Today in Jewish History:
• Maharal Meets Rudolph II (1592)
Rabbi Judah ben Bezalel Lowe, known as the Maharal of Prague was famous among Jews and non-Jews alike. He was a mystic who was revered for his holiness and Torah scholarship, as well as his proficiency in mathematics, astronomy, and other sciences. Eventually, word of his greatness reached the ears of Emperor Rudolph II.
The Emperor invited the Maharal to his castle on February 23, 1592. There they conversed for one and a half hours, and developed a mutual respect for each other.
Rabbi Judah Lowe made use of his excellent connections with the Emperor, often intervening on behalf of his community when it was threatened by anti-Semitic attacks or oppression.
Link: Rabbi Judah Lowe of Prague, The Maharal
Daily Quote:
Our sages tell us that the Holy Temple was destroyed and we were exiled from our land because there was "baseless hatred" amongst us. Accordingly, the way to bring the Redemption is through baseless love -- to love a fellow even though one sees no cause whatsoever for such love.[The Lubavitcher Rebbe]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Ki Tisa, 1st Portion Exodus 30:11-31:17 with Rashi
• Chapter 30
11The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: יאוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
12"When you take the sum of the children of Israel according to their numbers, let each one give to the Lord an atonement for his soul when they are counted; then there will be no plague among them when they are counted. יבכִּי תִשָּׂא אֶת רֹאשׁ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לִפְקֻדֵיהֶם וְנָתְנוּ אִישׁ כֹּפֶר נַפְשׁוֹ לַיהֹוָה בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם:
When you take: Heb. כִּי תִשָׂא. [This is] an expression of taking, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders. [I.e.,] when you wish to take the sum [total] of their numbers to know how many they are, do not count them by the head, but each one shall give a half-shekel, and you shall count the shekels. [Thereby] you will know their number. כי תשא: לשון קבלה, כתרגומו, כשתחפוץ לקבל סכום מנינם לדעת כמה הם, אל תמנם לגלגולת, אלא יתנו כל אחד מחצית השקל ותמנה את השקלים ותדע מנינם:
then there will be no plague among them: for the evil eye has power over numbered things, and pestilence comes upon them, as we find in David’s time (II Sam. 24). ולא יהיה בהם נגף: שהמנין שולט בו עין הרע והדבר בא עליהם, כמו שמצינו בימי דוד:
13This they shall give, everyone who goes through the counting: half a shekel according to the holy shekel. Twenty gerahs equal one shekel; half of [such] a shekel shall be an offering to the Lord. יגזֶה | יִתְּנוּ כָּל הָעֹבֵר עַל הַפְּקֻדִים מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ עֶשְׂרִים גֵּרָה הַשֶּׁקֶל מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל תְּרוּמָה לַיהֹוָה:
This they shall give: He [God] showed him [Moses] a sort of coin of fire weighing half a shekel, and He said to him, “Like this one they shall give.” -[from Tanchuma 9; Tanchuma Buber, Naso p. 35; Pesikta d’Rav Kahana 19a; Midrash Psalms 91:1; Yerushalmi, Shekalim 1:4] זה יתנו: הראה לו כמין מטבע של אש, ומשקלה מחצית השקל, ואומר לו כזה יתנו:
who goes through the counting: Heb. הָעֹבֵר עַל-הַפְקֻדִים. It is customary for those who count to pass the ones who have been counted one following another, and so [too the word יַעִבֹר in] “each one that passes under the rod” (Lev. 27:32), and so [the word ךְתַּעִבֹרְנָה in] “flocks will again pass under the hands of one who counts them” (Jer. 33:13). העבר על הפקודים: דרך המונין מעבירין את הנמנין זה אחר זה, וכן לשון (ויקרא כז לב) כל אשר יעבור תחת השבט, וכן (ירמיה לג יג) תעבורנה הצאן על ידי מונה:
half a shekel according to the holy shekel: By the weight of the shekel that I fixed for you [against which] to weigh the holy shekels, such as the shekels mentioned in the section dealing with personal evaluations (Lev. 27:1-8) and [in the section concerning] inherited fields (Lev. 27:16-21). מחצית השקל בשקל הקודש: במשקל השקל שקצבתי לך לשקול בו שקלי הקדש, כגון שקלים האמורין בפרשת ערכין ושדה אחוזה:
Twenty gerahs equal one shekel: Now He explains to you how much it is. עשרים גרה השקל: עכשיו פירש לך כמה הוא:
gerahs: Heb. גֵרָה, a word meaning a ma’ah [a small coin]. Likewise, “will come to prostrate himself before him for a silver piece (אִגוֹרַתכֶּסֶף) and a morsel of bread” (I Sam. 2:36). גרה: לשון מעה, וכן בשמואל (בשמואל א' ב לו) יבוא להשתחות לו לאגורת כסף וככר לחם:
Twenty gerahs equal one shekel: for a whole shekel equals four zuzim, and the zuz was originally five ma’oth, but they came and added a sixth to it and raised it to six ma’oth of silver, and half of this shekel [of] which I have spoken to you [here in this verse], they shall give as an offering to the Lord. עשרים גרה השקל: השקל השלם, שהשקל ארבעה זוזים, והזוז מתחלתו חמש מעות, אלא באו והוסיפו עליו שתות והעלוהו לשש מעה כסף, ומחצית השקל הזה, שאמרתי לך, יתנו תרומה לה':
14Everyone who goes through the counting, from the age of twenty and upward, shall give an offering to the Lord. ידכֹּל הָעֹבֵר עַל הַפְּקֻדִים מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמָעְלָה יִתֵּן תְּרוּמַת יְהֹוָה:
from the age of twenty and upward: [The Torah] teaches you here that no one under twenty years old goes out [to serve] in the army or is counted among men. מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה: למדך כאן, שאין פחות מבן עשרים יוצא לצבא ונמנה בכלל אנשים:
15The rich shall give no more, and the poor shall give no less than half a shekel, with which to give the offering to the Lord, to atone for your souls. טוהֶעָשִׁיר לֹא יַרְבֶּה וְהַדַּל לֹא יַמְעִיט מִמַּחֲצִית הַשָּׁקֶל לָתֵת אֶת תְּרוּמַת יְהֹוָה לְכַפֵּר עַל נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם:
to atone for your souls: That they should not be struck by a plague because of the counting. Another explanation: לכפר על נפשתיכם: שלא תנגפו על ידי המנין. דבר אחר לכפר על נפשותיכם, לפי שרמז להם כאן שלש תרומות, שנכתב כאן תרומת ה' שלוש פעמים אחת תרומת א-דנים, שמנאן כשהתחילו בנדבת המשכן ונתנו כל אחד ואחד מחצית השקל, ועלה למאת ככר, שנאמר (שמות לח כה) וכסף פקודי העדה מאת ככר, ומהם נעשו הא-דנים, שנאמר (שמות לח כז) ויהי מאת ככר הכסף וגו'. והשנית אף היא על ידי מנין שמנאן, משהוקם המשכן, הוא המנין האמור בתחלת חומש הפקודים (במדבר א א) באחד לחדש השני בשנה השנית, ונתנו כל אחד מחצית השקל, והן לקנות מהן קרבנות צבור של כל שנה ושנה, והושוו בהם עניים ועשירים, ועל אותה תרומה נאמר לכפר על נפשותיכם, שהקרבנות לכפרה הם באים. והשלישית היא תרומת המשכן, כמו שנאמר (שמות לה כד) כל מרים תרומת כסף ונחשת, ולא היתה יד כולם שוה בה, אלא איש איש מה שנדבו לבו:
to atone for your souls: [This was written] because [God] hinted to them [the Israelites] here [about] three offerings, because “an offering to the Lord” is written here three times. The first [represents] the offering [of silver] for the sockets [of the Mishkan], for he [Moses] counted them when they commenced with the donations for the Mishkan. Everyone gave a half-shekel, amounting to one hundred talents, as it is said: “And the silver of the community census was one hundred talents” (Exod. 38:25). The sockets were made from this, as it is said: “One hundred talents of the silver was [used to cast the sockets of the Mishkan and the sockets of the dividing curtain]” (Exod. 38:27). The second [offering mentioned here] was also [collected] through counting, for he [Moses] counted them after the Mishkan was erected. This is the counting mentioned in the beginning of the Book of Numbers: “on the first of the second month in the second year” (Num. 1:1). [For this offering] everyone gave a half-shekel, [the total of] which was [earmarked] for the purchase of communal sacrifices for every year. The rich and poor were equal in them [i.e., they gave equally in these two offerings]. Concerning that [second] offering, it is said: “to atone for your souls,” because the sacrifices are brought for the purpose of atonement. The third one [offering] is the offering for the Mishkan, as it is said: “Whoever set aside an offering of silver or copper” (Exod. 35:24). In this [offering] not everyone gave the same amount, but each one [gave] according to what his heart inspired him to give. -[from Shekalim 2b] :
16You shall take the silver of the atonements from the children of Israel and use it for the work of the Tent of Meeting; it shall be a remembrance for the children of Israel before the Lord, to atone for your souls." טזוְלָקַחְתָּ אֶת כֶּסֶף הַכִּפֻּרִים מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָתַתָּ אֹתוֹ עַל עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְהָיָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְזִכָּרוֹן לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה לְכַפֵּר עַל נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם:
and use it for the work of the Tent of Meeting: [From this] you learn that they were commanded to count them at the beginning of the donation for the Mishkan after the incident of the calf. [They were commanded then] because a plague had befallen them, as it is said: “And the Lord plagued the people” (Exod. 32:35). This can be compared to a flock of sheep, treasured by its owner, which was stricken with pestilence. When it [the pestilence] was over, he [the owner] said to the shepherd, “Please count my sheep to know how many are left,” in order to make it known that he treasured it [the flock] (Tanchuma, Ki Thissa 9). It is, however, impossible to say that this counting [mentioned here] was the [same] one mentioned in the Book of Numbers, for in that one [counting] it says: “on the first of the second month” (Num. 1:1), and the Mishkan was erected on the first [day] of the first month, as it is said: On the day of the first month, on the first of the month, you shall erect, etc. (Exod. 40:2). The sockets were made from shekels realized from that counting, as it is said: “One hundred talents of the silver were used to cast, etc.” (Exod. 38:27). Thus you learn that they [the countings] were two-one at the beginning of their donation [to the Mishkan] after Yom Kippur in the first year [after the Exodus], and one in the second year in Iyar after the Mishkan had been erected. Now if you ask, how is it possible that in both of these countings the Israelites equaled six hundred three thousand, five hundred fifty? In the case of the silver of the community census, it says this number, and also in the Book of Numbers it says the same: “And all the counted ones were six hundred three thousand, five hundred fifty” (Num. 1:46). Were they [the countings] not in two [separate] years? It is impossible that in the first census there were none who were nineteen years old and consequently not counted, and by the second counting became twenty years old [and were counted]. The answer to this matter is that in the context of the ages of people, they were counted in the same year, but in the context of the Exodus they [the two dates] were two [separate] years, since [to figure the time] from the Exodus, we count from [the month of] Nissan, as we learned in [tractate] Rosh Hashanah (2b). In this context, the Mishkan was built in the first year [after the Exodus] and erected in the second year, for the new year started on the first of Nissan. People’s ages, however, are counted according to the number of years of the world, beginning with [the month of] Tishri. Thus, the two countings were [taken] in the same year. The first counting was in Tishri after Yom Kippur, when the Omnipresent was placated toward Israel to forgive them, and they were commanded concerning [building] the Mishkan. The second one [counting] was on the first of Iyar. -[from Num. Rabbah 1:10] ונתת אתו על עבודת אהל מועד: למדת שנצטוה למנותם בתחלת נדבת המשכן אחר מעשה העגל, מפני שנכנס בהם מגפה, כמו שנאמר (שמות לב לה) ויגוף ה' את העם. משל לצאן החביבה על בעליה, שנפל בה דבר, ומשפסק אמר לו לרועה בבקשה ממך, מנה את צאני ודע כמה נותרו בהם, להודיע שהיא חביבה עליו. ואי אפשר לומר, שהמנין הזה הוא האמור בחומש הפקודים, שהרי נאמר בו (במדבר א א) באחד לחדש השני, והמשכן הוקם באחד לחודש הראשון, שנאמר (שמות מ ב) ביום החודש הראשון באחד לחודש תקים וגו', ומהמנין הזה נעשו הא-דנים משקלים שלו, שנאמר (שמות לח כז) ויהי מאת ככר הכסף לצקת וגו', הא למדת שתים היו אחת בתחלת נדבתן אחר יום הכפורים בשנה ראשונה, ואחת בשנה שנייה באייר משהוקם המשכן. ואם תאמר, וכי אפשר שבשניהם היו ישראל שוים שש מאות אלף ושלשת אלפים וחמש מאות וחמישים, שהרי בכסף פקודי העדה נאמר כן, ובחומש הפקודים אף בו נאמר כן (במדבר א מו) ויהיו כל הפקודים שש מאות אלף ושלשת אלפים וחמש מאות וחמשים, והלא בשתי שנים היו, ואי אפשר שלא היו בשעת מנין הראשון בני תשע עשרה שנה שלא נמנו ובשנייה נעשו בני עשרים. תשובה לדבר, אצל שנות האנשים בשנה אחת נמנו, אבל למנין יציאת מצרים היו שתי שנים, לפי שליציאת מצרים מונין מניסן, כמו ששנינו במסכת ראש השנה (ב ב), ונבנה המשכן בראשונה והוקם בשנייה שנתחדשה שנה באחד בניסן, אבל שנות האנשים מנוין למנין שנות עולם המתחילין מתשרי, נמצאו שני המנינים בשנה אחת המנין הראשון היה בתשרי לאחר יום הכפורים, שנתרצה המקום לישראל לסלוח להם, ונצטוו על המשכן, והשני באחד באייר:
for the work of the Tent of Meeting: These are the sockets made from it [i.e., from the silver of the atonements]. על עבודת אהל מועד: הן הא-דנים שנעשו בו:
17The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: יזוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
18"You shall make a washstand of copper and its base of copper for washing, and you shall place it between the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and you shall put water therein. יחוְעָשִׂיתָ כִּיּוֹר נְחשֶׁת וְכַנּוֹ נְחשֶׁת לְרָחְצָה וְנָתַתָּ אֹתוֹ בֵּין אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וּבֵין הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְנָתַתָּ שָׁמָּה מָיִם:
a washstand: Like a sort of large caldron, which has faucets allowing water to pour out through their openings. כיור: כמין דוד גדולה ולה דדים המריקים בפיהם מים:
and its base: Heb. וְכַנּוֹ, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders: וּבְסִיסֵיהּ, a seat prepared for the washstand. וכנו: כתרגומו ובסיסיה, מושב מתוקן לכיור:
for washing: This refers back to the washstand. לרחצה: מוסב על הכיור:
between… the altar: [This refers to] the altar for burnt offerings, about which it is written that it was in front of the entrance of the Mishkan of the Tent of Meeting. The washstand was drawn away slightly [from the entrance] and stood opposite the space between the altar and the Mishkan, but it did not intervene at all [between them], because it is said: “And he placed the altar for burnt offerings at the entrance of the Mishkan of the Tent of Meeting” (Exod. 40:29), implying that the altar was in front of the Tent of Meeting, but the washstand was not in front of the Tent of Meeting. How is that so? It [the washstand] was drawn away slightly to the south. So it is taught in Zev. (59a). ובין המזבח: מזבח העולה שכתוב בו, שהוא לפני פתח משכן אהל מועד, והיה הכיור משוך קמעא ועומד כנגד אויר שבין המזבח והמשכן, ואינו מפסיק כלל בינתים, משום שנאמר (שמות מ כט) ואת מזבח העולה שם פתח משכן אהל מועד, כלומר מזבח לפני אהל מועד ואין כיור לפני אהל מועד, הא כיצד, משוך קמעא כלפי הדרום, כך שנויה בזבחים (נט א):
19Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and feet from it. יטוְרָחֲצוּ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו מִמֶּנּוּ אֶת יְדֵיהֶם וְאֶת רַגְלֵיהֶם:
their hands and feet: He [the kohen] would wash his hands and feet simultaneously. So we learned in Zev. (19b): How was the washing of the hands and the feet [performed]? [The kohen] would lay his right hand on his right foot and his left hand on his left foot and wash [in this manner]. את ידיהם ואת רגליהם: בבת אחת היה מקדש ידיו ורגליו, וכך שנינו בזבחים (יט ב) כיצד קדוש ידים ורגלים, מניח ידו הימנית על גבי רגלו הימנית, וידו השמאלית על גבי רגלו השמאלית, ומקדש:
20When they enter the Tent of Meeting, they shall wash with water so that they will not die; or when they approach the altar to serve, to make a fire offering rise up in smoke to the Lord, כבְּבֹאָם אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד יִרְחֲצוּ מַיִם וְלֹא יָמֻתוּ אוֹ בְגִשְׁתָּם אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְשָׁרֵת לְהַקְטִיר אִשֶּׁה לַיהֹוָה:
When they enter the Tent of Meeting: to bring the incense up in smoke in the morning and in the afternoon, or to sprinkle some of the blood of the bull of the anointed Kohen [Gadol, who erred in his halachic decision and practiced according to that erroneous decision,] (Lev. 4:3-12) and the blood of the kids for [sin offerings for having engaged in] idolatry (Num. 15:22-26). בבאם אל אהל מועד: להקטיר קטרת שחרית ובין הערבים, או להזות מדם פר כהן המשיח ושעירי עבודה זרה:
so that they will not die: This implies that if they do not wash, they will die. For in the Torah [there] are stated implications, and from the negative implication you [can] understand the positive. ולא ימותו: הא אם לא ירחצו ימותו, שבתורה נאמרו כללות, ומכלל לאו אתה שומע הן:
the altar: [I.e.,] the outer [altar], in which no entry to the Tent of Meeting is involved, only [entry] into the courtyard. אל המזבח: החיצון, שאין כאן ביאת אהל מועד אלא בחצר:
21they shall wash their hands and feet so that they will not die; this shall be for them a perpetual statute, for him and for his descendants, for their generations." כאוְרָחֲצוּ יְדֵיהֶם וְרַגְלֵיהֶם וְלֹא יָמֻתוּ וְהָיְתָה לָהֶם חָק עוֹלָם לוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ לְדֹרֹתָם:
so that they will not die: [This verse is written] to impose death upon one who serves on the altar when his hands and feet are not washed, for from the first death penalty (verse 20) we understand only [that death is imposed] upon one who enters the Temple. ולא ימותו: לחייב מיתה על המשמש במזבח ואינו רחוץ ידים ורגלים, שהמיתה הראשונה לא שמענו אלא על הנכנס להיכל:
22The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: כבוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
23"And you, take for yourself spices of the finest sort: of pure myrrh five hundred [shekel weights]; of fragrant cinnamon half of it two hundred and fifty [shekel weights]; of fragrant cane two hundred and fifty [shekel weights], כגוְאַתָּה קַח לְךָ בְּשָׂמִים רֹאשׁ מָר דְּרוֹר חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת וְקִנְּמָן בֶּשֶׂם מַחֲצִיתוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם וּקְנֵה בֹשֶׂם חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם:
spices of the finest sort: Heb. בְּשָׂמִים רֹאשׁ, of high quality. בשמים ראש: חשובים:
fragrant cinnamon: Since cinnamon is the bark of a tree, and there is one good type [of cinnamon] that has a fragrant bouquet and a good taste, and there is another that is merely like wood, it was necessary to state “fragrant cinnamon,” [meaning that the incense was to be made] of the good species. וקנמן בשם: לפי שהקנמון קליפת עץ הוא, יש שהוא טוב ויש בו ריח טוב וטעם, ויש שאינו אלא כעץ, לכך הוצרך לומר קנמן בשם, מן הטוב:
half of it two hundred and fifty [shekel weights]: Half of the amount to be brought shall be two hundred and fifty; thus altogether it is five hundred [shekel weights], like the amount of pure myrrh. If so, why was it stated in halves? This is a Scriptural decree to bring it in halves to add to it two overweights, because we do not weigh [the spices] exactly. So it was taught in Kereithoth (5a). מחציתו חמשים ומאתים: מחצית הבאתו תהא חמשים ומאתים, נמצא כולו חמש מאות, כמו שיעור מר דרור, אם כן, למה נאמר בו חצאין, גזירת הכתוב היא להביאו לחצאין, להרבות בו שתי הכרעות, שאין שוקלין עין בעין, וכך שנויה בכריתות (דף ה א):
fragrant cane: Heb. וּקְנֵה-בֹשֶׂם, cane of spice. Since there are canes that are not of spice, it is necessary to specify: בֹשֶׂם וקנה בשם: קנה של בשם לפי שיש קנים שאינן של בשם, הוצרך לומר בשם:
two hundred and fifty [shekel weights]: [This is] its total sum. חמשים ומאתים: סך משקל כולו:
24and of cassia five hundred [shekel weights] according to the holy shekel, and one hin of olive oil. כדוְקִדָּה חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְשֶׁמֶן זַיִת הִין:
and of cassia: Heb. וְקִדָּה, the name of the root of an herb, and in the language of the Sages: קְצִיעָה, cassia. -[from Ker. 6a] וקדה: שם שורש עשב, ובלשון חכמים קציעה:
hin: [The equivalent of] twelve logs. The Sages of Israel differ concerning it [i.e., how the oil was made]. Rabbi Meir says: They [whoever made the anointing oil] boiled the roots in it [the oil of the anointment]. Rabbi Judah said to him: But is it not so that it [the anointment oil] did not even suffice to anoint the roots [and thus they certainly couldn’t boil the spices in the oil]? Rather, they soaked them [the spices] in water so that they would not absorb the oil, and then poured the oil on them until they were impregnated with the scent, and [then] they wiped the oil off the roots. -[from Ker. 5a] הין: שנים עשר לוגין, ונחלקו בו חכמי ישראל רבי מאיר אומר בו שלקו את העיקרין. אמר לו רבי יהודה והלא לסוך את העיקרין אינו סיפק, אלא שראום במים, שלא יבלעו את השמן, ואחר כך הציף עליהם השמן עד שקלט הריח וקפחו לשמן מעל העיקרין:
25You shall make this into an oil of holy annoinment, a perfumed compound according to the art of a perfumer; it shall be an oil of holy anointment. כהוְעָשִׂיתָ אֹתוֹ שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת קֹדֶשׁ רֹקַח מִרְקַחַת מַעֲשֵׂה רֹקֵחַ שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה:
a perfumed compound: Heb. רֹקַח מִרְקַחַת. רֹקַח is a noun, and the accent, which is on the first syllable, proves that. It is like רֶקַע רֶגַע, but it is not like “Who wrinkles (רֹגַע) the sea” (Isa. 51:15), or like “Who spread out (רֹקַע) the earth” (Isa. 42:5) [which are both verbs], because [in those instances] the accent is at the end of the word. Any substance mixed with another substance until one becomes impregnated from the other with either scent or taste is called מִרְקַחַת. רקח מרקחת: רקח שם דבר הוא, והטעם מוכיח שהוא למעלה, והרי הוא כמו רקח, רגע, ואינו כמו (ישעיה נא טו) רגע הים, וכמו (ישעיהו מב ה) רקע הארץ, שהטעם למטה, וכל דבר המעורב בחבירו, עד שזה קופח מזה או ריח או טעם קרוי מרקחת:
a perfumed compound: Heb. רֹקַח מִרְקַחַת, a compound made through the skill of mixing. רקח מרקחת: רקח העשוי על ידי אומנות ותערובות:
according to the art of a perfumer: Heb. רֹקֵחַ, the name of the craftsman in this field. מעשה רוקח: שם האומן בדבר:
26And you shall anoint with it the Tent of Meeting and the Ark of Testimony, כווּמָשַׁחְתָּ בוֹ אֶת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְאֵת אֲרוֹן הָעֵדֻת:
And you shall anoint with it: All anointments were in the shape of the Greek [letter] “chaff,” except those of the kings, which were like a sort of crown. -[from Ker. 5b] ומשחת בו: כל המשיחות כמין כי יונית, חוץ משל מלכים שהן כמין נזר:
27the table and all its implements, the menorah and its implements, the altar of incense, כזוְאֶת הַשֻּׁלְחָן וְאֶת כָּל כֵּלָיו וְאֶת הַמְּנֹרָה וְאֶת כֵּלֶיהָ וְאֵת מִזְבַּח הַקְּטֹרֶת:
28the altar of the burnt offering and all its implements, the washstand and its base. כחוְאֶת מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה וְאֶת כָּל כֵּלָיו וְאֶת הַכִּיֹּר וְאֶת כַּנּוֹ:
29And you shall sanctify them so that they become a holy of holies; whatever touches them shall become holy. כטוְקִדַּשְׁתָּ אֹתָם וְהָיוּ קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים כָּל הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּהֶם יִקְדָּשׁ:
And you shall sanctify them: This anointment sanctifies them to be a holy of holies. And what is their sanctity? Whatever touches them shall become holy. [I.e.,] whatever is fit for [placement in] a service vessel, when it enters them [the vessels], it becomes intrinsically holy so that it becomes unfit [to be an offering] if it goes out [of its designated boundaries], if it stays [out] overnight, or if [it comes in contact with] a person who has immersed himself [from uncleanness] on that day, and it may not be redeemed to become ordinary [unsanctified] food. Something unfit for them [i.e., for the service vessels], however, they [the vessels] do not sanctify (Zev. 87a). This was taught as an explicit Mishnah concerning the altar [i.e., a Baraitha, Zev. 83b]: Since it is stated: “Whatever touches the altar will be holy” (Exod. 29:37), I understand it to mean whether it is fit or unfit. Therefore, [to clarify this,] the Torah states [that] lambs [are to be sacrificed upon the altar]. Because just as lambs are fit, so is anything else that is fit [sanctified if it comes in contact with the altar]. Every anointment of the Mishkan, the kohanim, and the kings is translated [by Onkelos] as an expression of greatness because there is no need to anoint them except in order to proclaim their greatness. So did the King [God] decree, that this [the anointment] is their initiation into greatness. Other anointments, however, such as anointed wafers, “and with the first oils they anoint themselves” (Amos 6:6), their Aramaic [translation] is the same as the Hebrew. וקדשת אותם: משיחה זו מקדשתם להיות קדש קדשים, ומה היא קדושתם, כל הנוגע וגו', כל הראוי לכלי שרת משנכנס לתוכו קדוש קדושת הגוף ליפסל ביוצא ובלינה ובטבול יום, ואינו נפדה לצאת לחולין, אבל דבר שאינו ראוי להם אין מקדשין. ושנויה היא משנה שלימה אצל מזבח, מתוך שנאמר (שמות כט לז) כל הנוגע במזבח יקדש, שומע אני בין ראוי בין שאינו ראוי, תלמוד לומר כבשים, מה כבשים ראויים אף כל ראוי. כל משיחת משכן וכהנים ומלכים מתורגם לשון רבוי, לפי שאין צורך משיחתן אלא לגדולה, כי כן יסד המלך, שזה חנוך גדולתן, ושאר משיחות כגון (שמות כט ב) רקיקין משוחין, (עמוס ו ו) וראשית שמנים ימשחו, לשון ארמית בהן כלשון עברית:
30And with it you shall anoint Aaron and his sons and sanctify them to serve Me [as kohanim]. לוְאֶת אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת בָּנָיו תִּמְשָׁח וְקִדַּשְׁתָּ אֹתָם לְכַהֵן לִי:
31And to the children of Israel you shall speak, saying: 'This shall be oil of holy anointment to Me for your generations. לאוְאֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל תְּדַבֵּר לֵאמֹר שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה זֶה לִי לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם:
for your generations: From here our Rabbis deduced that it [the anointing oil made by Moses] will all remain in existence in the future. -[from Horioth 11b] לדרתיכם: מכאן למדו רבותינו לומר שכולו קיים לעתיד לבא:
This: Heb. זֶה. In gematria, this equals twelve logs. [ ז, ה, totaling 12.] -[from Horioth 11b] זה: בגימטריה תריסר לוגין הוו:
32It shall not be poured upon human flesh, and according to its formula you shall not make anything like it. It is holy; it shall be holy to you. לבעַל בְּשַׂר אָדָם לֹא יִיסָךְ וּבְמַתְכֻּנְתּוֹ לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ כָּמֹהוּ קֹדֶשׁ הוּא קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם:
It shall not be poured: Heb. לֹא יִיסָ. [This is spelled] with two “yud” s. It is an expression [in the form] of לֹא יִפְעַל, it shall not do, like, “and in order that it be good (יִיטַב) for you” (Deut. 5:16). לא ייסך: בשני יודי"ן, לשון לא יפעל, כמו (דברים ה טו) למען ייטב לך:
It shall not be poured upon human flesh: from this very oil. על בשר אדם לא ייסך: מן השמן הזה עצמו:
and according to its formula you shall not make anything like it: With the amount of its ingredients you shall not make another like it, but if one decreased or increased the ingredients according to the measure of a hin of oil, it is permitted. Also, the [oil] made according to the formula of this [oil]-the one who anoints himself [with it] is not liable, only the one who mixes it. -[from Ker. 5a] ובמתכנתו לא תעשו כמהו: בסכום סמניו לא תעשו אחר כמוהו במשקל סמנין הללו לפי מדת הין שמן, אבל אם פחת או רבה סממנין לפי מדת הין שמן מותר, ואף העשוי במתכונתו של זה, אין הסך ממנו חייב אלא הרוקחו:
according to its formula: Heb. וּבְמַתְכֻּנְךְתּוֹ, a word meaning a number, like “the number of (מַתְכֹּנֶת) bricks” (Exod. 5:8), and so, בְּמַתְכֻּנְךְתָּה, mentioned in reference to the incense (below, verse 37). ובמתכנתו: לשון חשבון, כמו (שמות ה ח) מתכנת הלבנים, וכן במתכונתה של קטורת:
33Any person who compounds anything like it or puts any of it on an alien shall be cut off from his people.' " לגאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִרְקַח כָּמֹהוּ וַאֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מִמֶּנּוּ עַל זָר וְנִכְרַת מֵעַמָּיו:
or puts any of it: Of that [oil] of [i.e., made by] Moses. [However, anyone who anoints himself with oil that was made copying the original anointing oil is not liable.] -[from Ker. 5a] ואשר יתן ממנו: מאותו של משה:
on an alien: [I.e.,] which is not needed for the kehunah or the kingship. על זר: שאינו צורך כהונה ומלכות:
34And the Lord said to Moses: "Take for yourself aromatics, [namely] balsam sap, onycha and galbanum, aromatics and pure frankincense; they shall be of equal weight. לדוַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה קַח לְךָ סַמִּים נָטָף | וּשְׁחֵלֶת וְחֶלְבְּנָה סַמִּים וּלְבֹנָה זַכָּה בַּד בְּבַד יִהְיֶה:
balsam sap: Heb. נָטָף. This is balm (צֳרִי), but since it is only the sap that drips (נוֹטֵף) from the balsam trees, it is called נָטָף (Ker. 6a), and in French, gomme, gum resin. The balm itself, however, is called triaca [in Old Provencal], theriac. נטף: הוא צרי, ועל שאינו אלא שרף הנוטף מעצי הקטף קרוי נטף ובלעז גומ"א, והצרי קורין לו תירייק"א ושחלת - שורש בשם חלק ומצהיר כצפורן, ובלשון המשנה קרוי צפורן, וזהו שתרגם אונקלוס וטופרא:
onycha: Heb. וּשְׁחֵלֶת, a root of a spice, smooth and shiny as fingernails, and in the language of the Mishnah (Ker. 6a) it is called צִפֹּרֶן. This is what Onkelos renders as וְטוּפְרָא. [Both צִפֹּרֶן and טוּפְרָא mean “fingernail.”] וחלבנה: בשם שריחו רע וקורין לו גלבנא, ומנאה הכתוב בין סמני הקטורת, ללמדנו, שלא יקל בעינינו לצרף עמנו באגודת תעניותינו ותפלותינו את פושעי ישראל שיהיו נמנין עמנו:
and galbanum: A spice with a vile odor, called galbane [in Old French], galbanum. The Scripture counted it among the ingredients of the incense [in order] to teach us that we should not look askance at including Jewish transgressors with us when we assemble for fasting or prayer. [The Torah instructs us] that they should be counted with us. -[from Ker. 6b] סמים: אחרים:
aromatics: Heb. סַמִּים. Other [aromatics]. -[from Ker. 6b] ולבנה זכה: מכאן למדו רבותינו אחד עשר סמנין נאמרו לו למשה בסיני מיעוט סמים שנים, נטף ושחלת וחלבנה שלשה, הרי חמישה, סמים, לרבות עוד כמו אלו, הרי עשרה, ולבונה הרי אחד עשר ואלו הן הצרי והצפורן, החלבנה והלבונה, מור וקציעה, שבולת נרד וכרכם, הרי שמונה, שהשבולת ונרד אחד, שהנרד דומה לשבולת, הקושט והקילופה והקנמון הרי אחד עשר. בורית כרשינה אינו נקטר אלא בו שפין את הצפורן ללבנה שתהא נאה:
and pure frankincense: From here our Rabbis learned that eleven ingredients were told to Moses [when he was] at Sinai: the minimum of aromatics-two [since סַמִּים is written in the plural form]; balsam sap, onycha, and galbanum-three, equaling five; aromatics [written a second time]-to include again the number of these, equaling ten; and frankincense, totaling eleven. They are as follows: (1) balsam sap, (2) onycha, (3) galbanum, (4) frankincense, (5) myrrh, (6) cassia, (7) spikenard נֵרְדְּ) (שִׁבֹּלֶת, and (8) saffron, totaling eight, because שִׁבֹּלֶת and נֵרְדְּ are one, for spikenard נֵרְדְּ is like an ear [of grain] שִׁבֹּלֶת. [To continue:] (9) costus, (10) aromatic bark, and (11) cinnamon, thus totaling eleven. Borith carshina [mentioned further in the Baraitha, is not counted because it] does not go up in smoke, but they rub the onycha with it to whiten it so that it should be beautiful. -[from Ker. 6a] בד בבד יהיה: אלו הארבעה הנזכרים כאן יהיו שוין משקל במשקל, כמשקלו של זה כך משקלו של זה, וכן שנינו (כריתות ו א) הצרי והצפורן, החלבנה והלבונה משקל שבעים שבעים מנה. ולשון בד נראה בעיני שהוא לשון יחיד, אחד באחד, יהיה זה כמו זה:
they shall be of equal weight: Heb. יִהְיֶה בַּד בְּבַד. These four [ingredients] mentioned here [explicitly] shall be equal, a weight for a weight. Like the weight of one, so shall be the weight of the other. So we learned (Ker. 6a): The balsam, the onycha, the galbanum, and the frankincense the weight of each was seventy manehs. The word בַּד appears to me to mean a unit; each one [i. e., the weight] shall be this one like that one. :
35And you shall make it into incense, a compound according to the art of the perfumer, well blended, pure, holy. להוְעָשִׂיתָ אֹתָהּ קְטֹרֶת רֹקַח מַעֲשֵׂה רוֹקֵחַ מְמֻלָּח טָהוֹר קֹדֶשׁ:
well blended: Heb. מְמֻלָח, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders: מְעָרֵב, mixed. He should mix their [the spices’] powder thoroughly, one with the other. Accordingly, I say that [the following] are similar to this: “And the sailors (הַמַּלָּחִים) were frightened” (Jonah 1:5); “your sailors (מַלָחַיִ) and your mariners” (Ezek. 27:27). [Sailors are given this appellation] because they turn over the water with oars when they propel the ship, like a person who turns over beaten eggs with a spoon to blend them with water. And anything that a person wishes to blend thoroughly, he turns over with his finger or with a spoon. ממלח: כתרגומו מעורב, שיערב שחיקתן יפה יפה זה עם זה. ואומר אני שדומה לו (יונה א ה) וייראו המלחים, (יחזקאל כז כז) מלחיך וחובליך, על שם שמהפכין את המים במשוטות, כשמנהיגים את הספינה, כאדם המהפך בכף ביצים טרופות לערבן עם המים, וכל דבר שהאדם רוצה לערב יפה יפה, מהפכו באצבע או בבזך:
well blended, pure, holy: It shall be well blended; it shall be pure, and it shall be holy. ממלח טהור קדש: ממולח יהיה וטהור יהיה וקדש יהיה:
36And you shall crush some of it very finely, and you shall set some of it before the testimony in the Tent of Meeting, where I will arrange meetings with you; it shall be to you a holy of holies. לווְשָׁחַקְתָּ מִמֶּנָּה הָדֵק וְנָתַתָּה מִמֶּנָּה לִפְנֵי הָעֵדֻת בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד אֲשֶׁר אִוָּעֵד לְךָ שָׁמָּה קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים תִּהְיֶה לָכֶם:
and you shall set some of it: This is the daily incense, which is on the inner altar, which is in the Tent of Meeting. ונתתה ממנה וגו': היא קטרת שבכל יום ויום שעל מזבח הפנימי, שהוא באהל מועד:
where I will arrange meetings with you: All appointments to speak that I will set up for you, I will set up for that place. אשר אועד לך שמה: כל מועדי דבור שאקבע לך, אני קובעם לאותו מקום:
37And the incense that you make, you shall not make for yourselves according to its formula; it shall be holy to you for the Lord. לזוְהַקְּטֹרֶת אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה בְּמַתְכֻּנְתָּהּ לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ לָכֶם קֹדֶשׁ תִּהְיֶה לְךָ לַיהֹוָה:
according to its formula: According to the number of its ingredients. במתכנתה: במנין סממניה:
it shall be holy to you for the Lord: That you shall not make it except for My Name. קדש תהיה לך לה': שלא תעשנה אלא לשמי:
38Any person who makes anything like it, to smell it[s fragrance], shall be cut off from his people. לחאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה כָמוֹהָ לְהָרִיחַ בָּהּ וְנִכְרַת מֵעַמָּיו:
to smell it[s fragrance]: But you may make it according to its formula of your own [ingredients] in order to deliver it to the community. -[from Ker. 5a] להריח בה: אבל עושה אתה במתכונתה משלך כדי למוסרה לצבור:
Chapter 31
1The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: אוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
2"See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, ברְאֵה קָרָאתִי בְשֵׁם בְּצַלְאֵל בֶּן אוּרִי בֶן חוּר לְמַטֵּה יְהוּדָה:
I have called by name: to perform My work Bezalel. קראתי בשם: לעשות מלאכתי, את בצלאל:
3and I have imbued him with the spirit of God, with wisdom, with insight, with knowledge, and with [talent for] all manner of craftsmanship גוָאֲמַלֵּא אֹתוֹ רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים בְּחָכְמָה וּבִתְבוּנָה וּבְדַעַת וּבְכָל מְלָאכָה:
with wisdom: [I.e.,] what a person hears from others and learns. -[from Sifrei Deut. 1:13] בחכמה: מה שאדם שומע מאחרים ולמד:
with insight: With his intellect he understands other things based on what he learned. -[from Sifrei Deut. 1:13] ובתבונה: מבין דבר מלבו, מתוך דברים שלמד:
with knowledge: The holy spirit. ובדעת: רוח הקדש:
4to do master weaving, to work with gold, with silver, and with copper, דלַחְשֹׁב מַחֲשָׁבֹת לַעֲשׂוֹת בַּזָּהָב וּבַכֶּסֶף וּבַנְּחשֶׁת:
to do master weaving: Heb. לַחְשֹׁב מַחִשָׁבֹת, the weaving work of a master weaver. לחשוב מחשבת: אריגת מעשה חושב:
5with the craft of stones for setting and with the craft of wood, to do every [manner of] work. הוּבַחֲרשֶׁת אֶבֶן לְמַלֹּאת וּבַחֲרשֶׁת עֵץ לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּכָל מְלָאכָה:
with the craft: Heb. וּבַחִרשֶׁת, a term denoting a craft, like “a skilled craftsman (חָרָשׁ) ” (Isa. 40:20). Onkelos, however, explained [this term] but varied [the wording] in their explanation [i.e., in the explanation of the two mentions of חִרשֶׁ. וּבַחִרשֶׁתאֶבֶן he rendered וּבְאוּמָנוּתאִבַן טָבָא, and בַחִרשֶׁתעֵץ he rendered וּבְנַגָּרוּתאָעָא, because a craftsman of stones is called אוּמָן, craftsman, whereas a craftsman of wood is called נַגַָָּר, carpenter. ובחרשת: לשון אומנות, כמו (ישעיה מ כ) חרש חכם, ואונקלוס פירש ושנה בפירושן, שחרש אבנים קרוי אומן, וחרש עץ קרוי נגר:
for setting: Heb. לְמַלֹאת, lit., to fill. To set it [each stone] into its setting in its fullness, [i.e.,] to make the setting equal to the measurement of the bottom of the stone and its thickness. [See commentary on Exod. 25:7.] למלאת: להושיבה במשבצת שלה במלואה, לעשות המשבצת למדת מושב האבן ועוביה:
6And, behold, with him I have placed Oholiab the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan, and all the wise hearted into whose hearts I have instilled wisdom, and they shall make everything I have commanded you: ווַאֲנִי הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי אִתּוֹ אֵת אָהֳלִיאָב בֶּן אֲחִיסָמָךְ לְמַטֵּה דָן וּבְלֵב כָּל חֲכַם לֵב נָתַתִּי חָכְמָה וְעָשׂוּ אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ:
and all the wise-hearted into whose hearts I have instilled wisdom:And additionally, other wise-hearted people among you [shall assist], as well as everyone into whom I have instilled wisdom, and [all of them] shall make everything I have commanded you. ובלב כל חכם לב וגו': ועוד שאר חכמי לב יש בכם, וכל אשר נתתי בו חכמה ועשו את כל אשר צויתיך:
7The Tent of Meeting and the ark for the testimony, as well as the cover that [shall be] upon it, all the implements of the tent, זאֵת | אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְאֶת הָאָרֹן לָעֵדֻת וְאֶת הַכַּפֹּרֶת אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו וְאֵת כָּל כְּלֵי הָאֹהֶל:
and the ark for the testimony: For the purpose of the tablets of the testimony. ואת הארן לעדת: לצורך לוחות העדות:
8the table and its implements, the pure menorah and all its implements, the altar of incense, חוְאֶת הַשֻּׁלְחָן וְאֶת כֵּלָיו וְאֶת הַמְּנֹרָה הַטְּהֹרָה וְאֶת כָּל כֵּלֶיהָ וְאֵת מִזְבַּח הַקְּטֹרֶת:
the pure: Heb. הַטְּהֹרָה. [The menorah is described by this adjective] because [it was made] of pure gold. [based on Exod. 25:31] הטהרה: על שם זהב טהור:
9the altar for the burnt offering and all its implements, the washstand and its base, טוְאֶת מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה וְאֶת כָּל כֵּלָיו וְאֶת הַכִּיּוֹר וְאֶת כַּנּוֹ:
10the meshwork garments, the holy garments for Aaron the kohen, the garments of his sons [in which] to serve [as kohanim], יוְאֵת בִּגְדֵי הַשְּׂרָד וְאֶת בִּגְדֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ לְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת בִּגְדֵי בָנָיו לְכַהֵן:
the meshwork garments: Heb. בִּגְדֵי הַשְְׂרָד In my opinion, according to the simple meaning of the verse, it is impossible to say that the garments of the kehunah are referred to [here], because it says next to them [at the end of the verse], “the holy garments for Aaron the kohen, the garments of his sons [in which] to serve [as kohanim].” But these בִּגְדֵי הַשְׂרָד [referred to here] are the garments of blue, purple, and crimson wool mentioned in the section dealing with the travels (Num. 4:6-13): “and they shall place upon it a garment of blue wool,” “and they shall place upon it a garment of purple wool,” “and they shall place upon them a garment of crimson wool.” My assertion [that בִּגְדֵי הַשְׂרָד refers to the coverings of the vessels] appears correct, since it says: “And from the blue wool, the purple wool, and the crimson they made בִּגְדֵי הַשְׂרָד ” (Exod. 39:1), but linen was not mentioned with them. Now, if it [the text] is speaking of the garments of the kehunah, we do not find in any of them [reference to] purple or crimson wool without [the addition of] linen. בִּגְדֵי הַשְׂרָד Some [commentators] explain בִּגְדֵי הַשְׂרָד as an expression of work and service, like its [Aramaic] translation, לְבוּשֵׁי שִׁמוּשָׁא, and it has no similarity in the Scriptures. But I believe that it is Aramaic, like the [Aramaic] translation of קְלָעִים [hangings, translated סְרָדִין] (Exod. 27:9) and the [Aramaic] translation of מִכְבָּר [grating, translated סְרָדָא] (Exod. 27:4), for they were woven with a needle [and] made of many holes, lazediz in Old French, mesh-work, crochet-work, [or] lace. ואת בגדי השרד: אומר אני לפי פשוטו של מקרא אי אפשר לומר שבבגדי כהונה מדבר, לפי שנאמר אצלם ואת בגדי הקדש לאהרן הכהן ואת בגדי בניו לכהן, אלא אלו בגדי השרד, הם בגדי התכלת והארגמן ותולעת שני, האמורין בפרשת מסעות (במדבר ד יב) ונתנו אל בגד תכלת, (שם יג) ופרשו עליו בגד ארגמן, (שם ח) ופרשו עליהם בגד תולעת שני. ונראין דברי, שנאמר (שמות לט א) ומן התכלת והארגמן ותולעת השני עשו בגדי שרד לשרת בקדש, ולא הוזכר שש עמהם, ואם בבגדי כהונה מדבר, לא מצינו באחד מהם ארגמן או תולעת שני בלא שש:
11the anointing oil and the incense for the Holy; in complete accordance with everything I have commanded you they shall do." יאוְאֵת שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וְאֶת קְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים לַקֹּדֶשׁ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ יַעֲשׂוּ:
and the incense for the Holy: For the purpose of bringing [incense] up in smoke in the Heichal, which is holy. ואת קטרת הסמים לקדש: לצורך הקטרת ההיכל שהוא קדש:
12The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: יבוַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
