents and any similar articles during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed.

What is implied? The judges may write an account of the evaluation of [a debtor's property] for his creditor, a statement of the property sold to feed a person's wife and daughters,36 and a bill of chalitzah37 and of miyyun.38 Similarly, we may write any legal document that the judges require to remind them - e.g., a record of the claims of the litigants, or a statement of the concessions they made - e.g., that so and so is acceptable [to testify regarding] my case, that so and so may serve as a judge.39

When a person requires a loan and the lender will not grant him the loan on a verbal commitment alone, it is permitted to have a promissory note written. Similarly, a bill of divorce,40 a bill of marriage, a receipt [for payment of a debt], and a deed [recording a present may be written during Chol HaMo'ed], for all these resemble matters necessary for the community at large.41

Halacha 13

It is forbidden to write [professionally] during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed; this includes even Torah scrolls, tefillin42 and mezuzot. Nor may one check [the letters of a Torah scroll],43 not even a single letter in the scroll kept in the Temple courtyard,44 for this is not a labor that is necessary for the sake of the festival.45

A person may, however, write tefillin or mezuzot for himself, or spin purple cloth for his garment.46 If he has nothing to eat,47 he may write and sell to others for his livelihood.

Halacha 14

It is permitted to write social correspondence during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed. Similarly, one may make a reckoning of one's budget and costs. For a person does not take much care when writing these matters, and this is thus like the performance of a task by an ordinary person.48

Halacha 15

We may take care of all the needs of a corpse during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed.49 We may cut its hair, wash its shrouds, and make a coffin for it. If there are no boards available, we may bring beams and cut boards from them in a discreet manner inside a building.50 If [the coffin is intended for] an important person, it may be made in the marketplace.51

We may not, however, cut down a tree from the forest to cut boards for a coffin, nor may we quarry out stones to build a grave.

Halacha 16

We may not inspect leprous blotches during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed,52 lest the person be declared impure and his festival be transformed into a period of mourning.

We may neither marry, nor perform the act of yibbum53 during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed, so that the happiness of the festival will not be obscured by the happiness of the marriage. One may, however, remarry one's divorcee, and one may betroth54 a woman during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed, provided one does not make a feast for the betrothal or the wedding,55 so that no other rejoicing will be combined with the rejoicing of the festival.

Halacha 17

We may not cut hair,56 nor may we launder clothes during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed. [This is] a decree, [instituted] lest a person wait until [Chol Ha]Mo'ed and enter the first day of the holiday unkempt.57 Therefore, anyone who was unable to cut his hair or launder his clothes on the day before the commencement of the holiday may launder his clothes and cut his hair during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed.

Halacha 18

What is implied? The [following] individuals are permitted to cut their hair and launder their clothes during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed: a mourner whose seventh day of mourning falls on [the first day of] a holiday58- or even if [his seventh day] falls on the day before the holiday, but it is a Sabbath, when it is forbidden to cut hair, a person who returns from an overseas journey - provided he did not travel for pleasure, but rather for business purposes and the like - a person who is freed from captivity, or freed from prison,59 a person who was under a ban of ostracism60 that was not lifted until [Chol Ha]Mo'ed, a person who took an oath not to cut his hair, or not to launder his clothes and did not ask a wise man to abrogate his oath61 until [Chol Ha]Mo'ed.62

Halacha 19

In all the above situations, if any of the persons had the opportunity to cut their hair before the festival but failed to do so, they are forbidden from doing so [during Chol HaMo'ed].

In contrast, when the time for a nazarite or a leper to shave has already arrived,63 whether it arrived during the festival or before the festival, they may shave during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed, even if they had the opportunity [to shave their hair before the holiday], so that they will not delay the offering of their sacrifices. [Similarly,] anyone who terminates a state of ritual impurity and becomes pure is permitted to cut his hair during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed.64

We may cut a child's hair during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed,65 whether he was born during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed or before [Chol Ha]Mo'ed.66

The members of the priestly watch serving in the Temple who completed [their week of service]67 during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed may cut their hair. For the members of the priestly watch may not cut their hair during their week of service.68

Halacha 20

It is permitted to cut one's mustache during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed and to cut one's nails,69 even using a utensil.70

A woman may remove the hair from her underarms and her pubic hair by hand, or with a utensil.71 Similarly, she may undergo all cosmetic treatments during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed: [e.g.,] she may paint her eyes, part her hair, apply rouge to her face, and apply lime to her skin72 and the like, provided she can remove it73 during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed.

Halacha 21

A zav,74 a zavah,75 a niddah,76 a woman who gave birth,77 and all those who emerge from a state of ritual impurity during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed are permitted to launder their garments.78

A person who has only one garment should79 wash it during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed. Hand towels, barber's towels,80 and bathing towels are permitted to be laundered. Similarly, undergarments81 are permitted to be laundered during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed,82 because they must continually be laundered, even if they were laundered on the day preceding the holiday.

Halacha 22

One may not become involved in commercial enterprise during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed, whether one sells or purchases.83 If, however, the matter is one that involves the loss [of an opportunity] that is not always available after the festival84 - e.g., ships or caravans that have arrived or that are preparing to depart and they are selling their wares cheaply or purchasing dearly - it is permissible to sell and to purchase from them [during Chol HaMo'ed].

We may not purchase buildings, servants, and animals that are not necessary during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed.85

Halacha 23

Merchants selling produce, garments, and utensils may sell them discreetly for the sake of the festival.86 What is implied? If [the merchant's] store opens to a corner or to a lane, he may operate it in his ordinary manner. If it opens into the public thoroughfare, he should open one door and close the other. On the day before Shemini Atzeret,87 one may take out one's produce and adorn the marketplace with it, as an expression of honor for the holiday.

Spice merchants88 may sell their wares in their ordinary manner, in public [during Chol HaMo'ed].

Halacha 24

Whatever is forbidden to be done during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed, one may not instruct a gentile to do [on one's behalf].

If a person does not have food to eat,89 a person may perform any task that is forbidden during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed or involve himself in any commercial enterprise to earn his livelihood.90

It is permissible for a rich man to hire a poor employee who does not have food to eat to perform tasks that are forbidden during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed, so that the worker will be paid a wage with which he can purchase his sustenance. Similarly, we may purchase articles that are not necessary for the festival, because the seller is in need and lacks food.

Halacha 25

We may hire a worker during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed to perform a task after the festival, provided he does not weigh, measure, or count [the amount of work he must perform] as he would on an ordinary day.

When a gentile has been contracted to perform a task for a Jew,91 [the Jew] should prevent him from performing it during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed. [This applies] even if the gentile [works] outside [the city's] Sabbath limits.92 For the people at large know that this task [is being performed] for the sake of a Jew and they will suspect that he hired the gentile to perform it for him during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed. For not all people are aware of the distinction between a hired laborer and a contractor. Therefore, [lest a mistaken impression arise,] it is forbidden.

FOOTNOTES

1.Which, as mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 2, is the proof-text requiring us to cease the performance of work on the holidays.

2.As evident from the continuation of the Rambam's statements, here the definition of labor is not - in contrast to the Sabbath and holidays - the 39 labors necessary to build the Sanctuary, but rather labor in the conventional sense: mundane activity that will prevent one from appreciating the festive mood of the holidays.

3.There are several Talmudic passages (e.g., Jerusalem Talmud, Pesachim 4:1) that quote verses from the Torah prohibiting the performance of work on Chol HaMo'ed. Nevertheless, according to the Rambam (and his position is shared by the Tur, Orach Chayim 530), these verses are merely asmachtot, allusions cited by the Rabbis as support for the decrees they instituted. [Significantly, however, the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Mo'ed Katan 1:1) contains an expression that indicates that he conceives of the prohibition against work on Chol HaMo'ed as part of the Oral Tradition given to Moses on Sinai.]

There are, however, other authorities [Yereim (the conclusion of section 304), the Ramban, and the Rashba] who maintain that the prohibition against work on Chol HaMo'ed is Scriptural in origin. The Be'ur Halachah 530 quotes the opinions of many authorities who accept this view.

The difference between these two perspectives is not merely theoretical in nature. One of the basic principles of Torah law is that when there is a doubt with regard to a question of Scriptural law, the more stringent view must be adopted. When, by contrast, there is a doubt with regard to a question of Rabbinic law, the more lenient view may be adopted. If the prohibition against working on Chol HaMo'ed is Scriptural in origin, then the more stringent view must be adopted in cases of doubt. Should, however, the prohibition be Rabbinic in origin, a lenient view may be adopted.

4.The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 537:1) rules more stringently, stating that this is permitted, only when one had already begun irrigating the land before the commencement of the holiday.

5.For he will have to carry water in buckets continually to irrigate the entire field [Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Mo'ed Katan 1:1)].

6.For the water in the spring flows on its own accord (Ibid.).

7.This and the other activities mentioned in this halachah are phases in the process of extracting oil from olives.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam on this point and allows the olives to be turned over only if they have been turned over once before. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 538:1) follows the Ra'avad's view.

8.E.g., at night (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:2). It is necessary to do this in a discreet manner, rather than publicly, for one cannot be sure that thieves will come. Thus, the loss is not inevitable (Maggid Mishneh, citing the Ramban). If, however, it is impossible to bring the produce in discreetly, one may do so in a manner that will attract attention (Ramah).

9.The Maggid Mishneh explains that the new dimension contributed by this law is that the grapes in question are still attached to the ground, and they may nevertheless be harvested.

10.Rav Moshe HaCohen and others have objected to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that the court does not have the right to declare a person's property ownerless. He interprets Mo'ed Katan 12b, the source for the Rambam's statement, differently, stating that the passage gives the court license to prevent the person from carrying out the labors that he had postponed, thus causing the produce to be ruined.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 538:6) follows the Rambam's ruling. The Ramah adds that if a person performs work with property belonging to others - e.g., a tailor or a scribe - and thus this punishment cannot be administered, he should be placed under a ban of ostracism and/or giving stripes for rebelliousness for working on Chol HaMo'ed.

11.Our translation is taken from Rav Kappach's edition of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Mo'ed Katan 1:8). Others interpret this term to mean "sew the stitches far apart." The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 541:5) interprets the phrase to mean "like a dog's teeth."

In his notes, the Ramah states that most ordinary people may be regarded as skilled with regard to sewing. Hence, everyone should employ this stringency.

12.One may not, however, use a trowel.

13.This ruling is based on a narrative in Mo'ed Katan 12b concerning Rav, who harvested his field during Chol HaMo'ed because he did not have any flour. From the Rambam's wording, it appears that he allows this leniency even when the person has financial resources at his disposal; he lacks merely the grain itself.

Rav Moshe HaCohen differs with the Rambam's ruling, stating that if the person possesses money and can buy flour in the marketplace, he is not allowed to harvest his field. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 537:15) quotes the Rambam's decision.

14.The Mishnah Berurah 537:52 states that one is allowed to perform only that labor which is necessary to provide him with grain for the holiday. He is not allowed to do any more. Nevertheless, in his Sha'ar HaTziyun 537:49, he brings other opinions that would allow a person to do more work if no additional expense is required.

15.From the Rambam's wording, it appears that the reason it is forbidden to use oxen is that it is necessary to depart from one's ordinary routine. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo offers a different rationale - that using oxen will make the matter public knowledge.

The difference between these two views is not only theoretical. According to the Rambam, it would be permitted to use other animals - e.g., horses or donkeys - to thresh, for this would also represent a departure from one's ordinary practice. According to Rav Yosef Karo, this would be forbidden because this would also become public knowledge. The Mishnah Berurah 537:52,53 quotes Rav Yosef Karo's view.

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) also states that if one is threshing the grain for others as well as for oneself, it is permitted to use oxen.

16.Mo'ed Katan 11a mentions this concept with regard to pickling fish. The same principle can be applied to pickling vegetables, except that with regard to vegetables the pickling process usually takes longer and the vegetables will not be ready to be eaten during the festival if the pickling process was begun during Chol HaMo'ed. [See Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 533:3) and commentaries.]

17.I.e., even if one catches far more than one needs for the festival itself. The rationale is that since some fish taste better than others, one can explain that one is continuing to fish to catch an especially tasty fish for the festival (Mishnah Berurah 533:18).

18.As was customary in Babylonia in Talmudic times.

19.For he can explain to others that he prefers fresh beer over aged beer (Mo'ed Katan 12b). Moreover, the observers may not even know that he possesses aged beer (Mishnah Berurah 533:9).

The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, stating that it follows only a minority opinion in Mo'ed Katan 12b. In support of the Rambam, the Or Sameach cites a passage in Shabbat 139b, which follows the same rationale. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 533:1) quotes the Ra'avad's view, while the Mishnah Berurah (loc. cit.) states that one may rely on the Rambam's view.

20.These and other professionals perform a large amount of work at one time. Therefore, even when such a professional is in fact preparing this work for the purpose of the holiday, an observer might not appreciate this and might think that he is producing work for after the holiday. A private individual, by contrast, does not perform a large amount of such work at one time, and an observer will realize that his intent is for the festival (Mishnah Berurah 533:22.)

21.Rabbenu Asher (in his gloss on Mo'ed Katan 2a) gives one reason for this leniency: during the year, all the members of the community are involved in their own affairs and do not have the time to concern themselves with the public welfare. On Chol HaMo'ed, when people are freed from their own concerns, they can turn their attention to the needs of the community at large. Another reason is obvious from the quote from the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah cited in the notes on the following halachah.

22.With regard to cisterns and trenches belonging to a private individual, see Chapter 8, Halachah 4.

23.The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that this applies to cisterns or waterworks that are not necessarily needed for the holiday itself. Even though they will not be needed until afterwards, they may be fixed during Chol HaMo'ed because they are for the benefit of the public.

24.To be acceptable for the immersion of a man or woman, a mikveh must contain at least 40 se'ah. In contemporary measure, certain authorities maintain that this figure is equivalent to approximately 250 liters. Shiurei Mikveh mentions many views, concluding that the minimum acceptable figure is 454 liters, and that one should try to reach 921.6 liters. The Chazon Ish cites a figure of 573.3 liters.

25.It is forbidden to sow two types of produce without adequate distinction in the same field (Leviticus 19:19). This prohibition is called the prohibition of kilayim.

In the beginning of the month of Adar (early spring), the court would send agents to notify farmers about this prohibition. From the fifteenth of Adar, they sent agents out to check if there were kilayim in the fields. Originally, the court's agents would remove the kilayim from the fields. The farmers then became lax, and left this work to the court's agents. Therefore, the Sages declared that whenever kilayim are found in a field, the court's agents should declare the field ownerless. During Chol HaMo'ed Pesach, when the crops bloom, the court would send agents out again (Hilchot Kilayim 2:15-17).

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Mo'ed Katan 1:2), the Rambam explains the reason why this activity was performed during Chol HaMo'ed: The wages for the court's agents were paid from the Temple treasury (terumat halishcah). Since there was very little other work available during Chol HaMo'ed, it would be easy to find people willing to work for low wages, and thus the Temple treasury would save.

26.The Hebrew term ערכין is discussed in Leviticus 27:1-8 and Hilchot Arachin VaCharamin, Chapter 1. It involves giving a specific sum to the Temple treasury for a person, depending on a person's age. In some contexts, the term ערכין is also used with regard to fields and animals consecrated to the Temple treasury.

27.This term is used to refer to the Hebrew חרם, a term implying that a person renounces his ownership of his property and dedicates it either to the Temple treasury or to the priests. (See Leviticus 27:28-29, Numbers 18:14; Hilchot Arachin VaCharamin 6:1.)

28.This refers to an article consecrated to the Temple treasury. In all three instances, the sum the person who made the dedication is required to pay may be evaluated during Chol HaMo'ed.

29.A woman suspected of adultery (a sotah) is brought to the Temple and required to drink a mixture of water, dust, and ink from a scroll containing a curse. (See Numbers 5:23-24; Hilchot Sotah, Chapter 3.)

30.A person who became ritually impure through contact with a human corpse must be purified by having the ashes of a red heifer sprinkled upon him (Numbers, Chapter 19). The slaughter of the red heifer and the preparation of these ashes is described in Hilchot Parah Adumah, Chapter 3.

31.When a corpse is found outside a populated area and the killer's identity is unknown, Deuteronomy 21:4 specifies a process of atonement that involves decapitating a calf. (See Hilchot Rotzeach, Chapter 9.)

32.A Hebrew servant sold by the court who desires to remain in servitude rather than regain his freedom must have his ear pierced. (See Exodus 21:6; Hilchot Avadim 3:9.)

33.A leper becomes ritually impure. The purification ceremony is discussed in Leviticus, Chapter 14; Hilchot Tum'at Tzara'at, Chapter 11.

34.Priests are forbidden to contract the impurity that stems from a human corpse. One of the ways of contracting such impurity is by standing over a grave. For this reason, graves would be marked with lime. During the rainy season, the lime might wash off. (See Hilchot Tum'at Meit 8:9.)

35.The Jewish court does not summon litigants during Nisan and Tishrei (Hilchot Sanhedrin 25:9). Nevertheless, should they come on their own accord, sessions may be held during Chol HaMo'ed (ibid., 11:1, 13:5)

36.This refers to a legal record of the sale of property from a deceased person's estate to provide for the support of his wife and daughters, or alternatively, a similar record required when a person goes on a journey and leaves his wife without support. (See Hilchot Ishut, Chapters 18 and 19.)

37.A childless widow is required to marry her deceased husband's brother. She is released from this obligation through a ritual act referred to as chalitzah. (See Deuteronomy 25:7-10.) After this ritual is performed, the court composes a legal record for the woman. See Hilchot Yibbum UChalitzah 4:29.

38.When a girl's father dies before she reaches the age of majority, our Sages gave her the opportunity to marry on a conditional basis. If upon attaining the age of majority, or beforehand, she no longer desires to continue her marriage, she does not require a formal divorce. All she need do is state her desire to terminate the marriage. Should she do this, a legal record is composed and granted to her. (See Hilchot Gerushin, Chapter 11.)

39.Although the Torah and the Sages disqualified certain individuals from serving as witnesses or judges, a litigant may, nevertheless, agree to allow such an individual to serve in this capacity (Hilchot Sanhedrin, Chapter 7). The judges may desire to have a written record of the commitment the litigant made.

40.Rashi (Mo'ed Katan 18b) states that this leniency is granted because the person desires to depart on a journey, implying that if that is not the case, a bill of divorce may not be composed. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 545:5) quotes the law without qualification, reflecting the Rambam's position. Note, however, Mishnah Berurah 545:20.

41.Although these are all personal matters, since they represent the ongoing needs of a community they are considered to involve the interest of the community at large (Mishnah Berurah 545:20). The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the reason is that the person may suffer a loss if these documents are not composed.

42.The Kessef Mishneh interprets this ruling as an indication that the Rambam maintains that one should not wear tefillin on Chol HaMo'ed. Significantly, in his gloss on Hilchot Tefillin 4:10, the Kessef Mishneh focuses on the latter half of this halachah and interprets it as an indication that one must wear tefillin at this time. (See the notes on that halachah for a more detailed discussion of this matter.)

43.This refers to an instance in which there is a scroll available for the communal Torah readings. If there is no scroll available, a Torah scroll may be checked and corrected (Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 545:2). Following this line of thinking, all texts that are required to be studied on the holiday may be written.

44.The Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 2:6) relates that since a Torah scroll must be checked for accuracy against an existing scroll, a scroll was kept in the Temple Courtyard for that purpose. (See Hilchot Sefer Torah 7:2.)

45.There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis with regard to texts that are needed for the community at large, but are not required for the festival itself. From the Rambam's wording, it is clear that he would forbid writing such texts. There are, however, more lenient opinions, and they are favored by the Ramah (loc. cit.:1).

46.This purple thread was used for tzitzit in Talmudic times.

47.According to the Rambam, there is no difference between writing tefillin and mezuzot, and other professions. Only when the wages he earns are required for his livelihood is he allowed to work.

The Ramah (loc. cit.:3) expresses a more lenient view. Since writing tefillin is a mitzvah, it is allowed on Chol HaMo'ed, provided the profits from one's work will enable one to celebrate the holiday in a more lavish manner.

48.The Rambam is explaining that since one is not performing a skilled task, there is no prohibition against this labor. The Ra'avad and Rav Moshe HaCohen differ with the Rambam's rationale and maintain that one is allowed to write social correspondence on Chol HaMo'ed because it is possible that after Chol HaMo'ed, one will have difficulty finding a person with whom to send the letter. One may keep one's accounts, because this is necessary in order to be able to know how much to spend on the holiday.

Although most Sephardic authorities (including the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 545:5) follow the Rambam's view, the Ashkenazic authorities tend towards the Ra'avad's explanation and forbid writing on Chol HaMo'ed unless a loss is involved. The Ramah thus states that it is customary not to write on Chol HaMo'ed. Nevertheless, the Mishnah Berurah 545:35 states that the more lenient view is generally followed. When writing on Chol HaMo'ed, many do so in a slightly irregular manner, thus adding more halachic weight to the lenient position.

49.Even those that involve the performance of labors that require professional expertise (Mishnah Berurah 547:19).

50.Discretion is necessary, for if the boards are made in public, a passerby might not realize that they are intended for a corpse.

51.For if the deceased's identity is well known, everyone will realize that the boards are for his coffin. In later generations, the Ashkenazic custom was to cut the boards and make the coffin in the courtyard of the synagogue. For most people in a community are aware of a person's death and the fact that the work is carried out in the synagogue courtyard indicates that it is not being performed for a private matter (Hagahot Maimoniot). (See also Mishnah Berurah 547:20.)

52.Although leprosy conveys ritual impurity, that status must be established through the inspection of the suspect portion of the body by a priest. (See Leviticus 13:2.) For the reason explained by the Rambam, the priest should delay his inspection until after the conclusion of the holiday.

As the passage in Leviticus continues, there are times when a person who is suspected of having leprosy must undergo a second (or third) inspection, and carrying out this inspection may be to his benefit. In the Mishnah (Mo'ed Katan 1:5), there is a difference of opinion concerning whether these inspections are carried out during Chol HaMo'ed. Rabbi Meir maintains that they are. If the ruling is lenient, it is delivered; if it is stringent, it is withheld. The Sages maintain that no inspections are carried out during Chol HaMo'ed. Although it appears that the Rambam accepts their view, other opinions explain that he follows Rabbi Meir's view.

Significantly, in Hilchot Tum'at Tzara'at 9:7, the Rambam states, "We inspect leprous blotches every day, with the exception of the Sabbath and yom tov." The latter term does not usually include Chol HaMo'ed.