13"And you, speak to the children of Israel and say: 'Only keep My Sabbaths! For it is a sign between Me and you for your generations, to know that I, the Lord, make you holy. יגוְאַתָּה דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר אַךְ אֶת שַׁבְּתֹתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ כִּי אוֹת הִוא בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם לָדַעַת כִּי אֲנִי יְהֹוָה מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם:
And you, speak to the children of Israel: But [as for] you, although I have mandated you to command them [the Israelites] concerning the work of the Mishkan, do not let it seem to you that you may easily set aside the Sabbath because of that work. ואתה דבר אל בני ישראל: ואתה, אף על פי שהפקדתיך לצוותם על מלאכת המשכן, אל יקל בעיניך לדחות את השבת מפני אותה מלאכה:
Only keep My Sabbaths!: Although you will be rushed to perform the work [of the Mishkan] quickly, the Sabbath shall not be set aside because of it. All instances of אַ and רַק [imply limitations, i.e.,] are exclusive, to exclude the Sabbath from the work of the Mishkan. אך את שבתתי תשמרו: אף על פי שתהיו רדופין וזריזין בזריזות מלאכה שבת אל תדחה מפניה. כל אכין ורקין מיעוטין, למעט שבת ממלאכת המשכן:
For it is a sign between Me and you: It is a sign of distinction between us that I have chosen you, by granting you as an inheritance My day of rest for [your] rest. כי אות הוא ביני וביניכם: אות גדולה היא בינינו שבחרתי בכם, בהנחילי לכם את יום מנוחתי למנוחה:
to know: [So that] the nations [should know] that I, the Lord, sanctify you. לדעת: האומות [בה] כי אני ה' מקדשכם:
14Therefore, keep the Sabbath, for it is a sacred thing for you. Those who desecrate it shall be put to death, for whoever performs work on it, that soul will be cut off from the midst of its people. ידוּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הִוא לָכֶם מְחַלֲלֶיהָ מוֹת יוּמָת כִּי כָּל הָעֹשֶׂה בָהּ מְלָאכָה וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִקֶּרֶב עַמֶּיהָ:
shall be put to death: If there are witnesses and a warning. מות יומת: אם יש עדים והתראה:
will be cut off: without warning. -[from Mechilta] ונכרתה: בלא התראה:
Those who desecrate it: Heb. מְחַלְלֶיהָ, [those] who treat its sanctity as profane. מחלליה: הנוהג בה חול בקדושתה:
15Six days work may be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of complete rest, holy to the Lord; whoever performs work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.' טושֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים יֵעָשֶׂה מְלָאכָה וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן קֹדֶשׁ לַיהֹוָה כָּל הָעֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת מוֹת יוּמָת:
a Sabbath of complete rest: Heb. שַׁבָּתשַׁבָּתוֹן, a reposeful rest, not a casual rest. שבת שבתון: מנוחת מרגוע ולא מנוחת עראי:
(a Sabbath of complete rest: For this reason, Scripture repeated it [the word, שַׁבָּת], to inform [us] that on it all work is prohibited, even what is needed for food. Similarly regarding Yom Kippur, in whose context it says: “It is a Sabbath of complete rest for you” (Lev. 23:32), all work is prohibited. However, concerning festivals it says only: “on the first day is a rest, and on the eighth day is a rest” (Lev. 23:39), [meaning that] on them [i.e., on holidays] only servile work is prohibited, but work needed for food [preparation] is permitted.) שבת שבתון: לכך כפלו הכתוב לומר שאסור בכל מלאכה, אפילו אוכל נפש, וכן יום הכפורים שנאמר בו (ויקרא כג לב) שבת שבתון הוא לכם, אסור בכל מלאכה, אבל יום טוב לא נאמר בו כי אם ביום הראשון שבתון וביום השמיני שבתון (שם) אסורים בכל מלאכת עבודה, ומותרים במלאכת אוכל נפש:
holy to the Lord: The observance of its sanctity shall be for My name and by My commandment. קדש לה': שמירת קדושתה לשמי ובמצוותי:
16Thus shall the children of Israel observe the Sabbath, to make the Sabbath throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant. טזוְשָׁמְרוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת לְדֹרֹתָם בְּרִית עוֹלָם:
17Between Me and the children of Israel, it is forever a sign that [in] six days The Lord created the heaven and the earth, and on the seventh day He ceased and rested." יזבֵּינִי וּבֵין בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹת הִוא לְעֹלָם כִּי שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים עָשָׂה יְהֹוָה אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת הָאָרֶץ וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שָׁבַת וַיִּנָּפַשׁ:
and rested: Heb. וַיִּנָפַשׁ. As the Targum [Onkelos] renders: וְנָח, and rested. Now every expression of נוֹפֶשׁ, rest, is an expression of נֶפֶשׁ, soul, for one regains one’s soul and one’s breath when one rests from the toil of work. He about Whom it is written: “He neither tires nor wearies” (Isa. 40:28), and Whose every act is performed by speech [alone, without physical effort], dictated rest in reference to Himself [only] in order to make it understood to the [human] ear with words that it can understand. וינפש: כתרגומו ונח, וכל לשון נופש והוא לשון נפש, שמשיב נפשו ונשימתו בהרגיעו מטורח מהמלאכה. ומי שכתוב בו (ישעיה מ כח) לא ייעף ולא יגע, וכל פעלו במאמר, הכתיב מנוחה לעצמו, לשבר האוזן מה שהיא יכולה לשמוע:
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 55 - 59
• Chapter 55
David composed this psalm upon escaping from Jerusalem in the face of the slanderers, Doeg and Achitofel, who had declared him deserving of death. David had considered Achitofel a friend and accorded him the utmost honor, but Achitofel betrayed him and breached their covenant. David curses all his enemies, so that all generations should "know, and sin no more."
1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music, a maskil by David.
2. Listen to my prayer, O God, do not hide from my pleas.
3. Pay heed to me and answer me, as I lament in my distress and moan -
4. because of the shout of the enemy and the oppression of the wicked; for they accuse me of evil and hate me passionately.
5. My heart shudders within me, and the terrors of death have descended upon me.
6. Fear and trembling penetrate me, and I am enveloped with horror.
7. And I said, "If only I had wings like the dove! I would fly off and find rest.
8. Behold, I would wander afar, and lodge in the wilderness forever.
9. I would hurry to find shelter for myself from the stormy wind, from the tempest.”
10. Consume, O Lord, confuse their tongue; for I have seen violence and strife in the city.1
11. Day and night they encircle her upon her walls, and iniquity and vice are in her midst.
12. Treachery is within her; fraud and deceit never depart from her square.
13. For it is not the enemy who taunts me-that I could bear; nor my foe who raises himself against me, that I could hide from him.
14. But it is you, a man of my equal, my guide and my intimate.
15. Together we took sweet counsel; we walked with the throng to the house of God.
16. May He incite death upon them, let them descend to the pit alive; for there is evil in their dwelling, within them.
17. As for me, I call to God, and the Lord will save me.
18. Evening, morning and noon, I lament and moan-and He hears my voice.
19. He redeemed my soul in peace from battles against me, because of the many who were with me.
20. May God-He who is enthroned from the days of old, Selah-hear and humble those in whom there is no change, and who do not fear God.
21. He extended his hands against his allies, he profaned his covenant.
22. Smoother than butter are the words of his mouth, but war is in his heart; his words are softer than oil, yet they are curses.
23. Cast your burden upon the Lord, and He will sustain you; He will never let the righteous man falter.
24. And You, O God, will bring them down to the nethermost pit; bloodthirsty and treacherous men shall not live out half their days; but I will trust in You.
Chapter 56
David composed this psalm while in mortal danger at the palace of Achish, brother of Goliath. In his distress David accepts vows upon himself.
1. For the Conductor, of the mute dove1 far away. By David, a michtam, 2 when the Philistines seized him in Gath.
2. Favor me, O God, for man longs to swallow me; the warrior oppresses me every day.
3. My watchful enemies long to swallow me every day, for many battle me, O Most High!
4. On the day I am afraid, I trust in You.
5. [I trust] in God and praise His word; in God I trust, I do not fear-what can [man of] flesh do to me?
6. Every day they make my words sorrowful; all their thoughts about me are for evil.
7. They gather and hide, they watch my steps, when they hope [to capture] my soul.
8. Should escape be theirs in reward for their iniquity? Cast down the nations in anger, O God!
9. You have counted my wanderings; place my tears in Your flask-are they not in Your record?
10. When my enemies will retreat on the day I cry out, with this I will know that God is with me.
11. When God deals strictly, I praise His word; when the Lord deals mercifully, I praise His word.
12. In God I trust, I do not fear-what can man do to me?
13. My vows to You are upon me, O God; I will repay with thanksgiving offerings to You.
14. For You saved my soul from death-even my feet from stumbling-to walk before God in the light of life.
Chapter 57
David composed this psalm while hiding from Saul in a cave, facing grave danger. Like Jacob did when confronted with Esau, David prayed that he neither be killed nor be forced to kill. In the merit of his trust in God, God wrought wonders to save him.
1. For the Conductor, a plea to be spared destruction. By David, a michtam, when he fled from Saul in the cave.
2. Favor me, O God, favor me, for in You my soul took refuge, and in the shadow of Your wings I will take refuge until the disaster passes.
3. I will call to God the Most High; to the Almighty Who fulfills [His promise] to me.
4. He will send from heaven, and save me from the humiliation of those who long to swallow me, Selah; God will send forth His kindness and truth.
5. My soul is in the midst of lions, I lie among fiery men; their teeth are spears and arrows, their tongue a sharp sword.
6. Be exalted above the heavens, O God; let Your glory be upon all the earth.
7. They laid a trap for my steps, they bent down my soul; they dug a pit before me, [but] they themselves fell into it, Selah.
8. My heart is steadfast, O God, my heart is steadfast; I will sing and chant praise.
9. Awake, my soul! Awake, O harp and lyre! I shall awaken the dawn.
10. I will thank You among the nations, my Lord; I will praise You among the peoples.
11. For Your kindness reaches till the heavens, Your truth till the skies.
12. Be exalted above the heavens, O God; let Your glory be over all the earth.
Chapter 58
David expresses the anguish caused him by Avner and his other enemies, who justified Saul's pursuit of him.
1. For the Conductor, a plea to be spared destruction; by David, a michtam.
2. Is it true that you are mute [instead of] speaking justice? [Instead of] judging men with fairness?
3. Even with your heart you wreak injustice upon the land; you justify the violence of your hands.
4. The wicked are estranged from the womb; from birth do the speakers of falsehood stray.
5. Their venom is like the venom of a snake; like the deaf viper that closes its ear
6. so as not to hear the voice of charmers, [even] the most skillful caster of spells.
7. O God, smash their teeth in their mouth; shatter the fangs of the young lions, O Lord.
8. Let them melt like water and disappear; when He aims His arrows, may they crumble.
9. Like the snail that melts as it goes along, like the stillbirth of a woman-they never see the sun.
10. Before your tender shoots know [to become] hardened thorns, He will blast them away, as one [uprooting] with vigor and wrath.
11. The righteous one will rejoice when he sees revenge; he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked.
12. And man will say, "There is indeed reward for the righteous; indeed there is a God Who judges in the land."
Chapter 59
This psalm speaks of the great miracle David experienced when he eluded danger by escaping through a window, unnoticed by the guards at the door. The prayers, supplications, and entreaties he offered then are recorded here.
1. For the Conductor, a plea to be spared destruction, By David, a michtam, when Saul dispatched [men], and they guarded the house in order to kill him.
2. Rescue me from my enemies, my God; raise me above those who rise against me.
3. Rescue me from evildoers, save me from men of bloodshed.
4. For behold they lie in ambush for my soul, mighty ones gather against me-not because of my sin nor my transgression, O Lord.
5. Without iniquity [on my part,] they run and prepare-awaken towards me and see!
6. And You, Lord, God of Hosts, God of Israel, wake up to remember all the nations; do not grant favor to any of the iniquitous traitors, Selah.
7. They return toward evening, they howl like the dog and circle the city.
8. Behold, they spew with their mouths, swords are in their lips, for [they say], "Who hears?”
9. But You, Lord, You laugh at them; You mock all nations.
10. [Because of] his might, I wait for You, for God is my stronghold.
11. The God of my kindness will anticipate my [need]; God will show me [the downfall] of my watchful foes.
12. Do not kill them, lest my nation forget; drive them about with Your might and impoverish them, O our Shield, my Master,
13. [for] the sin of their mouth, the word of their lips; let them be trapped by their arrogance. At the sight of their accursed state and deterioration, [people] will recount.
14. Consume them in wrath, consume them and they will be no more; and they will know that God rules in Jacob, to the ends of the earth, Selah.
15. And they will return toward evening, they will howl like the dog and circle the city.
16. They will wander about to eat; when they will not be sated they will groan.
17. As for me, I shall sing of Your might, and sing joyously of Your kindness toward morning, for You have been a stronghold to me, a refuge on the day of my distress.
18. [You are] my strength, to You I will sing, for God is my stronghold, the God of my kindness.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 32• Lessons in Tanya
• Sunday, Adar 10, 5775 · March 1, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 32
ומה שכתוב בגמרא שמי שרואה בחבירו שחטא, מצוה לשנאותו, וגם לומר לרבו שישנאהו
ומה שכתוב בגמרא שמי שרואה בחבירו שחטא, מצוה לשנאותו, וגם לומר לרבו שישנאהו
As for the Talmudic statement 1 that if one sees his friend sinning, he should hate him, and should also relate the fact to his teacher so that he too will hate him, — how does this conform with what was said above
היינו בחבירו בתורה ומצות
This applies only to one’s companion — one’s equal— in the study of Torah and the observance of the mitzvot.
The sinner in question is a Torah-observant scholar, but has lapsed in this one instance. In this case his sin is much more severe than usual, since it is written that even the inadvertent misdeeds of a scholar are as grave as deliberate sins. 2 But even this general assumption of the gravity of his conduct is not sufficient cause to hate him, as the Alter Rebbe continues. Yet another condition must first be satisfied:
וכבר קיים בו מצות הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך, עם שאתך בתורה ובמצות, ואף על פי כן לא שב מחטאו, כמו שכתוב בספר חרדים
He has also fulfilled with him — with the sinner — the injunction, 3 “You shall repeatedly rebuke your friend.” The word used here for “your friend” (עמיתך) also indicates, as the Talmud points out4 עם שאתך - “him who is on a par with you in the Torah and the mitzvot,” as it is written in Sefer Charedim.
At this point there is no need to exaggerate the gravity of his sin: it is clearly a deliberate transgression.
אבל מי שאינו חבירו, ואינו מקורב אצלו
But as to one who is not his companion — his equal — in the Torah and themitzvot, so that (as our Sages say concerning the ignorant in general) even his deliberate transgressions are regarded as inadvertent acts, since he is unaware of the gravity of sin; nor is he on intimate terms with him; — not only is one not enjoined to hate him: on the contrary, he must in fact, strive to become closer to him, as the Alter Rebbe states shortly.
To hate such a sinner is surely unjustifiable, since no sin that he commits is considered deliberate. There is also no reason to keep one’s distance from him out of fear that he will learn from his evil ways (in fulfillment of the exhortation of the Mishnah, “Do not fraternize with a wicked man”), since he is not on close personal terms with him in any case.
הנה על זה אמר הלל הזקן: הוי מתלמידיו של אהרן, אוהב שלום וכו׳, אוהב את הבריות ומקרבן לתורה
Therefore, on the contrary: Of this situation Hillel said, 5 “Be one of the disciples of Aharon, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving creatures and drawing them near to the Torah.”
לומר שאף הרחוקים מתורת ה׳ ועבודתו, ולכן נקראים בשם בריות בעלמא, צריך למשכן בחבלי עבותות אהבה
This usage of the term “creatures” in reference to human beings means that even those who are far from G‑d’s Torah and His service, for which reason they are classified simply as “creatures“ — indicating that the fact that they are G‑d’s creations is their sole virtue — even those one must attract with strong cords of love.
וכולי האי ואולי יוכל לקרבן לתורה ועבודת ה׳
Perhaps thereby one will be able, after all, to draw them close to the Torah and the service of G‑d.
והן לא, לא הפסיד שכר מצות אהבת ריעים
And even if one fails in this, he has not forfeited the merit of the mitzvah of neighborly love which he has fulfilled by his efforts in this direction.
וגם המקורבים אליו, והוכיחם ולא שבו מעונותיהם, שמצוה לשנאותם, מצוה לאהבם גם כן
Furthermore, even those whom one is enjoined to hate — for they are close to him, and he has rebuked them but they still have not repented of their sins — one is obliged to love them too.
But is it possible to love a person and hate him at the same time
The Alter Rebbe explains that since the love and the hatred stem from two different causes, they do not conflict.
ושתיהן הן אמת: שנאה מצד הרע שבהם, ואהבה מצד בחינת הטוב שגנוז שבהם, שהוא ניצו׳ אלקות שבתוכם, המחיה נפשם האלקית
And both the love and the hatred are truthful emotions in this case, [since] the hatred is on account of the evil within them, while the love is on account of the good hidden in them, which is the divine spark within them that animates their divine soul. For this spark of G‑dliness is present even in the most wicked of one’s fellow Jews; it is merely hidden.
One may now be faced with the anomaly of a fellow-Jew whom he must both love and hate. But what attitude should he adopt toward the person as a whole who possesses both these aspects of good and evil
When, for example, the sinner requests a favor of him, should his hatred dictate his response, or his love
The Alter Rebbe goes on to say that one’s relationship with the sinner as a whole should be guided by love. By arousing one’s compassion for him, one restricts one’s own hatred so that it is directed solely at the evil within the sinner, not at the person himself.
וגם לעורר רחמים בלבו עליה, כי היא בבחינת גלות בתוך הרע מסטרא אחרא הגובר עליה ברשעים
One must also arouse compassion on [the divine soul of the sinner], for in the case of the wicked it is in exile within the evil of the sitra achra which dominates it.
והרחמנות מבטלת השנאה ומעוררת האהבה, כנודע ממה שכתוב: ליעקב אשר פדה את אברהם
Compassion banishes hatred and arouses love — as is known from the verse, 6“Jacob, who redeemed Abraham.”
“Jacob” represents compassion, and “Abraham”, love. When “Abraham”, love, must be “redeemed”, i.e., brought out of concealment, it is “Jacob”, compassion, that accomplishes this redemption; for as said, compassion banishes hatred and arouses love.
ולא אמר דוד המלך עליו השלום: תכלית שנאה שנאתים וגו׳, אלא על המינים והאפיקורסים שאין להם חלק באלקי ישראל
(7As for the statement by King David, peace upon him: 8 “I hate them with a consummate hatred,” reserving no love for them whatsoever, this refers only to [Jewish] heretics and atheists who have no part in the G‑d of Israel,
כדאיתא בגמרא, ריש פרק ט״ז דשבת
as stated in the Talmud, beginning of ch. 16 of Tractate Shabbat.)
Any sinner who is not, however, a heretic, must not be hated with “a consummate hatred,” for the mitzvah of ahavat Yisrael embraces him as well.
——— ● ———
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Cf. Pesachim 113b. |
| 2. | From a note by the Rebbe. Apparently, the Rebbe is addressing the difficulty inherent in the requirement to hate a pious and scholarly Jew who lapses on occasion, but to love one who is far removed from study and observance of the Torah. The reason for this differentiation cannot be, says the Rebbe, that one might learn from the lapses of the pious Jew, who is on a level similar to one's own, but is less likely to learn from the behavior of the non-observant Jew, who in any case lives differently in general. The Rebbe rejects this on several grounds: (1) If the requirement to hate the sinner were based in the fear that one might come to learn from him, then this hatred should be directed at a sinner who is in contact with oneself at any level, not necessarily one's peer in Torah observance or scholarship. (2) To avoid imitation of the sinner, it would be enough to keep one's distance from him; why the need to hate him? (3) The whole concept that someone is to be hated, not because of something hateful about him, but to protect the hater, is most difficult to accept. Chassidut requires one to actually suffer harm himself if failure to do so might lead to the remote possibility of his harming his fellow. Such a doctrine would certainly not countenance the suggestion of definitely harming one's fellow (by hating him) in order to forestall possible harm to oneself; and, at that, to forestall a harm that could befall one only if he failed to resist his own evil inclination! Clearly, then, the requirement to hate the sinner is not intended to solve one's own problem of learning from his sinful ways. This problem is in any event solved by the exhortation of the Mishnah, "Do not consort with a rasha" Avot 1:7. The Alter Rebbe's differentiation between one's peer in Torah and Mitzvot and others is thus grounded in the reason given in the text. |
| 3. | Vayikra 19:17. |
| 4. | Shevuot 30a. |
| 5. | Avot 1:12. |
| 6. | Yeshayahu 29:22. |
| 7. | Parentheses are in the original text. |
| 8. | Tehillim 139:22. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
Sunday, Adar 10, 5775 · March 1, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 212Reproduction
"Be fruitful and multiply"—Genesis 1:28.
We are commanded to reproduce in order to perpetuate the human species. For this reason, a groom on the night of his wedding is exempt from the biblical obligation to recite the Shema, for his mind is presumably preoccupied with the impending mitzvah that he will perform.
This mitzvah is only mandatory for males.
Reproduction
Positive Commandment 212
Translated by Berel Bell
The 212th mitzvah is that we are commanded to be fruitful and to multiply, and to have the intention of perpetuating the species. This is known as the mitzvah of pirya v'rivya (be fruitful and multiply).
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Be fruitful and multiply."
Our Sages2 have explained that a groom who has wed a virgin is exempt from the mitzvah of reciting the Shema3 [before consummating the marriage]; and have given the reason that he is "occupied with a mitzvah."4
The details of this mitzvah and its oblibations are found in the sixth chapter of Yevamos.5
Women are exempt from this mitzvah, as our Sages said explicitly,6 "Men have the obligation to be fruitful and multiply, not women."7
1.Gen. 1:28. 9:7. See Heller, note 6. Kapach 5731, note 6.
2.. Berachos 16a.
3.See P10.
4.From this expression, we see that this is a mitzvah, and therefore is included in the count of 613.
5.61b.
6.Yevamos 65b.
7.Although women are not obligated in this mitzvah, when they bear children, they nevertheless receive the special reward associated with this special mitzvah just as the man. See Ran, Kiddushin, Ch. 2.; Likkutei Sichos, 8:214. 14:41-42.
We are commanded to reproduce in order to perpetuate the human species. For this reason, a groom on the night of his wedding is exempt from the biblical obligation to recite the Shema, for his mind is presumably preoccupied with the impending mitzvah that he will perform.
This mitzvah is only mandatory for males.
Reproduction
Positive Commandment 212
Translated by Berel Bell
The 212th mitzvah is that we are commanded to be fruitful and to multiply, and to have the intention of perpetuating the species. This is known as the mitzvah of pirya v'rivya (be fruitful and multiply).
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Be fruitful and multiply."
Our Sages2 have explained that a groom who has wed a virgin is exempt from the mitzvah of reciting the Shema3 [before consummating the marriage]; and have given the reason that he is "occupied with a mitzvah."4
The details of this mitzvah and its oblibations are found in the sixth chapter of Yevamos.5
Women are exempt from this mitzvah, as our Sages said explicitly,6 "Men have the obligation to be fruitful and multiply, not women."7
1.Gen. 1:28. 9:7. See Heller, note 6. Kapach 5731, note 6.
2.. Berachos 16a.
3.See P10.
4.From this expression, we see that this is a mitzvah, and therefore is included in the count of 613.
5.61b.
6.Yevamos 65b.
7.Although women are not obligated in this mitzvah, when they bear children, they nevertheless receive the special reward associated with this special mitzvah just as the man. See Ran, Kiddushin, Ch. 2.; Likkutei Sichos, 8:214. 14:41-42.
Tefilah and Birkat Kohanim - Chapter Fifteen
Halacha 1
There are six factors that prevent [a priest] from reciting the priestly blessings: [an inability] to pronounce [the blessings properly], physical deformities, transgressions, [lack of] maturity, intoxication, and the ritual impurity of [the priest's] hands.
[An inability] to pronounce [the blessings properly]: What is implied? Those who cannot articulate the letters properly - e.g., those who read an aleph as an ayinand an ayin as an aleph, or who pronounce shibbolet as sibbolet and the like - should not recite the priestly blessings.
Similarly, a stutterer or one who speaks unclearly, whose words cannot be understood by everyone, should not recite the priestly blessing.
Halacha 2
Physical deformities: What is implied? A priest should not recite the priestly blessings if he has blemishes on his face, hands, or feet - for example, his fingers are bent over, crooked, or covered with white spots - for they will attract the people's attention.
A person whose spittle always dribbles when he speaks, and also a person who is blind in one eye should not recite the priestly blessings. However, if such a person was well known in his city and everyone was familiar with the person who was blind in one eye or whose spittle dribbled, he may recite the priestly blessing, for he will not attract their attention.
Similarly, a person whose hands were colored purple or scarlet should not recite the priestly blessings. If the majority of the city's population is involved in such a profession, he is permitted, for this does not attract the people's attention.
Halacha 3
Transgressions: What is implied? A priest who killed someone should never recite the priestly blessings, even if he repents, as [implied by Isaiah 1:15which] states: "Your hands are full of blood," and states: "When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you."
A priest who served false gods, even if he was compelled to do so or did so inadvertently - though he has repented - may never recite the priestly blessing, as [can be inferred from II Kings 23:9, which] states: "However, the priests of the high places shall not ascend [to God's altar in Jerusalem]." [The recitation of the priestly] blessings is equated to service [in the Temple], as [Deuteronomy 10:8] states: "to serve Him and to bless in His name."
Similarly, a priest who converted to the worship of false gods - even though he repents - may never recite the priestly blessing. Other transgressions do not prevent [a priest from blessing the people].
Halacha 4
[Lack of] maturity: What is implied? A young priest should not recite the priestly blessings until he grows a full beard.
Intoxication: What is implied? A [priest] who drank a revi'it of wine at one time should not recite the priestly blessings until the effects of the wine wear off. [This restriction was imposed] because an association was established between [reciting the priestly] blessing and service [in the Temple].
Should [a priest] drink a revi'it of wine on two different occasions or mix a small amount of water in it, he is permitted [to recite the priestly blessings]. If he drank more than a revi'it, even though it was mixed with water or even though he drank it intermittently, he should not recite the priestly blessings until the effects of the wine wear off.
How much is a revi'it? [The volume of an area] two fingerbreadths by two fingerbreadths and two and seven tenths of a fingerbreadth high. Whenever the term "finger" is mentioned as a measure throughout the entire Torah, it refers to a thumbbreadth. The thumb is called bohen yad [in the Torah].
Halacha 5
The ritual impurity of [the priest's] hands: What is implied? A priest who did not wash his hands should not recite the priestly blessing. Rather, he should wash his hands to the wrist, as is done when sanctifying the hands for the service in the Temple, as [Psalms 134:2] states: "Raise up your hands [in] holiness and bless God."
A challal does not recite the priestly blessing, for he is not a priest.
Halacha 6
A priest who does not have any of the factors which hinder the recitation of the priestly blessings mentioned above should recite the priestly blessing, even though he is not a wise man or careful in his observance of the mitzvot. [This applies] even though the people spread unwholesome gossip about him, or his business dealings are not ethical.
He should not be prevented from [reciting the priestly blessings] because [reciting these blessings] is a positive mitzvah incumbent on each priest who is fit to recite them. We do not tell a wicked person: Increase your wickedness [by] failing to perform mitzvot.
Halacha 7
Do not wonder: "What good will come from the blessing of this simple person?" for the reception of the blessings is not dependent on the priests, but on the Holy One, blessed be He, as [Numbers 6:27] states: "And they shall set My name upon the children of Israel, and I shall bless them." The priests perform the mitzvah with which they were commanded, and God, in His mercies, will bless Israel as He desires.
Halacha 8
The people standing behind the priests are not included in the blessing. Those standing at their sides are included in the blessing. [Even] if there is a partition - even an iron wall - between the priests and the people who are being blessed, since they are facing the priests, they are included in the blessing.