(We have translated tzara'at as leprosy for this is the common practice. In fact, the Biblical condition described by this Hebrew term differs from the disease known as leprosy today.)

53.The marriage of a person to his brother's childless widow (Deuteronomy 25:5).

54.Torah law defines matrimony as a two-stage process involving betrothal (erusin) and marriage (nisuin). Betrothal establishes the husband-and-wife bond. From that time onward, a woman may not marry anyone else, but neither may the couple live together. Marriage, by contrast, signals the consummation of this relationship, the beginning of the couple's life as a single unit. Today, the common Jewish practice is to complete both stages of the wedding bond in a single ceremony under the wedding canopy.

55.This refers to the remarriage of one's divorcee. The act of remarriage is permitted during Chol HaMo'ed; a feast is not.

56.This refers both to cutting one's hair and - for those who are accustomed - to shaving.

57.The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 531:1) states that it is a mitzvah to cut one's hair on the day prior to a holiday.

58.A mourner is forbidden to cut his hair or launder his clothes. Indeed, the prohibition against cutting hair continues throughout the thirty days of mourning (Hilchot Eivel 6:2). On this basis, the commentaries question the Rambam's statements. And although the commencement of a holiday nullifies the need to keep the prohibitions of the thirty days of mourning, this is true only when a person has observed a full seven days of mourning before the commencement of the holiday (Ibid. 10:5-6).

For this reason, the Kessef Mishneh and the Radbaz (Vol. VI, Responsum 2164) interpret the leniency mentioned by the Rambam here as referring only to laundering. In his Shulchan Aruch, when mentioning the leniencies regarding cutting hair, Rav Yosef Karo makes no mention of a mourner.

59.The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 531:4) states that this applies even when a person had been imprisoned by Jews who would have allowed him to cut his hair before the holiday. Since he was upset because of his imprisonment, he did not desire to cut his hair (Mishnah Berurah 531:9).

60.For while under a ban of ostracism, it is forbidden to cut one's hair or launder one's clothes (Hilchot Talmud Torah 7:4).

61.The authority of a wise man to abrogate an oath is discussed in Hilchot Sh'vuot, Chapter 6.

From the wording of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Mo'ed Katan 3:1), it would appear that this leniency applies only when one did not have the opportunity of approaching a wise man with this request before Chol HaMo'ed. Accordingly, if one had such an opportunity, it would appear that the vow cannot be abrogated until after the holiday. See Mishnah Berurah 531:11.

62.The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 531:3) mentions that a person who was prevented from cutting his hair or laundering his clothes by forces beyond his control - e.g., he was detained by contractual negotiations, or he was sick - is not given the opportunity to perform these activities during Chol HaMo'ed. The Mishnah Berurah 531:5 mentions the reason for this stringency: In these instances, the factor holding the person back from cutting his hair or laundering his clothes is not publicly known. In contrast, in all the instances mentioned by the Rambam, the reason why the person did not cut his hair or launder his clothes is common knowledge.

63.After completing the term of his vow, a nazarite must shave his head and bring several sacrifices (Numbers 6:18; Hilchot Nezirut 8:2-3). Similarly, as part of his purification process a leper must shave off all the hair of his body twice (Leviticus 14:8-9; Hilchot Tum'at Tzara'at 11:1-2).

64.A person who is impure may not take part in the festive sacrifices of the Temple. Therefore, it is possible that he did not prepare himself for the holiday. Some also cite Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 112), which states that every person who is ritually impure must inform others about his state and make this evident from his physical appearance. One of the ways of doing this would be not to cut one's hair (Rambam La'Am).

65.For the reason for the decree - that one cut one's hair before the holiday - is not relevant for a child, who is not responsible for his conduct.

66.From the Rambam's wording, it appears that he is speaking about an extremely young infant. Nevertheless, the Pri Megadim interprets this as referring to any child under Bar Mitzvah age. (See Mishnah Berurah 531:16.)

67.The prophet Samuel and King David divided the priests into 24 watches, which rotated in the performance of the Temple service. Each watch would serve in the Temple for a week at a time. (See Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 4:3.)

68.This prohibition was instituted for a reason similar to the prohibition against cutting one's hair during Chol HaMo'ed: By preventing the priests from cutting their hair during the week they served in the Temple, the Sages insured that they came to the Temple with their hair already cut (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 1:12).

69.Both fingernails and toenails (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 532:1).

70.Although the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) quotes the Rambam's ruling, the Ramah states that it is customary not to cut nails with a utensil during Chol HaMo'ed. [Significantly, the Rambam's ruling with regard to Chol HaMo'ed differs from his ruling regarding the mourning rites (Hilchot Eivel 5:2).]

71.Women are, however, forbidden to cut the hair from their head, as men are (Mishnah Berurah 56:16).

72.This was done to remove hair and make the woman's complexion ruddier (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah; Mo'ed Katan 1:7).

73.Our translation is based on the Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah and the citation of this law in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 546:5).

74.A male with a condition resembling gonorrhea, which causes a discharge from his organ other than semen or urine. Such a discharge renders him ritually impure. (See Leviticus 15:2-3; Hilchot Mechusarei Kapparah, Chapter 2.)

75.A woman who experiences vaginal bleeding at times other than when she expects her monthly period. This discharge renders her ritually impure. (See Leviticus 15:25, Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, Chapter 6.)

76.A woman who becomes impure because of her monthly menstrual bleeding. (See Leviticus 15:19; Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, Chapters 4 and 5.)

77.The impurity of a woman who gives birth is mentioned in Leviticus, Chapter 12; Hilchot Mechusarei Kapparah, Chapter 1.

78.In the era when all the aspects of the laws of ritual impurity were observed, those who were ritually impure could not participate in the festive celebrations as others could. Therefore, they were not required to launder their clothes. Moreover, at times, these garments were themselves impure and required ritual immersion and laundering.

The Shulchan Aruch does not mention these laws. Although there are certain dimensions of the ritual impurity associated with a zavah, a niddah, and a woman who gives birth that are observed in the present era - e.g., the prohibitions against intimacy - since we are all ritually impure, these individuals' state of impurity does not preclude them from joining in our festive celebrations. Hence, they must prepare their garments before the commencement of the holiday.

79.Our translation is based on the notes of Rav Kappach, who interprets this ruling as not merely a leniency allowing the person to launder his garment during Chol HaMo'ed, but as a charge obligating him to do so, so that he will not wear a soiled garment during the festival season.

80.Others interpret this term as referring to the coverings of sacred texts. (See Maggid Mishneh.)

81.The Hebrew phrase כלי פתשן literally means "linen garments." We have translated the term according to the function these items served in the Talmudic era.

82.The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 534:2) states that although this is the law, it is customary to be stringent and forbid this. The Mishnah Berurah 534:14, however, mentions certain leniencies - e.g., having them laundered by a gentile. At present when laundering clothes has become a much easier process, the Rabbis have granted greater leniency.

83.The Magen Avraham 539:1 explains that the rationale for this prohibition is that commercial activity involves much effort, and this runs contrary to the atmosphere desired by the Sages for Chol HaMo'ed.

84.As the Maggid Mishneh mentions, there is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis whether the loss of opportunity mentioned refers to a loss the person will suffer - he will either have to pay more for an article that he needs or will not be able to sell an article that he wishes to sell - or if it includes also the opportunity to realize a greater profit. In his Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 539), Rav Yosef Karo explains that the majority of the Rabbis follow the more lenient view, and he rules accordingly in his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 539:5).

The Rabbis also ruled with regard to a situation that does not involve a departure from the norm - i.e., as opposed to the instance mentioned by the Rambam, no special situation like visiting merchants arose - but the situation is nevertheless such that were the person not to sell his goods during Chol HaMo'ed, he would not profit to the same degree as if he sold them afterwards. In such a situation, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 539:4) rules that one may sell the goods during Chol HaMo'ed, provided that he uses a portion of the profit he makes to enhance his celebration of the festival. Moreover, the Shulchan Aruch restricts this license to a person of moderate means. If the person is affluent and would celebrate the festival amply regardless, he is not allowed to sell his goods during Chol HaMo'ed, unless he will be forced to sell them for less than the principal afterwards.

85.The laws regarding the sale of these entities are more stringent than those involving other items, because the sale of these entities becomes public knowledge quickly.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 539:10) also mentions that these entities may be sold if their sale is necessary for the livelihood of the seller (as mentioned in Halachah 24). The Mishnah Berurah 539:40 adds that one may buy such entities from a gentile. (With regard to the purchase of land from a gentile in Eretz Yisrael, see Hilchot Shabbat 6:11) Others discuss whether it is permissible to buy such an entity during Chol HaMo'ed, if it is likely that a similar entity will not be available after Chol HaMo'ed.

86.All three items mentioned by the Rambam refer to articles that can be stored, and it is thus not directly obvious that one is purchasing the article for use during Chol HaMo'ed (Mishnah Berurah 539:34). If produce will not last beyond the festival, it may be sold during Chol HaMo'ed with no restrictions.

87.Shemini Atzeret, in contrast to the last days of Pesach, is considered a holiday in its own right. Therefore, it is proper to adorn the marketplace with produce in its honor. Although this expression of honor is not allowed with regard to the last days of Pesach, it is permitted to sell one's wares openly, without any restrictions, on the day preceding those holidays (Mishnah Berurah 539:37).

88.Or anyone else whose wares testify to the fact that they will be used during Chol HaMo'ed (ibid.:33).

89.There are two interpretations of the expression "does not have food to eat." The Magen Avraham 542:1 understands this simply; a person may not hire himself to perform labor unless he has no food whatsoever to eat. The Eliyahu Rabba, however, maintains that this refers to a person who possesses the minimum necessary for subsistence, but lacks the means to celebrate the festival in an ample way. As indicated by the Sha'ar HaTziyun 542:12, it appears that the authorities follow the more stringent view. Neither view, however, requires a person to pawn his household goods to purchase food instead of working to earn his livelihood.

See also the Mishnah Berurah 542:7, which states that even according to the more lenient views, an effort should be made to perform the labor discreetly. For an observer may not realize that the person performing the labor is doing so out of necessity.

90.See the Mishnah Berurah 542:8, which states that it is preferable for a person to sell merchandise instead of working during Chol Hamo'ed. Also, as reflected in the Sha'ar HaTziyun (loc. cit.), even the more stringent views that prevent a person from hiring himself out as a laborer if he possesses his minimum necessities grant him the leniency of selling merchandise in order to celebrate the festival in comfort.

91.The Maggid Mishneh states that this applies only to a building project that all know belongs to a Jew. It is, however, permissible for a gentile to take work home and perform it on a Jew's behalf if he is hired as a contractor and not as a laborer. This conception is also borne out by the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 543:2).

92.In this regard, the laws regarding Chol HaMo'ed are more stringent than those applying to the Sabbath and the holidays. Since on the Sabbath and the holidays it is forbidden to go beyond the city's Sabbath limits, the gentile's performance of the task will not become public knowledge. On Chol HaMo'ed, by contrast, there are no restrictions on travel, and it is possible that many people will become aware of the gentile's activities (Maggid Mishneh). (See also Hilchot Shabbat 6:14-15.)

Chapter Eight

Halacha 1

When streams flow from a pond, it is permitted to irrigate parched land from them during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed, provided they do not cease flowing.1 Similarly, it is permissible to irrigate [fields] from a pool through which an irrigation ditch flows.2

Similarly, if a pool [was created from water] dripping from parched land, one may irrigate another portion of parched land from it, provided the stream that irrigated the first portion of parched land has not ceased flowing.

Halacha 2

When half a row of crops is located on low land and half on higher land, one should not draw water from the lower land to irrigate the higher land, for this involves very strenuous activity.

It is permitted to draw water to irrigate vegetables so that they will be fit to be eaten3 during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed.4 If, however, [one does not desire to use them until after Chol HaMo'ed, irrigating them] to improve their quality is forbidden.5

Halacha 3

One should not dig a pit at the roots of a grapevine to collect water. If such pits have already been dug, and they have become impaired, one may fix them during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed. Similarly, one may fix an irrigation ditch that has become impaired6 during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed.

What is implied? If the ditch was only one handbreadth deep, one may dig until it is six handbreadths deep.7 If it was two handbreadths deep, one may dig until it is seven.8

One may cause water to flow from one tree to another,9 provided one does not irrigate the entire field.10 If the field has already been watered, it is permitted to irrigate the entire field.11 One may sprinkle a field during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed. For all these activities do not involve very strenuous effort.

Halacha 4

When plants have not been watered before [the beginning of] the festival, they should not be watered during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed, for [in this situation] they require much water, and this will lead to strenuous effort.12

It is permitted to change [the direction of] a river from one place to another and to open a river that has been dammed. [The following rules apply to] cisterns, trenches, and grottos that belong to a private individual:13 If he needs them,14 they may be cleaned and their breaches sealed. One may not, however, dig new ones.15 One may cause water to flow into them, even when one has no [immediate] need for them. One may make a small pool [for soaking flax]16 during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed.17

Halacha 5

Mice which damage trees may be snared during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed. In an orchard, one may snare them in one's ordinary fashion. What is implied? One may dig a hole and hang a net.

If an unplowed field18 is located close to an orchard, one may snare the mice in the unplowed field using a technique that departs from one's ordinary practice,19 so that they do not enter the orchard and ruin it. What is meant by snaring them using a different technique? [Instead of digging a hole,] one should implant a shaft in the ground and strike it with a hatchet. Afterwards, one should remove it, leaving a hole in its place.

Halacha 6

When the wall to a garden falls, one may build it as would an amateur,20 put up a divider of reeds, bullrushes, or the like. Similarly, if one erects a guardrail for one's roof, one should build it as would an amateur.21

When, by contrast, the wall to a courtyard falls, one may rebuild it in an ordinary manner.22 If it is deteriorating [and likely to fall], one should tear it down because of the danger and rebuild it in an ordinary manner.

Halacha 7

A person may build a bench23 to sit on or to sleep on. If a hinge, a drainpipe,24 a lintel, a lock, or a key becomes broken, one may fix it during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed in an ordinary manner.25 [This ruling applies] whether they are made of iron or of wood - [the rationale is that] this [could result in] a great loss. For if a person leaves the entrance to his house open and the doors broken, he will lose everything within the house. As explained previously,26 whenever [the failure to perform a task will result] in a loss, one need not deviate from one's ordinary practice.

Halacha 8

One may not dig a grave [during Chol HaMo'ed] so that it will be ready for a person should he die; nor may one build a structure for this purpose.27 If [a grave] is already prepared, one may modify it during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed. What is implied? One may increase or decrease its size, so that it will be ready when it is necessary to bury [the intended] in it.

Halacha 9

We may not move a corpse or bones from one grave to another - neither from a more esteemed grave to one of lesser esteem, nor from one of lesser esteem to one of greater esteem. [Indeed,] it is always forbidden to do so, even on ordinary weekdays,28 unless one moves the corpse to an ancestral plot.29 [In such an instance,] on ordinary days, one may move the corpse [even] from an esteemed grave to one of lesser esteem.30

Halacha 10

We may not remove worms from trees, nor apply waste to saplings,31 nor may we prune trees.32 We may, however, apply oil to trees and their fruit.33

We may dig flax, for it is fit to use as a cover [for produce]34 during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed. We may harvest hops, because they are fit for use in making beer during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed.35 The same laws apply to other similar situations.

Halacha 11

We may not bring sheep to pasture [on a field] so that they will fertilize the land [with their manure], for in this way one is enriching one's field during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed. If the sheep come to the field on their own accord,36 it is permitted [to allow them to remain].

We may not help them [enter the field], nor may we entrust them to a shepherd37 who will cause [the herd of] sheep to proceed [from place to place within the field].38 If [a shepherd] is hired on a weekly basis, on a monthly basis, on a yearly basis, or on a seven-year basis [to fertilize one's fields by pasturing sheep within them], one may help them enter the field.39 One may also hire40 a shepherd [on such a basis during Chol HaMo'ed] to cause [the herd of] sheep to proceed from place to place.

One may move manure in a courtyard to the side.41 If [the manure accumulates to the extent that] the courtyard becomes like a barn, one may take the manure out to the waste heap.

Halacha 12

[The following rules apply when a person] levels the surface of the earth [in his field]: If his intent is to prepare a place to store a mound of grain or to thresh there, it is permitted. If his intent is to till his land, it is forbidden.42

Similarly, if a person gathers wood from his field because he needs the wood, it is permitted. If his purpose is to improve the land, it is forbidden. Similarly, when a person opens [a dam, letting] water into his garden, if his intent is that fish will enter,43 it is permitted. If [his intent is] to irrigate the land, it is forbidden.

By the same token, when one trims branches from a date palm, if one's intent is to feed them to an animal, it is permitted. If one's intent is to cultivate the tree, it is forbidden. From the person's deeds, the nature of his intent becomes obvious.44

Halacha 13

If it is possible that an oven or a range45 will dry and [food] can be baked within it during the festival, it may be fashioned [during Chol HaMo'ed].46 If not, it may not be fashioned.

One may place an upper layer of mortar on an oven or a range whether or not [it will dry].47 Similarly, one may tie the cords of a bed.48 One may clean a mill, open the hole made in its center, set it up, and build a water conduit for a mill.49

Halacha 14

We may seal a jug with tar so that the wine [it contains] will not spoil.50 Similarly, we may seal a bottle with tar, since this does not involve strenuous activity. We may seal the mouth of a jug of beer so that it will not spoil.

We may cover figs [that have been left to dry] with straw so that they will not deteriorate.51 One may soften a garment by hand [after laundering it],52 because this does not involve professional expertise. One may not tie the cuffs [of a garment], because this involves a professional activity. The same principles apply in all similar situations.

Halacha 15

We may cut the nails of a donkey that works in a mill53 and we may build a feeding-trough for an animal.54 It is permitted to cut the nails of a horse upon which one rides and to comb its hair so that it will look attractive.

We may not mate animals during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed,55 but we may let their blood. We do not prevent them from receiving any medical treatment.

Any food or drink that is not usually eaten by healthy people and is taken only for therapeutic purposes may be eaten or drunk during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed.56

Halacha 16

We may not move from [a dwelling in] one courtyard to [one in] another courtyard during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed - neither from an unpleasant one to a pleasant one, nor from a pleasant one to an unpleasant one.57 We may, however, move from house to house within the same courtyard.

We may bring articles that will be used during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed from the premises of the craftsman [who made them] - e.g., pillows, blankets, and cups. But articles that are not necessary for the sake of the festival may not be brought [during Chol HaMo'ed]58 - e.g., [we may not bring] a plow from an ironmonger or wool from a dyer.

If the craftsman has nothing to eat, we may pay him and leave the articles in his care.59 If one does not trust him, we may deposit them in the house next to his. If we fear that they might be stolen, we may move them to another courtyard, but we should not bring them home unless [this can be done] in a discreet manner.60

Halacha 17

It is forbidden to perform labor61 on the day before a holiday from mid-afternoon62 onward, as this is forbidden on Friday [afternoons].63

If a person ever performs work during this time, he will never see a sign of blessing from it. We should rebuke him, and force him to stop against his will. He should not, however, be punished with stripes for rebelliousness,64 nor should he placed under a ban of ostracism.

There is an exception: after midday on Pesach afternoon. A person who works at that time should be placed under a ban of ostracism. Needless to say, if he was not placed under a ban of ostracism, he should be given stripes for rebelliousness.65 For the fourteenth of Nisan differs from the day preceding other holidays, because at that time the festive offering is brought and [the Paschal offering] is slaughtered.66

Halacha 18

Therefore, the performance of labor on the fourteenth of Nisan is forbidden by Rabbinical decree67, as on Chol HaMo'ed. [The rulings pertaining to the fourteenth of Nisan] are, however, more lenient than [those pertaining to] Chol HaMo'ed.68

Moreover, it is forbidden to perform labor on [the fourteenth of Nisan] only from midday onward, for this is the time when the sacrifice is offered. From sunrise69 until noon, [the practice] is dependent on [local] custom. In places where it is customary to perform labor, one may. In places where it is not customary to perform labor, one may not.70

Halacha 19

Even in a place where it is customary to perform labor, one should not begin the performance of a task on the fourteenth [of Nisan], even though one could complete it before noon.

There are, however, three exceptions to this principle: tailors, barbers, and launderers. With regard to other craftsmen, if they began before the fourteenth, they may finish before noon.71 [The rationale for this distinction is that] the people at large do not have a great need for other labors [for the sake of the holiday].

Halacha 20

When a person journeys from a place where it is customary to perform [labor on the fourteenth] to a place where it is not customary to perform [labor], he should not perform [labor] in a settled region,72 lest [this cause] strife.73 He may, however, perform labor in the desert.74

When a person journeys from a place where it is not customary to perform [labor on the fourteenth] to a place where it is customary to perform [labor], he should not perform [labor at all].75 To a person [who journeys], we apply the stringencies observed in the place that he left and those observed in the place where he arrives.76

Even though [he is prohibited to perform work], he should not make it appear to [the local people] that he is idle because of a prohibition.77 For a person should never deviate [from local custom], lest strife arise.

Similarly, a person who intends to return to his place should follow the customs of the inhabitants of his place, whether stringent or lenient. He should not, however, be seen [conducting himself contrary to the local custom] by the inhabitants of the place where he is located, lest strife arise.78

Halacha 21

[In contrast to Chol HaMo'ed,] we may bring articles to and from the homes of craftsmen on the fourteenth of Nisan after midday, even though they are not needed for the festival.79 We may rake manure from under the feet of livestock and take it out to the dung heap.80

We may make a nest for chickens. When a chicken that sat on eggs for three days or more dies,81 we may place another chicken on the eggs on the fourteenth [of Nisan], so that they will not spoil.82 During [Chol Ha]Mo'ed, by contrast, we may not place [a chicken on the eggs]. If [a chicken] leaves the eggs on which it is sitting during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed, one may return it to its place.

FOOTNOTES

1.This halachah is based on the principle discussed in Chapter 7, Halachah 2, which states: "When a person irrigates [such land], he should not draw water and irrigate [the land, using water] from a pool or rain water, for this involves strenuous activity. He may, however, irrigate it [using water] from a spring." In all the instances mentioned in this halachah, the water is free-flowing. Hence, there is no need to fear that the person will draw the water using buckets.