Halacha 9
The priestly blessing is recited [only] when ten people [are present]. The priests can be included in that number.
If [the congregation in a particular] synagogue are all priests, they should all recite the priestly blessing. Who should they bless? Their brethren in the north and the south. Who will respond "Amen" to their [blessings]? The women and the children. If more than ten priests remain besides those who ascend to theduchan, these ten [priests] respond "Amen" and the remainder of the priests recite the blessings.
Halacha 10
When there is no priest in the community other than the leader of the congregation, he should not recite the priestly blessings. If he is sure that he can recite the priestly blessings and return to his prayers [without becoming confused], he may [recite the priestly blessing].
If there are no priests present at all, when the leader of the congregation reaches [the blessing] Sim shalom, he recites [the following prayer]:
Our God and God of our fathers, bless us with the threefold blessing written in the Torah by Moses, Your servant, and recited by Aharon and his sons, the priests, Your consecrated people, as it is said:
May God bless you and keep you.
May God shine His countenance upon you and be gracious to you.
May God turn His countenance to you and grant you peace.
And they shall set My name upon the children of Israel and I will bless them.
May God bless you and keep you.
May God shine His countenance upon you and be gracious to you.
May God turn His countenance to you and grant you peace.
And they shall set My name upon the children of Israel and I will bless them.
The people do not respond "Amen" to these blessings. He [resumes his recitation of the Shemoneh Esreh], beginning the recitation of [the blessing] Sim shalom.
Halacha 11
A priest who recited the priestly blessings and went to another synagogue and found the congregation in the midst of prayer, before the [recitation of] the priestly blessings, should bless them. [He may recite the priestly blessings] several times during the day.
A priest who does not move from his place to ascend to the duchan when the leader of the congregation recites [the blessing] R'tzey should not ascend [to the duchan] during that prayer service. However, if he moved [from his place], even though he did not reach the duchan until after the [conclusion of the blessing R'tzey], he may ascend [the duchan] and bless [the people].
Halacha 12
Any priest who does not ascend to the duchan - even though he neglects [the performance] of [only] one commandment - is considered as if he violated three positive commandments, as [Numbers 6:23-27] states: "This is how you shall bless the children of Israel," "Say to them," "And you shall set My name..."
Any priest who does not recite the priestly blessing will not be blessed, and any priest who blesses [the people] will be blessed, as [Genesis 12:3] states: "And I will bless those who bless you."
Commentary Halacha 1
There are six factors that prevent [a priest] from reciting the priestly blessings: [an inability] to pronounce [the blessings properly] - as explained in this halachah
physical deformities - as explained in Halachah 2
transgressions - as explained in Halachah 3
[lack of] maturity - as explained in Halachah 4
intoxication - as explained in Halachah 4
and the ritual impurity of [the priest's] hands - as explained in Halachah 5
[An inability] to pronounce [the blessings properly]: - Note the discussion of this difficulty with regard to the choice of a chazan, Chapter 8, Halachah 12.
What is implied? Those who cannot articulate the letters properly - e.g., those who read an aleph as an ayin and an ayin as an aleph - if the first word of the second priestly blessing, יאר is read with an ע instead of an א, the phrase את פניו אליך יאר ה' becomes a curse rather than a blessing.
or who pronounce shibbolet as sibbolet - i.e., reading a shin as a sin. SeeJudges 12:6.
and the like - e.g., who read a chet like a hay
should not recite the priestly blessings. - The later authorities explain that, if, as in many communities of the present day, the overwhelming majority of the people do not know how to differentiate between an ע and an א, a priest should not be disqualified because of this factor, since the meaning of the blessing is not changed (Magen Avraham 128:46). The Turei Zahav (128:90) states that even if a speech fault is common, but not overwhelmingly common - e.g., the substitution of a sin for a shin - a priest should not be disqualified, because such an error will not arouse the attention of the listeners. Nevertheless, this position is not accepted by all authorities.
Similarly, a stutterer or one who speaks unclearly, whose words cannot be understood by everyone - included in the category are people with other speech defects - e.g., a person who lisps
should not recite the priestly blessing.
Commentary Halacha 2
Physical deformities: - Leviticus 21:16-23 mentions many physical deformities that prevent a priest from serving in the Temple. However, most of these deformities do not disqualify him from reciting the priestly blessings. As explained in this halachah, the only deformities which disqualify a priest from reciting the priestly blessings are those which will attract the people's attention and prevent them from listening attentively to the blessings.
The Turei Zahav 128:27 questions this concept, noting that since an association was made between the recitation of the priestly blessings and service in the Temple, on the surface, priests with physical blemishes should also be prevented from reciting the blessings. The Turei Zahav explains that this association disqualifies a person only when the disqualifying factor - e.g., idol worship or intoxication - is a result of man's own activities. If the disqualifying factor is a congenital condition - e.g., physical deformity - the priest may bless the people.
What is implied? A priest should not recite the priestly blessings if he has blemishes on his face, hands, or feet - for all of these can be seen be the people while the priests recite the blessings. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 128:30-31) states that in places where the priests cover their faces and hands with their tallitot and wear socks while reciting the blessings, even these blemishes do not disqualify a priest from reciting the blessings.
for example, his fingers are bent over, crooked, or covered with white spots - for they will attract the people's attention - and distract their concentration on the blessings.
A person whose spittle always dribbles when he speaks, and also a person who is blind in one eye should not recite the priestly blessings - for the same reasons as mentioned above. In places where the priests cover their faces, a priest with such a difficulty may also bless the people.
However, if such a person was well known in his city and everyone was familiar - Generally, this refers to a person who lives within a city for at least thirty days (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit. 128:30).
with the person who was blind in one eye or whose spittle dribbled, he may recite the priestly blessing, for he will not attract their attention.
Similarly - i.e., for the same reasons
a person whose hands are colored purple or scarlet should not recite the priestly blessings. If the majority of the city's population is involved in such a profession - or if the people of the city are familiar with him (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit., 128:32).
he is permitted, for this does not attract the people's attention.
Commentary Halacha 3
Transgressions: What is implied? A priest who killed someone - The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 128:35) adds "even inadvertently." Many manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah also include that phrase.
should never recite the priestly blessings, even if he repents - The Ramah (Orach Chayim 128:35) allows a priest who repents after committing such a sin to bless the people, so that "the door will not be closed to those who repent."
as [implied by Isaiah 1:15, which] states: "Your hands are full of blood" -the killing of a colleague
and states: - The order of these phrases in the Bible is the opposite of the order in which they are quoted by the Rambam.
"When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you." - Once a person has taken a life, God will not let him serve as a medium to convey blessing on the people.
A priest who served false gods, even if he was compelled to do so - See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 5:2-4, which states that a person should sacrifice his life rather than submit to pressure to worship false gods. Nevertheless, if he fails to make this sacrifice, he is not punished by an earthly court for his sin.
or did so inadvertently - or without knowing that the worship of this god was forbidden
though he has repented - may never recite the priestly blessing, as [can be inferred from II Kings 23:9, which] states: "However, the priests of the high places shall not ascend [to God's altar in Jerusalem]." - This verse describes the efforts of King Josaiah to cleanse Judah from the pagan practices introduced by his father and grandfather.
[The recitation of the priestly] blessings is equated to service [in the Temple] - Note the Rambam's comments, Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 9:13:
Any priest who served false gods, whether willingly or inadvertently - even though he sincerely repents - should never serve in the Temple.... If he transgressed and offered a sacrifice, his sacrifice is not a "pleasing fragrance."
as [Deuteronomy 10:8] states: "to serve Him and to bless in His name." -Many of the later authorities maintain that this association is only a point of Rabbinic Law, and the mention of Biblical verses is only an asmachta (allusion). However, there is no indication of such a concept in the Rambam's words.
Similarly, a priest who converted - without actually serving the false gods
to the worship of false gods - The Magen Avraham 128:54 states that even someone who converts to Islam - which does not involve idol worship - is not allowed to recite the priestly blessings.
even though he repents - In this instance, as well, the Ramah (loc. cit.:37) allows a priest to bless the people if he repents.
may never recite the priestly blessing. Other transgressions - The Mishnah Berurah 128:26 notes that a person who desecrates the sanctity of the Sabbath is considered as one who adopted paganism, and, therefore, should not be allowed to recite the priestly blessing.
Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe, Orach Chayim I, 33) states that present circumstances differ from those during the Mishnah Berurah's era, and, at present, priests who violate the Sabbath laws are not judged as severely and may bless the people. Nevertheless, he agrees that if restricting such individuals from reciting the priestly blessings may motivate them to increase their Sabbath observance, they may be prevented from blessing the people.
do not prevent [a priest from blessing the people]. - See Halachot 6 and 7.
Commentary Halacha 4
[Lack of] maturity: What is implied? A young priest should not recite the priestly blessings until he grows a full beard. - As mentioned in the commentary on Chapter 8, Halachah 11, the expression "grows a full beard" is a primarily measure of age, whether the person actually grows a beard or not.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 128:34), based on Tosafot, Chulin 24b, states:
A minor who has not manifested signs of physical maturity should not recite the priestly blessing alone. However, he may recite the blessing together with his brethren, the priests, to learn and become educated.
If he has manifested signs of physical maturity, he may recite the priestly blessing even while alone. However, he should do so only as a temporary measure, and not as a fixed practice, until he grows a full beard.
If he has manifested signs of physical maturity, he may recite the priestly blessing even while alone. However, he should do so only as a temporary measure, and not as a fixed practice, until he grows a full beard.
Intoxication: - The Hebrew יין literally means wine. The Magen Avraham 128:55 notes that the Rambam speaks only about wine and does not mention other alcoholic beverages. Accordingly, he explains that a person who becomes drunk from other alcoholic beverages may recite the priestly blessing, unless he is so drunk that he has no control of himself.
It is significant that in Chapter 4, Halachah 17, when speaking about the prohibition against an intoxicated person praying, the Rambam states: "A person who is drunk should not pray.... When is a person considered drunk? When he cannot speak before a king." See also Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 1:1-2, where the Rambam describes the prohibition against serving in the Temple while intoxicated and mentions, albeit with differences between them, both a person who drank wine and one who became intoxicated from other alcoholic beverages.
The Magen Avraham's decision is not accepted by all authorities. (See Mishnah Berurah 128:141.)
What is implied? A [priest] who drank a revi'it of wine - This is the minimum measure of wine that is considered to be able to influence a person's behavior.
at one time should not recite the priestly blessings until the effects of the wine wear off. - Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 1:5 states that if a person drank only arevi'it of wine, it is assumed that the wine's effects have worn off if he sleeps a little or walks a mil.
[This restriction was imposed] because an association was established between [reciting the priestly] blessing and service [in the Temple] - as mentioned in the previous halachah.
Should [a priest] drink - only
a revi'it of wine on two different occasions - i.e., interrupting slightly between drinking the entire revi'it
or mix a small amount of water in it, he is permitted [to recite the priestly blessings] - and serve in the Temple (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 1:1).
If he drank more than a revi'it, even though it was mixed with water or even though he drank it intermittently, he should not recite the priestly blessings until the effects of the wine wear off. - In this instance, Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 1:5 states that sleeping or walking a mil is not sufficient to remove the effects of the wine, and one must wait until no signs of intoxication remain.
Because of the prohibition against reciting the priestly blessing while intoxicated, it is customary on Simchat Torah in Ashkenazic communities to recite the priestly blessing in the morning service and not during Musaf.
How much is a revi'it? - Interestingly, although the Rambam also mentions arevi'it in Chapter 2, Halachah 17, he chooses to define its volume here.
[The volume of an area] two fingerbreadths by two fingerbreadths and two and seven tenths of a fingerbreadth high. - In modern measure, a revi'itis 86.4 milliliters according to Shiurei Torah, and 149.3 milliliters according to the Chazon Ish.
Whenever the term "finger" is mentioned as a measure throughout the entire Torah, it refers to a thumbbreadth. - See Hilchot Sefer Torah 9:9. In modern measure, a thumbbreadth is 2 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah, and 2.4 centimeters according to the Chazon Ish.
The thumb is called bohen yad [in the Torah]. - See Leviticus 8:23, 14:14.
Commentary Halacha 5
The ritual impurity of [the priest's] hands: What is implied? A priest who did not wash his hands should not recite the priestly blessing. - In hisKessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo notes that in contrast to Chapter 4, Halachah 2, which mentions "the purification of the hands," here, the Rambam refers to "ritual impurity." He maintains that this choice of language was intended to imply that if a priest washed his hands in the morning, he need not wash them a second time unless they have become ritually impure. He also quotes a responsum of Rav Avraham, the Rambam's son, who explicitly states that a priest may rely on his morning washing.
Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 128:6), Rav Yosef Karo quotes the opinion of Rashi and Tosafot (Sotah 39a), who require the priests to have their hands washed a second time as an additional measure of holiness.
Rather, he should wash his hands - The Zohar (Vol. III, 146b) states that the Levites should wash the priests' hands. Since the Levites are themselves holy (Numbers 8:18), it is proper that they be the ones who convey this added holiness upon the priests. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) also mentions this practice.
to the wrist - Note our commentary Chapter 4, Halachah 2.
as is done when sanctifying the hands for the service in the Temple - SeeHilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, Chapter 5.
as [Psalms 134:2] states: "Raise up your hands [in] holiness and bless God." - The Targum to this verse also stresses its connection to the recitation of the priestly blessing.
A challal - a person born from relations between a priest and a divorcee or any other woman who he may not marry (see Leviticus 21:7), and, according to Rabbinic Law, a person born from a marriage between a priest and a woman who has undergone chalitzah.
does not recite the priestly blessing, for he is not a priest. - See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 19:14, where the Rambam says: "A challal is just like any other non-priest." The Pri Chadash writes that if a challal ascends to bless the people, he should be forced to descend.
Commentary Halacha 6
A priest who does not have any of the factors which hinder the recitation of the priestly blessings mentioned above - in the previous five halachot.
should recite the priestly blessing, even though he is not a wise man or careful in his observance of the mitzvot. [This applies] even though the people spread unwholesome gossip about him - i.e., he is suspected of sinning.
or his business dealings are not ethical. - Based on Bechorot 45a, theShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 128:40,41) adds that a priest who violates the specific mitzvot associated with the priesthood (the forbidden sexual relations mentioned in Leviticus 21:7 and the prohibitions against contracting impurity stemming from a corpse) may not recite the priestly blessings.
He should not be prevented from [reciting the priestly blessings] - even though he has not repented for his transgressions
because [reciting these blessings] is a positive mitzvah incumbent on each priest who is fit to recite them. - From the Rambam's statements, it appears that the disqualifying factors mentioned above remove the mitzvah entirely from a priest.
We do not tell a wicked person: Increase your wickedness [by] failing to perform mitzvot. - In other places, as well, we see the Rambam urging people to encourage the nonobservant to perform mitzvot. Note the conclusion ofIggeret HaShmad:
It is not fitting to push away or despise those who violate the Sabbath. Rather one should draw them close and encourage them to perform mitzvot.... Even if a person willingly sins, when he comes to the synagogue to pray, he should be accepted and not treated with disrespect.