2.If, however, an irrigation ditch does not pass through these pools, it is forbidden to use their water during Chol HaMo'ed, for the person will have to refill them by bringing water from a far-removed place. The strenuous activity this involves is not appropriate for the festive spirit of Chol HaMo'ed.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that this applies even when the pool has enough water in it so that one would not have to draw water by hand throughout Chol HaMo'ed. This stringency was instituted to allow for a uniform ruling.

3.Or sold to be eaten by others (Ritba; Mishnah Berurah 537:14).

4.Since the preparation of food for the celebration of the festival is involved, this is permitted even though it involves strenuous effort (Maggid Mishneh).

5.As mentioned in Chapter 7, Halachah 2, it is permitted to irrigate parched land during Chol HaMo'ed, because excessive effort is not involved. In this instance, however, excessive effort is involved. Therefore, it is forbidden to draw water for vegetables. If, however, the vegetables are necessary for use during the holiday, this activity is permitted (Maggid Mishneh).

6.As the Rambam continues to explain [see also Rashi (Mo'ed Katan 4b)], this refers to the ditches becoming filled with silt and debris.

7.The Hebrew word for irrigation ditch אמה also means "cubit." A cubit is six handbreadths high. The fact that the ditch is a handbreadth deep is significant enough to enable the person to be allowed to dig it to its full depth.

8.This question is left unresolved by Mo'ed Katan (loc. cit.). Although the Nimukei Yosef and others differ with the Rambam, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 537:6) follows the Rambam's ruling.

9.For trees, like parched land, require irrigation.

10.The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that it reflects a minority opinion among the Sages. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:7), however, follows the Rambam's decision.

11.Since it has been watered already, irrigating it further does not require very strenuous activity.

12.The Kessef Mishneh cites this as an expression of a principle of greater scope: Even when the failure to perform a labor will result in significant loss, labor that involves strenuous activity is not performed during Chol HaMo'ed.

13.Compare to the laws pertaining to cisterns and the like constructed on behalf of the public, as described in Chapter 7, Halachah 10.

14.For drinking water.

15.Even when the person needs to dig a well because he lacks drinking water and would prefer to take water from a private well rather than carry water from a distant place. Needless to say, if the person has no water whatsoever to drink, he may dig a well during Chol HaMo'ed.

16.Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Mo'ed Katan 1:6). The Ra'avad and Rabbenu Asher interpret the Hebrew term as referring to a pit similar to a grave, and hence forbid digging it unless a person has already died.

17.I.e., the individuals who were given permission to do laundry. (See Chapter 7, Halachah 17.)

18.Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Mo'ed Katan 1:4).

19.Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, Rabbenu Asher, and others allow one to snare mice in the ordinary manner in this instance as well. In his Kessef Mishneh and Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 537), Rav Yosef Karo explains that the difference between these two rulings depends on a difference of opinion regarding the correct version of the text of Mo'ed Katan 6b. Although he quotes both views in his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 537:13), it appears that Rav Karo favors the more lenient ruling.

20.In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Mo'ed Katan 1:4, based on Mo'ed Katan 7a), the Rambam explains that this means that one may pile the stones one on top of the other, without placing mortar between them. One is not allowed to build it in an ordinary manner, because building involves professional craftsmanship, and there is not a possibility of great loss should others enter one's garden (Mishnah Berurah 440:1-2).

21.Note the Be'ur Halachah, which cites the Ritba's commentary interpreting this as referring to a guardrail on a roof upon which people do not frequently walk. If the roof is used frequently, one should construct a guardrail and fulfill the mitzvah of the Torah (Deuteronomy 22:8). The Be'ur Halachah notes, however, that none of the other commentaries make such a distinction.

22.A wall to one's courtyard protects one's house against thieves. Therefore, building it is considered necessary to prevent a loss and is permitted during Chol HaMo'ed.

23.The Ramban states that this leniency is permitted only when one constructs the bench as would an amateur; it is forbidden to build it in a professional manner. This conception is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 540:6).

24.Our translation is based on Rav Kappach's edition of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Mo'ed Katan 1:10). Rashi (Mo'ed Katan 11a), Rav David Arameah and the Mishnah Berurah 540:11 interpret the Hebrew term as referring to an attachment for the hinge.

25.Even if doing so involves professional craftsmanship.

26.Chapter 7, Halachah 3.

27.The restrictions mentioned in this halachah stem from the fact that it is speaking about digging a grave for a person before his death. When the person has already died, there are no restrictions at all, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 15. The Ma'aseh Rokeach explains that the present halachah is speaking about a place where the cemetery is located on rocky terrain, and digging or building a grave takes several days.

28.The Radbaz (in his gloss on Hilchot Eivel) explains that this is a disgrace to the deceased.

29.For a person takes comfort in being buried together with his ancestors (Jerusalem Talmud, Mo'ed Katan 2:4).

30.See Hilchot Eivel 14:15; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 363:1. In the latter source, other reasons why one may disinter a corpse are also mentioned, including a) to re-inter it in Eretz Yisrael, b) because water might destroy it, or c) because it was buried initially with the intent that it be moved.

31.In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 2:4), the Rambam explains that foul-smelling material was applied to saplings so that insects would stay away from them.

32.These activities are forbidden because they involve strenuous activity (Mishnah Berurah 537:35).

33.In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 2:5), the Rambam explains that oil would be applied to trees and their fruit so that they would ripen more quickly. For this reason, this is permitted during Chol HaMo'ed, for it enables one to have fruit for the festival.

34.Our translation follows the interpretation of Rashi (Mo'ed Katan 12b), who explains that it was common to cover figs and dates with flax while they were being dried.

35.See Chapter 7, Halachah 8.

36.Or they are brought by a gentile shepherd (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 537:14).

37.The intent is that it is forbidden to hire even a gentile shepherd.

38.In this way, manure will be deposited throughout the entire field and not only in one portion.

39.Since the shepherd is not hired with the specific intent of working during Chol HaMo'ed, but rather Chol HaMo'ed is included within a responsibility of a greater scope (הבלעה), this is permitted.

40.Based on the wording of the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), the Mishnah Berurah 537:49 states that it is forbidden to hire a shepherd for this purpose during Chol HaMo'ed. (See also the Kessef Mishneh, where Rav Yosef Karo explains that the Rambam's interpretation of Mo'ed Katan 12a differs from that of Rashi and the other Ashkenazic authorities.)

41.But one may not remove it unless a large amount accumulates (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 535:3).

42.In this and the following instances, the permitted intent involves preparing food for oneself or one's beast that may be used during the festival. The forbidden intent involves performing a task that is not necessary for the festival and which will not necessarily lead to a loss if it is not performed.

43.And then he will catch them for use during the festival.

44.See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 2:5-8, where the Rambam illustrates how the person's deeds reveal his intent. For example, when a person removes both thin twigs and larger logs, it is obvious that he desires to clean his field. If he removes only larger logs, we may assume that his intent is to gather firewood. If he opens a dam, but does not leave a place for water to flow out, he intends to water his field. If he also opens an outlet for the water, we may assume that his intent is to catch fish.

45.Which were made of clay.

46.Even if this involves professional activity, it is permitted, because it will enable a person to cook his food for the festival (Mishnah Berurah 540:18).

47.This upper layer serves as insulation and maintains the oven's heat. It will serve this purpose even if it does not dry during the festival (Mishnah Berurah 540:20).

48.In the Talmudic era, the beds resembled hammocks. This is permitted only when one's intent is to use the bed during the festival (Mishnah Berurah 541:4).

49.For the mill can produce flour that is necessary for the festival.

50.For we are allowed to perform labor during Chol HaMo'ed to prevent the occurrence of a loss.

51.Because of rain or dew.

52.For a garment often becomes stiff after it is laundered. (See Hilchot Shabbat 22:17.)

53.Unless the donkey's nails are trimmed, they will cause it pain, and prevent it from working to its capacity (Mishnah Berurah 540:25).

54.The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 540:5) specifies that the stall must be built without professional expertise.

55.The Mishnah Berurah 536:6 states that although we may not take an active role in the mating process, we may put a male and a female animal in the same corral and allow them to mate.

56.Although these activities are forbidden on the Sabbath (Hilchot Shabbat, Chapter 21). Moreover, one may perform any labors necessary to prepare drugs or medicines during Chol HaMo'ed (Mishnah Berurah 532:5).

57.The Ra'avad (based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Mo'ed Katan 2:4) states that one may move from a rented apartment into one's own home during Chol HaMo'ed, even if the rented apartment is more pleasant than one's own home, because it is comfortable for a person to dwell in his own home. The Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam does not mention this ruling because it conflicts with the statements of the Babylonian Talmud. Generally, when there is a difference of opinion between the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud, the rulings of the former are followed.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 535:2) mentions the Ra'avad's opinion with the preface "There are those who say...." The Ramah (loc. cit.:1) mentions that if one lives in a dangerous neighborhood, one may move during Chol HaMo'ed. The Mishnah Berurah 535:7 states that leniency may also be granted to allow a person to move from a non-Jewish neighborhood to a Jewish one.

58.This prohibition applies even when the articles were finished before the commencement of the festival. The Mishnah Berurah 534:16 mentions two reasons for this prohibition: a) because bringing these articles involves strenuous effort, b) because an observer might think that the person intended that they be repaired during Chol HaMo'ed.

59.The Mishnah Berurah 534:17 explains that we may pay the craftsman whether or not he has food to eat. He interprets the wording as meaning that even when he has nothing to eat, and it is therefore necessary to pay him, we may not take the article from him.

60.The Mishnah Berurah 534:18 explains that although he is permitted to work during Chol HaMo'ed, it is forbidden to carry the articles in public view because of the impression that it might create.

61.Here also the intent is not the labors forbidden on Sabbaths and holidays, but rather involvement in tasks that are not for the sake of the festival.

62.This refers to minchah k'tanah, nine and a half seasonal hours after sunrise (3:30 PM on a day when the sun rises at 6 AM and sets at 6 PM).

63.See Hilchot Shabbat 5:19-20.

64.This punishment is administered for violating a Rabbinic commandment, while the prohibition against doing work on these days is considered merely a custom.

65.As reflected in Chapter 1, Halachah 22, being placed under a ban of ostracism is a more severe punishment that receiving stripes for rebelliousness.

66."It is not appropriate that a person should be involved in his everyday tasks while his sacrifice is being offered" (Jerusalem Talmud, Pesachim 4:1).

Although at present the Temple is destroyed and it is impossible to bring the Paschal sacrifice, the original decree is still in force and it is forbidden to perform labor at this time (Maggid Mishneh).

67.Note Tosafot (Pesachim 50a) and the Tzalach, who consider the fourteenth of Nisan to be a holiday established by the Torah itself.

68.As explained in Halachah 21.

69.During the night [until sunrise], however, there are no restrictions against performing labor (Pesachim 2b, 55a).

70.The Ramah (Orach Chayim 468:3) states that the Ashkenazic custom is not to perform labor before noon on this day. Nevertheless, subsequent authorities have not accepted this as a universal ruling, and maintain that everything is dependent on local custom.

71.The Rambam's ruling is based on his interpretation of the Mishnah (Pesachim 4:7) as applying in a place where it is customary to perform labor on the fourteenth. Others (the Ra'avad and Rabbenu Asher) interpret the Mishnah as applying in a place where it is customary not to perform labor on the fourteenth.

This interpretation leads to a more lenient ruling: In a place where it is customary to perform labor, all labor may be performed on the fourteenth of Nisan. In a place where it is not customary to perform labor, any labor that was begun before the fourteenth and is intended for the sake of the holiday may be completed before dawn. The three labors mentioned may be begun on the fourteenth of Nisan if they are performed for the sake of the holiday, provided they can be completed before noon. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 468:5) quotes the Rambam's ruling, while the Ramah follows the more lenient approach.

72.Where people will see his actions.

73.I.e., people will see him departing from the local custom, and when he explains the reason for his actions an argument may arise.

74.This leniency applies provided he intends to return to his original locale.

75.In this instance as well, the ruling applies to a person who intends to return to his original locale. If he does not intend to return, he is not bound by the stringencies observed there (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 468:9).

76.This is a general principle applying not only on the fourteenth of Nisan, but to the entire year, provided the person intends to settle permanently in the city.

This principle does not, however, apply in most contemporary Jewish communities, because they were settled by people with different customs, and a fixed practice was never adopted for the city at large. Accordingly, in such an instance, a person should follow the customs of his ancestral home (Orach Mishpat, Responsum 17).

77.There are many idle people in the public thoroughfare who do not perform labor. He should conduct himself like one of these individuals and not like a person who refrains from performing labor because of a prohibition (Pesachim 51b).

78.These are also principles whose scope extends beyond the particular laws of the fourteenth of Nisan (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 468:14; Mishnah Berurah 468:22). Shulchan Aruch HaRav goes further and explains that if it is impossible for the person not to perform work without calling attention to his actions, he should perform the work, because maintaining peaceful social relations overrides the importance of preserving the customs of one's native land.

79.Compare to Halachah 16.

80.Compare to Halachah 11.

81.Before three days have passed, the eggs would still be eaten by a person who is not fastidious about his food. Therefore, leniency is not granted (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 468:19; Mishnah Berurah 468:34).

82.Shulchan Aruch HaRav (loc. cit.) interprets the Rambam's decision as forbidding the placing a chicken on eggs at the outset on the fourteenth of Nisan. The Mishnah Berurah 468:36, however, mentions opinions that advise leniency in a case of need.

Chapter One

Halacha 1

Anyone who intentionally eats an olive's size [כזית, or more] of chametz on Pesach from the beginning of the night of the fifteenth [of Nisan] until the conclusion of the day of the twenty-first [of Nisan] is liable for כרת, as [Exodus 12:15] states: "Whoever eats leaven... will have his soul cut off."

[Should one eat this amount of chametz] unintentionally, one is liable to bring a fixed sin offering [as atonement].

[The above applies] equally to one who eats chametz and one who converts it into a liquid and drinks it.

Commentary Halacha

Anyone who intentionally eats an olive's size -- Whenever the Torah uses the verb אכל (eat) in the context of a mitzvah or a prohibition, it refers to the consumption of at least a minimum amount, established by Eruvin 4b as the size of an olive.

It must be emphasized that the measure of a כזית (an olive's size) cannot be determined by measuring an average olive today. Rather, it is dependent on the measure established by the Sages and this is the subject of debate by the Rabbinic authorities. The Pri Chadash (Orach Chayim 486) explains that the Rambam considers an olive as one third the size of an egg (כביצה, a more familiar Talmudic measure). In terms of modern measurements, this olive size would be between 16.6 and 24 grams, according to various Halachic opinions.

Tosefot (Chullin 103a) differs, and defines a כזית(the size of an olive) as one half the size of an egg (between 25.6 and 36 grams according to the various opinions). With regard to the practical application of the law (halachah l'ma'aseh), the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Orach Chayim 486) advises that in all questions of Torah law, Tosefot's opinion should be followed. However, in questions of Rabbinic law, the more lenient opinion can be relied upon.

[or more] -- Eating less than this amount of chametz is also forbidden by Torah law. However, there is no punishment for its consumption, nor need a sacrifice be brought as atonement (See Halachah 7).

of chametz -- any mixture made from grain or grain products that has come into contact with water and was allowed to become leavened. The following (and only the following) five species are referred to as grain: wheat, rye, barley, oats, spelt.

on Pesach, from the beginning of the night of the fifteenth [of Nisan] until the conclusion of the day of the twenty-first [of Nisan] -- In the mitzvot mentioned above, the Rambam also mentions the prohibition against eating chametz from noon on the fourteenth of Nisan. However, the violation of that prohibition is not punishable by כרת.

is liable for כרת -- The prohibition against eating chametz on Pesach is counted as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. See Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 197; Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 19.

as [Exodus 12:15] states: "Whoever eats leaven... will have his soul cut off" -- Moed Kattan 28a relates that a person who violated a sin punishable by כרת would die before reaching the age of fifty.

In his commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 9:6, the Rambam emphasizes that premature death does not represent the totality of the retribution these individuals will receive. In addition, "their souls will be cut off."

In Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1, the Rambam elaborates on the latter dimension:

The good that is hidden for the righteous is the life of the world to come... The retribution of the wicked is that they will not merit this life. Rather, they will be cut off and die.

This is the intent of the meaning of the term כרת in the Torah, as [Numbers 15:31] states: "That soul shall surely be cut off."

[Should one eat this amount of chametz] unintentionally -- בשוגג,

he is liable to bring a fixed sin offering -- The Rambam adds the word "fixed" to indicate that he is referring to the standard sin offering described in Leviticus 4:27-35, in contrast to the offering to atone for certain sins mentioned in Leviticus, Chapter 5. (See Hilchot Shegagot 1:3.) The latter offering is not "fixed," but rather is adjustable according to the financial state of the person liable.

[as atonement] -- Keritot 2a states that a person who unintentionally commits a transgression for which one would be liable for כרת must bring a sin offering in atonement.

[The above applies] equally to one who eats chametz and one who converts it into a liquid and drinks it -- Though the Torah specifically mentions "eating," Chullin 120a equates drinking a liquid made from chametz and water with the former act. In his responsum (Vol. V, 1517), the Radbaz differentiates between mixing chametz with water (the instance in question here) and mixing chametz with other substances, as mentioned in Halachah 6. The punishment of כרת applies only when nothing else but chametz and water is contained in the mixture.

Halacha 2

On Pesach, it is forbidden to derive any benefit from chametz, as [Exodus 13:3] states: "Do not eat (לא יאכל) chametz"; i.e., it is not permitted [to be used to derive benefit that leads to] eating.

A person who leaves chametz within his property on Pesach, even though he does not eat it, transgresses two prohibitions: [Exodus 13:7] states: "No leavening agent may be seen in all your territory" and [Exodus 12:19] states: "No leavening agent may be found in your homes."

[Though the prohibitions stated in these verses apply to שאור,] it is the same prohibition which forbids both חמץ (leaven) and שאור (a leavening agent).

Commentary Halacha

On Pesach -- As stated in Halachah 9, once chametz becomes forbidden on noon of the fourteenth of Nisan, we may not derive any benefit from it.

it is forbidden to derive any benefit from chametz -- for example, to sell it or use it for purposes other than eating.

as [Exodus 13:3] states: "Do not eat (

לא יאכל) chametz"; i.e., it is not permitted [to be used to derive benefit that leads to] -- The bracketed additions are based on Rashi's commentary on Pesachim 21b.

eating. -- The Rambam's statements are somewhat problematic. Pesachim 21b records the following disagreement between the Sages:

Chizkiyah states: What is the source from which we learn that it is forbidden to derive benefit from chametz? [Exodus 13:3] states: "Do not eat (לא יאכל) chametz"; i.e., it is not permitted [to be used to derive benefit that leads to] eating.

His decision is based on the fact that the Torah uses the expression לא יאכל. Had the Torah not written יאכל לא, we may presume that a prohibition against eating would be implied, but not a prohibition against deriving benefit.

This contradicts the opinion of R. Abahu who states: Wherever the Torah states לא תאכל, לא יאכלor לא תאכלו, a prohibition against eating and deriving benefit is implied.

The Rambam's statements in this Halachah quote the opinion of Chizkiyah. However, in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 8:15, he quotes the opinion of R. Abahu as accepted halachah.

The Kessef Mishneh resolves the contradiction, explaining that in the halachah at hand, there is no difference in law between Chizkiyah and R. Abahu. Therefore, although the Rambam generally accepts R. Abahu's opinion, in this instance he quotes Chizkiyah's statements because the manner in which the latter derives the concept is more explicit.

A person who leaves chametz within his property on Pesach, even though he does not eat it, transgresses two prohibitions: [Exodus 13:7] states: "No leavening agent may be seen in all your territory" -- This prohibition is counted as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah: Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 200; Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 20.

and [Exodus 12:19] states: "No leavening agent may be found in your homes" -- This prohibition is counted as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah: Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 201; Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 11.

[Though the prohibitions stated in these verses apply to

שאור,] -- S'or refers to leavening agents, notably yeast.

it is the same prohibition which forbids both

חמץ (leaven) and שאור (a leavening agent) -- Beitzah 7a explains that Exodus 13:7 mentions both chametz (leaven), and שעור (S'or, a leavening agent) in the same verse to emphasize that they are identical.

The Ra'avad comments that the equation between the prohibitions against chametz and S'or is not complete. Among the differences between them are: Once chametz is no longer fit to be eaten by a dog, it is no longer prohibited. In contrast, yeast is never fit to be eaten and is prohibited even in that state. Nevertheless, the Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh do not accept his statements.

Halacha 3

[A violator] is not lashed for [transgressing the prohibitions] not to have [chametz] seen [in his possession] and not to have [chametz] found [in his possession] unless he purchased chametz on Pesach or [caused flour] to become leavened, and thus committed a deed.

However, if he possessed chametz before Pesach, and when Pesach came he did not destroy it and left it in his possession, even though he transgresses two prohibitions, according to the Torah, he is not lashed, for he did not perform a deed. [Nevertheless,] he is given "stripes for being rebellious."

Commentary Halacha

[A violator] is not lashed -- this is the punishment given for the active violation of any of the Torah's prohibitions that are not punishable by death.

for [transgressing the prohibitions] not to have [chametz] seen [in his possession] and not to have [chametz] found [in his possession] unless he purchased chametz on Pesach -- The Tzafnat Paneach emphasizes that this law applies only to chametz purchased from a gentile. However, once chametz belonging to a Jew becomes prohibited, that Jew no longer has the authority to sell it. Thus, the purchaser will never really become the legal owner of the chametz (See Rashi, Sukkah 35a; Tosefot, Chullin 4b).

The Or Sameach questions how a person can become liable even for chametz purchased from a gentile, but resolves the issue based on the commentary of Rabbenu Nissim (Avodah Zarah, Chapter 3).

or [caused flour] to become leavened, and thus committed a deed. -- The Mishneh LaMelech raises a significant question: A person is not liable for lashes for violating any prohibition which he can correct by fulfilling a positive commandment (לעשה לאו הניתק): For example, if a person violates the prohibition against taking both a mother bird and her eggs, he can free himself from the punishment of lashes by sending away the mother bird.

Tosefot (Pesachim 29b) states that the prohibition against chametz being seen in one's property falls into the above category, because one can correct the violation of this prohibition by fulfilling the positive commandment to destroy chametz. Thus, it appears that a person can never be held liable for lashes for this transgression.

Among the resolutions offered to this difficulty is that of Rav Chayim Soloveitchik, who explains that Tosefot's statements apply only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah, who maintains that chametz must be destroyed by burning. However, according to the Sages (whose opinion is accepted by the Rambam, Halachah 3:11), who maintain that chametz can be destroyed by any means, not necessarily burning, the prohibition against possessing chametz is not considered a לאו הניתק לעשה.