The Rabbis have based [this approach on the interpretation of] Solomon's words (Proverbs 6:30) "Do not scorn the thief when he steals" - i.e., do not scorn the sinners of Israel when they come discreetly to steal mitzvot.
The Rabbis have based [this approach on the interpretation of] Solomon's words (Proverbs 6:30) "Do not scorn the thief when he steals" - i.e., do not scorn the sinners of Israel when they come discreetly to steal mitzvot.
Commentary Halacha 7
Do not wonder: "What good will come from the blessing of this simple person?" for the reception of the blessings is not dependent on the priests, but on the Holy One, blessed be He - The Jerusalem Talmud, Gittin5:9 relates:
Do not say: "So and so is an adulterer... how can he bless me?"
God replies: "Is it he that is blessing you? I'm the one who is blessing you."
God replies: "Is it he that is blessing you? I'm the one who is blessing you."
as [Numbers 6:27] states: "And they shall set My name upon the children of Israel, and I shall bless them." - In his commentary on the Torah, the Rashbam emphasizes that the text of priestly blessing itself express this point, stating, "May God bless you..., May God shine..., May God turn..."
The priests perform the mitzvah with which they were commanded -reciting the blessings
and God, in His mercies, will bless Israel as He desires.
Commentary Halacha 8
The people standing behind the priests - Thus, if the heichal projects from the wall and people have places on either side, they must move from their places to be included in the priestly blessing.
are not included in the blessing. - By standing behind the priests, they show that the blessing is not important to them. Hence, they are not included (Rashi,Sotah 38b). Also, as mentioned in Chapter 14, Halachah 11, the priestly blessing must be recited while the priests are standing face to face with those being blessed (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 128:37).
Those standing at their sides - even those who are standing parallel to the place of the priests
are included in the blessing. [Even] if there is a partition - even an iron wall - Sotah (loc. cit.) states: "Even an iron divider cannot separate between Israel and their Father in heaven."
between the priests and the people who are being blessed, since they are facing the priests, - The Be'ur Halachah explains that the people who are standing to the sides of the priests, but before them, should face the heichal. In principle, those who are standing parallel to the priests should turn to the side and face the priests. However, since it is not proper that people standing next to each other in the synagogue should face different directions, they need not shift the positions of their feet. It is sufficient for them to tilt their heads slightly towards the priests.
they are included in the blessing. - As the Rambam mentions in the following halachah, even people who do not attend the synagogue can be included in the priestly blessing.
Commentary Halacha 9
The priestly blessing is recited [only] when ten people [are present]. -The priestly blessing is included among "the holy matters" that require aminyan. See Chapter 8, Halachot 4-6.
The priests can be included in that number. - i.e., even if there will not be ten people to respond "Amen," the priestly blessing can be recited.
If [the congregation in a particular] synagogue are all priests, they should all - Even though there will no one to read the words of the blessings to them, as mentioned in Chapter 14, Halachah 3. The question of whether thechazan should also recite the priestly blessing is discussed in the following halachah.
recite the priestly blessing. - Unless there are a minyan of priests to respond "Amen," it is preferable that they all recite the blessings and none respond.
Who should they bless? Their brethren in the north and the south - i.e., those outside the synagogue. Even though they were unable to attend the synagogue, since they were prevented by forces beyond their control, they are included within the blessing.
The Rambam's statements are taken from Sotah 38b and the Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot 5:4. However, the Rambam's choice of phraseology is more restrictive, mentioning only "the people in the north and the south," while these sources state, "their brethren in the fields."
According to his grandson, Rav Yitzchak HaNagid, this restriction was intentional. Since in the Rambam's time the Jews lived mostly to the east or west of Jerusalem, in most synagogues the heichal would be pointed in that direction, and thus, depending on the location of the synagogue, the people standing in one of these directions would be standing behind the priests. Therefore, they would not be included in the blessing.
Other authorities (e.g., the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 128:25) quote the text in the Babylonian Talmud without making any restrictions.
Who will respond "Amen" to their [blessings]? The women and the children. - The Mishnah Berurah 128:99 states that even if there are no women or children present to answer "Amen," the blessing may be recited.
If more than ten priests remain besides those who ascend to the duchan, these ten [priests] respond "Amen" - i.e., if there are twelve priests, two recite the blessings and ten respond "Amen," so that there will be a minyanresponding "Amen."
and the remainder of the priests recite the blessings. - The Shulchan Aruch HaRav 128:33 states that in such an instance, the chazan should not call out "Kohanim," since, according to many opinions, if the priests are not called to recite the blessings, they are not obligated to do so. Thus, the priests who did not recite the blessings will not be considered negligent in their fulfillment of the mitzvah.
Commentary Halacha 10
When there is no priest in the community other than the leader of the congregation - The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 128:20, states that if other priests are present, a priest serving as the chazan should never recite the priestly blessing. The Pri Chadash takes issue with this decision, and allows him to recite the priestly blessings if he is confident that he will not err.
he should not recite the priestly blessings. - lest he become confused after completing the priestly blessing and be unable to complete the Shemoneh Esreh (Berachot 34b).
If he is sure that he can recite the priestly blessings and return to his prayers [without becoming confused] - Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 128:32 and the Mishnah Berurah 128:76, which state that at present, since the chazanprays from a siddur, he need not worry about being confused and may recite the priestly blessing.
he may [recite the priestly blessing]. - The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states that in such a case, the chazan should move from his place slightly during the blessing R'tzey (see the following halachah) and after concluding the blessingModim, ascend to the duchan and recite the priestly blessing.
If there are no priests present at all - or according to Ashkenazic custom, in all services when the priestly blessing would be recited other than the Musafservice of the festivals.
when the leader of the congregation reaches [the blessing] Sim shalom -See the Commentary on Chapter 14, Halachah 4, for an explanation of the connection between the blessing Sim shalom and the priestly blessings.
he recites [the following prayer]: - to commemorate the recitation of these blessings.
Our God and God of our fathers, bless us with the threefold blessing written in the Torah by Moses, Your servant, and recited by Aharon and his sons, the priests, Your consecrated people - Our translation is based on the Mishnah Berurah 127:8, which explains that the intent is that the priests themselves are a "consecrated people."
as it is said: - Numbers 6:24-27
May God bless you and keep you. May God shine His countenance upon you and be gracious to you. May God turn His countenance to you and grant you peace.
And they shall set My name upon the children of Israel and I will bless them. - The Hagahot Maimoniot explain that the recitation of this verse parallels the prayer recited by the priests after completing the blessings (Chapter 14, Halachah 12). It is Ashkenazic custom not to recite this final verse (Magen Avraham 127:2).
The people do not respond "Amen" to these blessings - for it is proper to recite "Amen" only after the blessings recited by the priests themselves. TheShulchan Aruch 127:2 suggests reciting ken yehi ratzon - "So may it be Your will." Nevertheless, there are some communities which recite "Amen," based on the Tanya Rabbati 334 and a letter from Rav Hai Gaon.
He [resumes his recitation of the Shemoneh Esreh], beginning the recitation of [the blessing] Sim shalom.
Commentary Halacha 11
A priest who recited the priestly blessings and went to another synagogue and found the congregation in the midst of prayer, before the [recitation of] the priestly blessings, should bless them. - The Magen Avraham emphasizes that reciting the priestly blessings a second time is not considered to be a transgression of the prohibition of adding to the Torah's commandments. That prohibition is violated when one adds to the blessings themselves (see Chapter 14, Halachah 12), but not when one fulfills the mitzvah a number of times.
[He may - but he is not obligated to (Mishnah Berurah 128:106).
recite the priestly blessings] several times during the day. - Each time he blesses the people, he should recite the blessing beforehand (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 128:41, Mishnah Berurah loc. cit.).
A priest who does not move from his place to ascend to the duchan when the leader of the congregation recites [the blessing] R'tzey - See Chapter 14, Halachah 3.
should not ascend [to the duchan] during that prayer service. - This applies even if he was prevented from leaving his place by forces beyond his control (Radbaz, Magen Avraham).
However, if he moved [from his place] even though he did not reach the duchan until after the [conclusion of the blessing R'tzey] - Shulchan Aruch HaRav 128:13 and the Mishnah Berurah 128:27 state that even if he reaches the duchan after the chazan completes R'tzey, as long as he reaches there before the priests begin reciting the blessing, he may join them.
he may ascend [the duchan] and bless [the people].
Commentary Halacha 12
Any priest who does not ascend to the duchan - even though he neglects [the performance] of [only] one commandment - is considered as if he violated three positive commandments, as Numbers 6:23-27 states: “This is how you shall bless the children of Israel,” “Say to them,” “And you shall set My name...” - The Rambam's statements are based onSotah 38b. There, the Talmud states that one “violates three positive commandments.” The Rambam amends that statement, explaining that although there is only one commandment for the priests to bless the people, the Torah mentioned the commandment in three different ways to emphasize the importance of its fulfillment. Thus, the failure to bless the people is considered as nullifying the observance of three commands.
In Sefer HaMitzvot (Shoresh 9), the Rambam cites this teaching as a classic example of a fundamental principle regarding the reckoning of the 613 mitzvot. Though the Talmud often states that many mitzvot are involved in the performance or transgression of a particular commandment, this does not mean that the mitzvah should be counted as more than one mitzvah when calculating the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Rather, the Talmud means to say that the performance of this mitzvah is considered as important as if many mitzvot were involved.
Any priest who does not recite the priestly blessing will not be blessed, and any priest who blesses the people will be blessed, as Genesis 12:13states: “And I will bless those who bless you.” - Chulin 49a quotes a difference of opinion between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva's statements are quoted by the Rambam, while Rabbi Yishmael explains that the blessing for the priests is derived from Numbers 6:27: “And you will set My name upon the children of Israel and I will bless them.” “The priests bless the Jews and God blesses the priests,... together with the Jews” (Rashi).
By quoting the verse from Genesis, “and I will bless those who bless you,” Rabbi Akiva emphasizes that the blessings bestowed upon the priests - as well as the blessing conveyed by the priests - stem from God's infinite goodness (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 10).
Blessed be the Merciful One who grants assistance.
Ishut - Chapter Twenty Three
Halacha 1
[The following rules apply when] a woman makes a provision with her husband in which he agrees to forgo one of the privileges that a husband is granted. If he wrote down [this provision] for her after she was consecrated, but beforenisu'in, there is no need to formalize the matter with an act of contract; everything he wrote to her is binding.1 If he wrote down [this provision] for her after nisu'in, he must formalize the matter with an act of contract.2
Halacha 2
If, [after nisu'in,] the husband stipulates that he will have no say with regard to [his wife's] property, and she sells it or gives it away as a present, the sale or the present is binding.3 Nevertheless, [the husband] is entitled to the benefits [that accrue from the property] during the time it is in her possession.4
If he affirmed these statements with an act of contract between consecration [and nisu'in], he is considered to have waived his rights to the land itself, and he no longer has any rights to the benefits that accrue from her property.5
His words are not heeded if he protests this action, saying: "I did not realize that this act of contract formalized my waiver of all rights to benefit from the property. [I thought that it only entitled my wife] to make a binding sale. [This interpretation is justified,] for no one will marry a woman without property." Instead, he is considered to have waived [all] rights to the land itself.
Halacha 3
If [the husband] made a provision with [his wife] not to receive the benefit that accrues from her property, he is not entitled to this benefit. Nevertheless, the benefit that accrues should be converted to financial resources, landed property should be purchased, and [the husband] is entitled to the benefits from that property.6 For he waived only the rights to the property [she owned originally].
Halacha 4
If [the husband] made a provision with [his wife] not to receive the benefit that accrues from her property, nor to receive the benefit that results from property purchased with the income from her original property, the proceeds from that property should be used to purchase other property, from which [the husband] is entitled to the benefits that accrue. These are called "the fruit of the fruit's fruit."
This pattern continues until the husband makes a provision that he has no right to any by-product of the proceeds from [his wife's property]. [If he makes such a provision,] he has no right to any benefit during her lifetime, but if she dies, he inherits her entire estate.
Halacha 5
If he makes a provision that he will not inherit [his wife's] property, the provision is binding. He is, however, entitled to receive the benefits that accrue [from this property] during her lifetime.
Similarly, [his word] is binding if he stipulates that he will inherit [only] a portion of her estate, or if he stipulates that if she dies without bearing children, her estate will return to her father's household.
Halacha 6
When does the above apply? When he made this provision before nisu'in.7 For a man has the prerogative to forgo an inheritance that comes to him from a source outside his family before he acquires the rights to it. If, however, he made the provision after nisu'in, his provision is not binding, and he inherits her estate as we explained.8
Halacha 7
When, after nisu'in, [a husband] stipulates9 that he has no say with regard to his wife's property - not with regard to the benefits from that property nor any eventual byproducts from them during her lifetime - then after her death he is not entitled to any benefit from this property at all.10 If she dies, however, he inherits her estate, as explained [above].
Halacha 8
[The following rules apply] when a husband spends money [to improve property belonging to his wife that is classified as] nichsei m'log. Whether he spent a small amount and derived much benefit, or spent a large amount and derived little benefit [he is not required to pay anything, nor may he collect anything]; what he spent, he spent, and the benefit that he enjoyed, he enjoyed.
Halacha 9
Similar [laws apply] if a woman inherited funds in a distant place, and the husband undertook expenses in order to bring them [to their home], or [expenses were required] to take them from the person who was holding them. If [the husband] purchased land [with these funds] and ate the measure of fruit [mentioned above, he is not required to pay anything, nor may he collect anything]; what he spent, he spent, and the benefit that he enjoyed, he enjoyed.
[The following procedure is adhered to if] a husband incurred expenses [on behalf of his wife's property] and did not derive any benefit or derived less benefit than the above measure. We evaluate the increment to the property, and we ask him the extent of his expenses.
If the increment is greater than the expenses, the husband must take an oath holding a sacred object, stating how much he spent. He is then reimbursed for those expenses.13 If the increment is less than the expenses, he receives only the amount of the expenses that is justified by the increment, and he must take an oath [with regard to the extent of those expenses].
Halacha 10
When does the above apply? When a husband divorces his wife [under ordinary circumstances]. [Different rules apply regarding] a woman who rebels against her husband [and denies him intimacy].14 Even if he derived much benefit, the benefit that he derives should be evaluated and subtracted from the amount fit to be given him for the expenses he undertook.15 After he takes an oath [affirming his claim], he is entitled to collect it. For he did not [incur these expenses on behalf of his wife] so that she would take them and leave him on her own accord.
Similarly, [different rules apply when] a man undertakes expenses [to develop] property belonging to his wife who is below the age of majority, and she dissolves the marriage through the right of mi'un.16 We evaluate the amount of benefit he received, the amount of his expenses, the extent of the property's increment - and then he is given the share usually allocated to a sharecropper.17[This consideration is taken] because he had permission to work [his wife's property].18
Halacha 11
There are various customs regarding [a woman's] dowry. In certain places it is customary to [state a higher figure] in the ketubah [with regard to the value of the dowry], increasing by a third, a fifth or a half. For example, if the dowry was 100 [zuz], it is written [in the ketubah] that the woman brought 150 [to the household], in order to appear more generous in the eyes of the people. [Therefore,] when the woman comes to collect her dowry, she collects only 100.