What is the essential difference between these opinions: Rabbi Yehudah maintains that the fundamental aspect of the mitzvah to destroy chametz revolves upon the article itself (חפצה); it is a mitzvah to destroy chametz. In contrast, the Sages maintain that the mitzvah centers on the person (גברה); he is commanded to remove all chametz from his possession.

According to Rabbi Yehudah, since the commandment revolves around the chametz itself, its destruction directly "corrects" the sin of its possession. In contrast, according to the Sages, the positive commandment of ridding one's house of chametz is merely a reinforcement of the prohibition against its possession, and the fulfillment of the positive commandment does not have the power to "correct" the violation of the prohibition.

However, if he possessed chametz before Pesach, and when Pesach came he did not destroy it, and left it in his possession -- However, should he remove it from his possession (by giving it to another person or declaring it ownerless), he is not liable even if he does not actually destroy the object.

even though he transgresses two prohibitions, according to the Torah, he is not lashed, for he did not perform a deed. -- Sh'vuot 21b states: "The transgression of any prohibition which does not involve a deed is not punishable by lashing."

[Nevertheless,] he is given stripes for being rebellious -- "Stripes for being rebellious (מכות מרדות)" is a punishment instituted by the Sages for violation of a Rabbinic prohibition. A person liable for lashing according to Torah law receives a uniform number of 39 lashes unless he is physically incapable of bearing that number. In contrast, the number of lashes given to a person liable for "stripes for being rebellious" is left to the discretion of the court.

Chullin 14b states that this punishment is also inflicted upon those who violate a Torah prohibition that is not punishable by lashing.

Halacha 4

It is prohibited to ever benefit from chametz [that a Jew] possessed during Pesach. This prohibition is a penalty instituted by the Sages. Since the person transgressed [the prohibitions against chametz] being found and being seen [in his possession], they prohibited its use.

[The above applies] even if he inadvertently left [the chametz in his possession during Pesach] or was forced to do so. [These stringencies were instituted] lest a person leave chametz in his possession during Pesach in order to benefit from it after Pesach.

Commentary Halacha

It is prohibited to ever benefit from chametz -- itself, in contrast to mixtures of chametz, as explained in Halachah 5.

[that a Jew] -- in contrast to a gentile (Pesachim 28a).

possessed during Pesach -- This prohibition applies to all Jews, not only to the owner of the chametz (Rabbenu Nissim, Pesachim 28). Thus, it is prohibited to buy chametz from a store owned by a Jew who did not observe the prohibition against possessing chametz on Pesach.

This prohibition is a penalty instituted by the Sages. -- Pesachim 29a mentions Rabbi Yehudah's opinion that the prohibition stems from the Torah itself. However, this opinion is not accepted as halachah.

The Tzafnat Paneach explains that the debate between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon (who maintains that the Torah does not forbid benefiting from chametz after Pesach) revolves around an abstract concept. Rabbi Yehudah maintains that once Pesach comes, chametz itself becomes forbidden and, therefore, can never become permitted again. In contrast, Rabbi Shimon maintains that the prohibition does not affect the essence of the chametz itself. Thus, we are forbidden to benefit from it during Pesach, but after Pesach there is no prohibition.

Since the person transgressed the [prohibitions against chametz] being found and being seen [in his possession], they prohibited its use -- The Maggid Mishneh explains that the prohibition against using a Jew's chametz after Pesach applies even when the prohibitions against possessing chametz are not violated. See Halachah 4:5.

[The above applies] even if he inadvertently left [the chametz in his possession during Pesach] -- e.g., he forgot that he possessed it.

or was forced to do so -- The Nodah BiYhudah (Orach Chayim 20) gives an example of such a case. A thief stole chametz from a person before Pesach and returned it to him after the holiday. Even though the person had no opportunity to destroy it before Pesach, it is forbidden.

In that responsum, the Nodah BiYhudah also raises the following question: A person died on the fourteenth of Nisan without nullifying or selling his chametz. Are his heirs forbidden to benefit from that chametz or not? He maintains that although the Rambam would probably prohibit benefiting from this chametz, there are rationales on the basis of which its use may be permitted. [Other authorities (note Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Kuntres Acharon 435) do not accept this conclusion.]

[These stringencies were instituted] lest a person -- intentionally

leave chametz in his possession during Pesach in order to benefit from it after Pesach -- on the pretense that he had forgotten about its existence.

Halacha 5

If, on Pesach, even the slightest amount of chametz becomes mixed together with another substance, either of its kind or not of its kind, [the entire mixture] is forbidden.

Though it is forbidden to benefit from chametz which a Jew possessed on Pesach, if it became mixed with another substance, whether of its kind or not of its kind, it is permitted to be eaten after Pesach. [The Sages] only penalized and forbade [the use of] chametz itself. A mixture [containing chametz possessed on Pesach] is permitted to be eaten after Pesach.

Commentary Halacha

If, on Pesach, -- Rabbenu Asher and the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol maintain that this principle does not apply until the holiday itself actually begins. Thus, even if chametz became mixed with other substances on the fourteenth of Nisan, after the time chametz is forbidden, the mixture is bound by the laws regarding the nullification of forbidden objects (ביטול איסורים) that apply throughout the entire year.

The Kessef Mishneh maintains that a simple interpretation of the Rambam's statements leads to the conclusion that he accepts this opinion. Though others, among them the Maggid Mishneh, do not accept this view, it is accepted as Halachah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 447:2).

even the slightest amount of chametz becomes mixed together with another substance -- Ordinarily, it is permissible to use a mixture of a prohibited substance and a permitted substance provided that the permitted substance is present in a greater amount, to the extent that the prohibition is nullified (ביטול איסור).

either of its kind -- When the prohibited substance is of the same kind as the forbidden substance (e.g., improperly slaughtered meat mixed with properly slaughtered meat), all that is required to nullify the prohibition is that the permitted substance constitutes the majority of the mixture (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 15:1).

or not of its kind -- When the prohibited substance is of a different kind from the permitted (e.g., forbidden fats mixed with grain), the prohibition is ordinarily nullified if the taste of the forbidden article is not discernible, or the quantity of the permitted substance is at least 60 times as great as the forbidden article (ibid. 15:1, 6).

[the entire mixture] is forbidden -- The above principles do not apply with regard to chametz on Pesach. Even the slightest mixture of chametz may not be eaten, nor may benefit be derived from it. In Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot (15:9), the Rambam explains that this stringency is instituted because chametz is a דבר שיש לו מתירין (a substance which later will become permitted).

A דבר שיש לו מתירין which becomes mixed together with a permitted substance of its own kind is never permitted to be used because of the following rationale: Since its use in its entirety will later become permitted, there is no need to grant a leniency allowing it to be eaten when forbidden.

Similarly, with regard to chametz on Pesach: There is no prohibition against using a mixture of chametz after Pesach. Hence, there is no need to grant permission to eat such a mixture on Pesach itself, even though the quantity of the permitted substance far surpasses that of the chametz.

Furthermore, there is a stricter dimension to chametz than to any other דבר שיש לו מתירין. Generally, a דבר שיש לו מתירין is permitted if it becomes mixed with a substance of another kind to the extent that its taste can no longer be discerned. However, this leniency is not granted regarding mixtures of chametz. Since Exodus 12:20 states: "You must not eat any leaven," the severity of the prohibition obligates additional stringency.

Though it is forbidden to benefit from chametz which a Jew possessed on Pesach, if it became mixed with another substance, whether of its kind -- for example, a dough containing yeast mixed with flour.

or not of its kind -- for example, a mixture of flour with any other substance.

it is permitted to be eaten after Pesach. -- The Ma'aseh Rokeach explains that this leniency applies whether the mixture occurred after Pesach or on the holiday itself. Nevertheless, the latter point should not be misinterpreted. Should such a mixture be discovered on Pesach, we are obligated to destroy it (Ramah, Orach Chayim 447:1). Nevertheless, if either intentionally or unintentionally, the mixture was not destroyed on the holiday itself, it may be used afterwards.

[The Sages] only penalized and forbade [the use of] chametz itself. A mixture [containing chametz possessed on Pesach] is permitted to be eaten after Pesach. -- Pesachim 30a explains that since the penalty is of Rabbinic origin, it was applied only to chametz itself and not to mixtures.

Halacha 6

One is liable for כרת only for eating chametz itself. However, a person who eats a mixture containing chametz--for example, Babylonian kotach, Median beer, or similar mixtures which contain chametz--[is punished by] lashes and is not liable for כרת [for this involves the transgression of a different commandment], as [Exodus 12:20] states: "Do not eat any leaven."

When does the above apply? When the person consumed an olive size of chametz [while eating] from the mixture within the time it takes to eat three eggs or less. Then, he is obligated for lashes by the Torah. However, if he does not consume an olive size of chametz from the mixture in less time than it takes to eat three eggs, even though such eating is forbidden, he is not [punished by] lashing. Rather, he is given "stripes for being rebellious."

Commentary Halacha

One is only liable for כרת -- as stated in Halachah 1

for eating chametz itself. However, a person who eats a mixture containing chametz, for example, Babylonian kotach -- a mixture including sour milk, moldy bread crusts, and mineral salts (Pesachim 42a).

Median beer -- beer made of fermented barley, as our beer. Generally, the beer referred to in the Talmud was made from fermented dates (Rashi, Pesachim 42b).

or similar mixtures which contain chametz -- Pesachim 42a also emphasizes that a person transgresses the commandments against possessing chametz if he owns any of the above mixtures.

[is punished by] lashes and is not liable for

כרת [for this involves the transgression of a different commandment] -- different from eating chametz itself

as [Exodus 12:20] states: "Do not eat any leaven." -- The Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 198) and the Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 12) consider this as one of the Torah's 613 commandments.

Nevertheless, this decision is a matter of debate among the commentators. The Ramban (Hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot) does not accept the Rambam's view, and explains that a person who consumes an olive size of chametz within the specific time period (פרס כדי אכילת) described below should be liable for כרת as described in Halachah 1. See also Halachah 4:8 and commentary.

The Maggid Mishneh supports the Ramban's view, noting that in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 15:3, the Rambam himself explains that any person who eats a mixture containing an olive size of a forbidden food within this time period is liable, just as if he had eaten the forbidden food itself.

Based on the explanation of the Tur (Orach Chayim 442), the Drisha and the Pri Chadash interpret the Rambam as referring to a mixture to which the chametz does not impart any flavor and is added only for consistency and color.

The Tzafnat Paneach offers a different interpretation, explaining that were chametz to be mixed with other foods, a person eating the mixture would be liable for כרת as the Ramban states. However, the Rambam is talking about an instance when flour was mixed with another substance and became leavened as part of the mixture, without ever becoming a distinct entity of its own. The Torah considers this as a different category of chametz and holds a person who eats it liable for a lesser punishment.

When does the above apply? When the person consumed an olive size -- the minimum size of a prohibited substance for which one is liable for punishment, as explained in Halachah 1.

of chametz [while eating] from the mixture within the time it takes to eat three eggs or less -- This period (כדי אכילת פרס in Hebrew) is significant in halachah. Just as the Torah requires a specific quantity, the size of an olive, as regards many of the mitzvot and prohibitions concerning eating, it also specifies a limited period in which this amount of food must be consumed: אבילת פרס כדי.

This measure is also a point of Rabbinic controversy. The Rambam defines it as the time it takes to eat three eggs (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 14:8). Rashi (Pesachim 44a) takes a more lenient view, defining it as the amount of time it takes to eat four eggs. As regards this matter as well, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Orach Chayim 612:4) advises that whenever a question of Torah law is involved, the more stringent opinion should be observed. However, in questions of Rabbinic law, the more lenient view can be relied on.

In converting this figure to modern measures of time, there is also a difference of opinion. The shortest opinion limits this period to two minutes. The most commonly accepted view is four minutes and there are opinions of seven and eight minutes as well.

Then, he is obligated for lashes by the Torah -- as explained above.

However, if he does not consume an olive size of chametz from the mixture in less time than it takes to eat three eggs, even though eating it is forbidden -- for as explained in the previous halachah, chametz can never be nullified within a mixture. As the following halachah explains, eating less than an olive size of chametz is also prohibited by Torah law. Nevertheless,

he is not [punished by] lashing. Rather, he is given "stripes for being rebellious" -- see Halachah 3.

Halacha 7

Eating even the slightest amount of chametz itself on Pesach is forbidden by the Torah as [Exodus 13:3] states: "Do not eat [leaven]." Nevertheless, [a person who eats chametz] is not liable for כרת, nor must he bring a sacrifice for anything less than the specified measure, which is the size of an olive.

A person who intentionally violates the prohibition and eats less than an olive size of chametz is given "stripes for being rebellious."

Commentary Halacha

Eating even the slightest amount of chametz itself -- The laws regarding mixtures of chametz were mentioned in the previous halachah.

on Pesach is forbidden by the Torah -- The commentaries cite the source for the Rambam's decision as Yoma 73b, which mentions Rabbi Yochanan's opinion that all the Torah's prohibitions against eating apply even when one consumes less than the size of an olive (חצי שיעור), that measure being significant only as regards punishment.

as [Exodus 13:3] states: "Do not eat [leaven]" -- The Kessef Mishneh questions why the Rambam cites this verse. Yoma (ibid.) derives the prohibition against eating less than an olive size of prohibited substances from another source.

The Radbaz (Responsa, Vol. V, 143) explains that the prohibition against חצי שיעור exists only when eating the prohibited substance itself. In contrast, חצי שיעור of chametz is forbidden even when mixed with other substances, as explained in the previous halachah. He explains that since deriving benefit from chametz is forbidden according to Torah law, that prohibition also includes eating חצי שיעור in any form.

Nevertheless, [a person who eats chametz] is not liable for

כרת nor must he bring a sacrifice for anything less than the specified measure, which is the size of an olive -- as stated in Halachah 1.

A person who intentionally violates the prohibition and eats less than an olive size of chametz -- The Kessef Mishneh questions why the Rambam begins the halachah by describing the prohibition against "even the slightest amount" of chametz, and concludes with the expression "less than the size of an olive."

is given "stripes for being rebellious" -- Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 8:16 states that anyone who benefits from forbidden substances receives "stripes for being rebellious." A person who eats less than the size of an olive of chametz also benefits, and hence is liable for this punishment.

Halacha 8

It is forbidden to eat chametz on the day of the fourteenth [of Nisan] from noon onward--i.e., from the beginning of the seventh hour of the day. Any person who eats chametz during this time is punished by lashes according to Torah law, as [Deuteronomy 16:3] states: "Do not eat any leaven with it "; i.e., together with the Paschal sacrifice.

Based on the oral tradition, we received the interpretation of that statement as: Do not eat any chametz during the time which is fit to slaughter the Paschal sacrifice, that being the afternoon--i.e., after midday.

Commentary Halacha

It is forbidden to eat chametz on the day of the fourteenth [of Nisan] from noon onwards -- The Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 199) and the Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 485) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Ramban and the Ra'avad take issue with this point, explaining that from noon on the fourteenth of Nisan until the beginning of the fifteenth at nightfall, there is a positive commandment to rid one's house of chametz, but no negative command forbidding the possession or eating of chametz.

i.e., from the beginning of the seventh hour of the day -- The intent of this expression is midday. However, in particular, the term needs elaboration: According to Torah law, a day begins at dawn (עלות השחר), the appearance of the first rays of sun, and ends when three stars appear (םיבכוכה תאצ, Berachot 2b). This period is divided into 12 and the resulting figure is referred to as one seasonal hour (שעה זמנית). [Other opinions consider the period to be divided into twelve as beginning at the appearance of the sun, נץ החמה, and ending at sunset.]

Thus, if dawn were at 5:09 AM and three stars appeared at 6:45 PM, each seasonal hour would be an hour and eight minutes, and the beginning of the seventh hour would be 11:57 AM.

Any person who eats chametz -- The Rambam explicitly states that lashes are never given for violating prohibitions against benefiting from forbidden articles (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 8:16). The Mishneh Lamelech (Hilchot Yesodai HaTorah 5:8) elaborates on this principle in detail.

during this time is punished by lashes according to Torah law -- as opposed to the punishment of כרת for eating chametz within Pesach, as described in Halachah 1.

as [Deuteronomy 16:3] states: "Do not eat any leaven with it"; i.e., together with the Paschal sacrifice. Based on the oral tradition -- Pesachim 5a

we received the interpretation of that statement as: Do not eat any chametz during the time which is fit to slaughter the Paschal sacrifice, that being the afternoon - i.e., after midday. -- The Paschal sacrifice could be offered from midday on the fourteenth of Nisan until sunset (Hilchot Korban Pesach 1:1).

The Paschal sacrifice should not be slaughtered before the daily afternoon sacrifice, which would never be offered before half an hour past midday. However, if, by mistake, the Pesach sacrifice was slaughtered before the afternoon sacrifice, but after midday, its offering may be completed, provided a person continues stirring its blood until the afternoon sacrifice is offered (ibid. 1:3).

Halacha 9

The Sages forbade the eating of chametz from the beginning of the sixth hour in order to prevent infringement upon a Torah commandment. Thus, from the beginning of the sixth hour, it is forbidden to eat or benefit from chametz, based on Rabbinic law. During the rest of the day, from the seventh hour on, eating chametz is forbidden because of the Torah law.

During the fifth hour of the day, we do not eat chametz, lest the day be cloudy and we err between the fifth and six hours. However, there is no prohibition against benefiting from chametz during the fifth hour.

Therefore, Terumah and the breads of the thanksgiving offering which are chametz are left in a tentative status because of their holiness. They are neither eaten nor burned until the beginning of the sixth hour. Then, the entire quantity [of chametz] is burned.

Commentary Halacha

The Sages forbade the eating of chametz from the beginning of the sixth hour in order to prevent infringement upon a Torah commandment -- This is one of the Rabbinic commandments instituted as a "fence" and safeguard to Torah law.

Thus, from the beginning of the sixth hour -- This is also a "seasonal hour." Thus, if as stated above, dawn of the fourteenth of Nisan is 5:09 AM and three stars appear at 6:45 PM, the beginning of the sixth hour is 10:49.

it is forbidden to eat or benefit from chametz based on Rabbinic law. During the rest of the day, from the seventh hour on, eating chametz is forbidden because of the Torah law -- as stated in the previous halachah.

During the fifth hour of the day, -- in the instance stated above from 9:41 until 10:49.

we do not eat chametz lest it be a cloudy day and we err between the fifth and six hours -- In his commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 1:4), the Rambam explains that it is possible that a person may err in his estimation of the time by an hour and thus, transgress the Rabbinic prohibition against possessing chametz at the sixth hour.

In a Responsa, the Rambam replies to the following question: The passage in Pesachim which is the source for this halachah appears to imply that a person may make an error of over two hours. Indeed, Rav Yitzchak Alfasi states the matter as such in his halachot. If so, why did the Rambam alter the explanation of the law.

In a reply which reflects his overall purpose in the composition of the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam answers:

I mentioned a mistake of an hour which is a common error because my intention in composing this text is to bring the matters closer to our understanding or what is general practice.

However, there is no prohibition against benefiting from chametz during the fifth hour -- Since the restriction against benefiting from chametz during the sixth hour is only Rabbinic in origin, the Sages did not feel it necessary to forbid benefiting from chametz for another hour because of the mere possibility of error.

Therefore, Terumah -- a portion of grain given to the priests

and the breads of the thanksgiving offering -- A thanksgiving offering involves 40 loaves, ten of which are leavened (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:17-18).

which are chametz are left in a tentative status because of their holiness. -- The Torah refers to Terumah as קדש (sanctified). Similarly, the breads of the thanksgiving offering have a sacrificial status. Therefore,

They are neither eaten -- for the Sages did not desire to relax their prohibition against eating chametz. Nevertheless, the priests were allowed to benefit from chametz during this period, and hence could feed Terumah to their animals.

nor burned -- for it is forbidden to destroy sacred articles unless absolutely necessary. Therefore, Pesachim 13b explains that thanksgiving offerings were not brought on the fourteenth of Nisan. [This law is also relevant at present. From the fourteenth of Nisan until the conclusion of Pesach, the "Psalm of Thanksgiving" is omitted from the morning service.]

until the beginning of the sixth hour. Then, the entire quantity [of chametz] is burned -- because of the Rabbinic prohibition mentioned above. As explained in Halachah 3:11, generally, chametz can be destroyed by other means as well. However, this halachah deals with bread brought as sacrifices; hence, it is proper that they be burned (Rabbenu Manoach).

Halacha 10

Thus, you have learned that it is permitted to eat chametz on the day of the fourteenth [of Nisan] until the end of the fourth hour. During the fifth hour, [chametz] is not eaten, but benefit may be derived from it. A person who eats chametz during the sixth hour is [punished by] "stripes for being rebellious." One who eats during the seventh hour is lashed.

Commentary Halacha

Thus, you have learned that it is permitted to eat chametz on the day of the fourteenth [of Nisan] until the end of the fourth hour -- as explained in the previous halachah.

During the fifth hour, [chametz] is not eaten, but benefit may be derived from it -- Thus, during this time, a person may sell his chametz to gentiles or feed it to his animals.

A person who eats chametz during the sixth hour is [punished by] "stripes for being rebellious." -- The punishment given for transgressing a Rabbinic commandment. The Lechem Mishneh notes that the Rambam does not prescribe a punishment for a person who breaks the Rabbinic decree against eating chametz during the fifth hour.

The Tzafnat Paneach (Responsum 83) also differentiates between the fifth and sixth hours, calling the former, a Rabbinic safeguard, and the latter, a Rabbinic prohibition.

One who eats -- With regard to the prohibition against benefiting from chametz, see commentary, Halachah 8.

during the seventh hour is lashed -- as explained in Halachah 8.

-------

Hayom Yom:

• "Today's Day" Monday, Adar II 1, 5774 • 03 March 2014

Monday Adar Sheini 1, Rosh Chodesh 5703

Torah lessons: Chumash: P'kudei, Sheini with Rashi.

Tehillim: 1-9.

Tanya: But since the Temple (p. 153)...upon him by G-d. (p. 155).

In Yaaleh v'yavo (p. 57) zachreinu...bo,1 ufakdeinu vo2

FOOTNOTES

1. The word bo spelled with the letter beit - i.e., with a dagesh point.

2. The same word spelled here vo, with the letter veit - i.e., without the dagesh point.

-------

Daily Thought:

Reason to Celebrate If you did things right, celebrate that you have a G‑d who appreciates your good work. And if you fell on your face, celebrate that you have a G‑d who does not abandon you when you fall.

-------