Conversely, there are places where it is customary to write a lesser amount. If it is agreed that she will bring utensils worth 100 [zuz to the household], she must bring a value of 120 or 150, and yet, [in the ketubah,] it is written that she brought only [a value of] 100.19 And there are other places where it is customary to write a value of 100 [zuz] as 100.
There are places where it is customary for a man to give a set amount of money proportionate to the dowry, for the bride to adorn herself and purchase perfume and the like. There are places where [it is customary for] the man to add an additional sum of his own for his wife and add it to her dowry, for her to appear attractive.
Halacha 12
When a man marries a woman without specifying any conditions, he should write her a ketubah, giving her a sum that is customarily given in that locale. Similarly, if she makes a commitment to bring [utensils to the household], she must bring what is customarily brought in that locale. And when she comes to collect [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah, she collects as is customary in that locale.
In this and in all similar matters, local custom is a fundamental principle, and it is used as a basis for judgment, provided that the custom is commonly accepted in the locale.
Halacha 13
[The following rules apply when a man and a woman were engaged to each other. When he asks her, "What is the value [of the utensils] you are bringing [to the household]?", and she answers him with an amount, and she asks him, "How much will you give me [for my ketubah]?", and he answers with an amount, and afterwards he arises and consecrates her, the commitments are binding even though they were not formalized with an act of contract.20
Similarly, a commitment made by a father on behalf of his son or daughter [is binding]. For example, if he is asked, "How much will you give on behalf of your son?", and he specifies an amount, or he is asked "How much will you give on behalf of your daughter?", and he specifies an amount, [his commitment is binding].
These are commitments that are established through speech alone.21
Halacha 14
When does the above apply? When a father made a commitment on behalf of his daughter, whether she is a minor or past majority, or on behalf of his son, for their first marriage. For a man feels an inner connection to his son, and because of his happiness at his first marriage, he makes a definite commitment, and designates [the sum] for him with a verbal statement [alone].
[Different rules apply when], by contrast, a brother makes a commitment on behalf of his sister, a woman makes a commitment on behalf of her daughter, [when a commitment is made by] other relatives, and similarly, when a father makes a commitment on behalf of his son or daughter for a second marriage.22The commitment is not binding until the person making it formalizes it with an act of contract and states the amount he will give.
Halacha 15
When a father makes a commitment for his daughter, the daughter does not acquire that present until her husband consummates the marriage with her.23Similarly, a son does not acquire [the present that he was promised] until he consummates his marriage. For whenever one makes [such] a commitment, his intent is that [it be fulfilled when] the marriage is consummated.
Therefore, when a man makes a commitment to his [prospective] son-in-law, but the son-in-law dies [after erusin, but] before the marriage is consummated, and the woman is bound to his brother, [if he desires to perform the rite of]yibbum, [the woman's] father may [retract his commitment], saying: "I desired to give your brother; I do not desire to give you." [This applies] even if the first husband was an unlearned man and the second is a Torah scholar, and even if the woman desires [to marry] the second man.24
Halacha 16
When a man makes a financial commitment to his son-in-law and then moves to another country [without fulfilling his commitment], the woman has the prerogative of telling her [prospective] husband: "I did not make this commitment myself. What can I do? Either consummate the marriage without a dowry or divorce me."25
If, however, she made such a commitment herself, and she was not able to muster the funds, she must remain [in this intermediate state] until she accumulates the sum to which she committed herself or until she dies.
Why does she not release herself from her obligation by becoming a moredet26against her husband? [Because there is a difference between these two instances.] With regard to a moredet who has [merely] been consecrated, the husband desires to consummate the marriage; it is she who does not desire. In this instance, by contrast, the husband does not want [to consummate his marriage with] her until she gives the dowry to which she committed herself. She, however, desires him, [as reflected by] her request: "Either consummate [the marriage] or divorce me."
When does the above apply? To a woman past majority. If, however, a woman makes a financial commitment while she is still a minor, we compel [her prospective husband] either to divorce her or to consummate the marriage without a dowry.
Halacha 17
When a man marries a woman and makes a commitment to support her daughter for [an explicit number of] years, he is obligated to support her for [all] the years to which he committed himself, provided he made this commitment at the time of the woman's consecration.27
If, however, he made the commitment [after] the kiddushin [were given], the commitment is not binding until he affirms it with an act of contract or composes a document to that effect, as will be explained in the laws of business transactions.28
[The following rules apply when] a woman is divorced within the time that her husband committed himself to support her daughter, and she married another man who also committed himself to support her daughter for a particular number of years. The first husband does not have the prerogative to say: "If she comes to my house, I will support her."29 Instead, he must bring her support to the place where she is staying together with her mother. Similarly, both husbands do not have the prerogative of saying: "We will together provide for her support." Instead, one of the husbands must provide for her support, and the other must give her the financial value of her support.
Halacha 18
[The following rules apply when the woman's] daughter marries during the time [in which her mother's husbands] obligated themselves to supply her with her sustenance. Her own husband is obligated to provide her with her sustenance, and both of her mother's husbands are obligated to give her the financial value of her support.
[Even when the men] who obligated themselves to support her die, if they affirmed their commitment to her mother with an act of contract or they composed a formal document recording their obligation, [the daughter] is considered to be a creditor whose claim is supported by a deed, and she has the prerogative of collecting her due from property that has been sold until the conclusion of the time period for which he committed himself.
If the commitment was made at the time of the kiddushin, and was not affirmed by an act of contract, it is a commitment that was not to be recorded in a contract,30 and [the daughter] does not have the prerogative of expropriating property [from purchasers] for her support.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Since the man has already established a connection with this woman, but has not acquired the rights due him by virtue of the ketubah, any provision that he makes regarding those rights is binding.
|
| 2. |
Since the bond of marriage has already been consummated, the husband has already acquired all the rights to which he is entitled. Therefore, a verbal statement is not sufficient, and an official act of contract is necessary to forgo those rights. (See Ketubot 83a, which compares this to the absolution of a partnership agreement.)
|
| 3. |
Moreover, the husband is not entitled to any benefit that accrues from the money his wife receives from the sale (Ramah, Even HaEzer 92:1).
|
| 4. |
A husband has three rights with regard to his wife's property: to receive the benefits that accrue from it, to veto any sales or presents, and to inherit it in the event of his wife's death. Since the wording of the provision in the document the husband gave his wife is not specific, he is given the benefit of the doubt and is considered to have waived the least valuable of the rights he has: the veto power over his wife's sales and gifts (Rashi, Ketubot 83b).
|
| 5. |
The rationale is that before nisu'in, a deed of contract is not necessary to uphold any sale or gift that a woman may make. Since the husband took an additional step and carried out an act of contract, we assume that he did so with the intent of enhancing his wife's position and waiving all rights he has to her property (Kessef Mishneh).
This is the Rambam's interpretation of the above passage. The Ra'avad and Rabbenu Asher advance a different interpretation. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 92:3) quotes both opinions, but appears to favor that of the Rambam.
|
| 6. |
From the Rambam's wording, it appears that it is imperative that the benefits from the land be converted into financial resources and be used to purchase other property. Rabbenu Asher and others do not accept this position and maintain that the woman has the right to use the benefits that accrue from the land as she desires. If, however, she decides to use them to purchase property, her husband is entitled to the benefits that accrue from that property. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 94:4) quotes the Rambam's view, while the Ramah follows that of Rabbenu Asher.
|
| 7. |
If, however, the provision is made before the woman is consecrated, it is also of no consequence. For until a connection between the man and the woman is established, his statements regarding her property are of no consequence whatsoever.
|
| 8. |
See Chapter 12, Halachah 9.
|
| 9. |
And affirms his provision with an act of contract (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 10. |
Nor does he have the right to veto a sale (Chelkat Mechokek 92:17).
|
| 11. |
I.e., at home, on his table.
|
| 12. |
This bundle must be worth at least a dinar (Chelkat Mechokek 88:12).
|
| 13. |
If the wife denies his claim and states that she is sure that he spent less, her claim is accepted provided she supports it with an oath (Ramah, Even HaEzer 88:7, Beit Shmuel 88:17).
|
| 14. |
See Chapter 14, Halachah 8.
|
| 15. |
As reflected by the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Ketubot 8:6), this applies only when the increment to the property exceeds the expenses. If the expenses exceed the increment, all he receives is the increment. (See Beit Shmuel 88:18, who quotes other authorities who differ.)
|
| 16. |
See Chapter 4, Halachah 8.
|
| 17. |
If the husband were not given consideration for his expenses and the increment he brought to the woman's property, he would seek only his own benefit and would deplete the property's value by failing to fertilize it and constantly sowing crops. This is unlikely to happen if he is given a sharecropper's allocation. In such an instance, he is likely to say: "It is possible that the marriage will continue, and so it is to my benefit to maintain the field's value. Even if the marriage does not continue, I will be justly reimbursed for my work."
|
| 18. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 88:10) explains that the option is the husband's. He may choose to receive a sharecropper's allocation, or he may desire to leave the property without making a reckoning, as is done in the case when his wife is past the age of majority.
|
| 19. |
In this instance, the woman collects the greater sum when she collects her due.
|
| 20. |
In Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 6:17, the Rambam adds several dimensions to this statement: a) The person making the commitment must own the items he promises. If he does not own them, his commitment is not binding, for a person cannot transfer an entity that does not yet exist.
b) The commitment is not binding on property that has been sold. For only transactions that are formalized by a written deed are binding on the purchasers of property. Moreover, since this commitment can be formalized by the spoken word alone, even if it is later recorded in a written document, it is not binding on the purchasers. If, however, a formal deed of transfer is composed, it must be honored by the purchasers (Maggid Mishneh, Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah). (See also Halachah 18.)
c) The transaction is not effective until the marriage takes place.
|
| 21. |
In general, a business agreement must be formalized by a contractual act (a kinyan), and a verbal commitment is not sufficient. An exception is made in this instance because of the happiness and closeness engendered by the marriage relationship (Ketubot 102b).
|
| 22. |
If, by contrast, a man or a woman makes a commitment for his or her own marriage, the commitment is binding without a contractual act, even if it is a second marriage that is involved.
|
| 23. |
I.e., nisu'in, the second stage of marriage, as well as erusin, the first stage, must be completed before the present is binding.
|
| 24. |
For it is her father who is making the financial commitment, not she.
|
| 25. |
I.e., the husband must take one of these two options. He cannot leave the woman consecrated (in which case she cannot marry someone else), but not married.
This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 52:1). The Ramah states that if the woman has the financial means to meet the commitment, she must do so.
|
| 26. |
See Chapter 14, Halachot 8 and 12.
|
| 27. |
Generally, such commitments are not binding, for the commitment does not have a specific scope. In most situations, only when a definite sum is mentioned is the commitment obligatory. (See Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 114.)
|
| 28. |
Hilchot Mechirah 11:15-17.
|
| 29. |
Needless to say, he is obligated to support his divorcee's daughter if his divorcee does not remarry. There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if the husband is required to provide his divorcee's daughter with the full measure of support she requires, or he is merely obligated to give her the amount of money it would cost for him to support her in his own home. (See Shulchan Aruch and Ramah, Even HaEzer 114:6.)
|
| 30. |
As mentioned in the notes on Halachah 13, even if this commitment was recorded in a document, as long as a formal deed is not composed, the purchasers are not under any obligation.
|
Ishut - Chapter Twenty Four
Halacha 1
When a man who marries an aylonit1 is childless and does not have another wife with whom he will father children, he is compelled to divorce her.2Nevertheless, [during and after the marriage], the financial arrangements that [govern] other women [govern] her. She is entitled to the fundamental requirement of the ketubah and [all] the provisions of the ketubah. Similarly, her husband acquires the same financial privileges with regard to her as he would with regard to another woman.
Halacha 2
If, however, a man married a woman without recognizing her condition, and later it was discovered that she was an aylonit, or forbidden to him by virtue of a negative commandment [for which he is not liable to death - neither by the hand of God nor by an earthly court] she is not entitled to the fundamental requirement of the ketubah, nor to any of the provisions of the ketubah. She is, however, entitled to the extra amount that the husband added to the fundamental requirement of the ketubah. She is not entitled to receive her sustenance, [neither during her husband's lifetime,] nor even after his death.3
The couple [should be] forced to separate.4 When that is done, the value of the produce of which the husband partook is not expropriated from him.5
The same laws apply when a man marries a sh'niyah,6 regardless of whether or not [the husband] was aware of the prohibition.
Halacha 3
Why are these women not granted the essential requirement of the ketubah, when they are granted the extra sum added [by the husband]? The fundamental requirement of the ketubah was instituted by our Sages so that [a man] should not think that the divorce [of his wife] is a light matter. Since he was not aware [of the prohibition or of his wife's condition], she is not granted the essential requirement of the ketubah.7
With regard to the extra amount for which he obligated himself: as long as she desired to maintain their relationship, she kept her part of the agreement. She granted him [marital] satisfaction,8 and is willing to continue their relationship; it is the Torah that deems her to be forbidden. What then can she do? Therefore, she is granted this extra amount, for it is not her deeds that cause her to be forbidden after marriage;9 she was forbidden beforehand.
Halacha 4
Why did [our Sages] not distinguish between a sh'niyah [whom her husband] recognized, and one that he did not recognize, but rather said that in all instances she is not entitled to the fundamental requirement of the ketubah? Because [the prohibition involving these relations] is Rabbinic [in origin], they reinforced it.
If, by contrast, a man married a woman [whom he was forbidden to marry because of] a negative prohibition of the Torah [that was not punishable by death, neither by the hand of God nor by an earthly court] and he was aware of the prohibition, [his wife] is entitled to [the money due her by virtue of her]ketubah.[Similarly, if he marries] a woman whom he was forbidden to marry because of a positive commandment, whether he was aware of the prohibition or not, [his wife is entitled to a ketubah].
[The rationale is] that if he recognized that a woman was forbidden by a negative prohibition, he willingly undertook to damage his resources. And with regard to [relations which are forbidden] because of a positive commandment, the prohibition is light.
In both these instances, the women are entitled to support [from their husband's estate] after his death.10 Similarly, if [during his absence,] they borrowed money for their sustenance, [the husband] is liable to pay.11 And when the husband is forced to divorce [a woman in either of these situations], he is forced to reimburse her for all the benefit that he received from her property.12
Halacha 5
A woman who dissolves a marriage through the rite of mi'un is not entitled to aketubah.13 She is, however, entitled to the extra amount [added by the husband to the ketubah].14 The husband is not required to reimburse her for the benefit that he received from her property.15 If she borrowed money for her sustenance while she was still his wife, and afterwards terminated the marriage through the rite of mi'un, that money is not expropriated from the husband.
Halacha 6
When a woman commits adultery [her husband is obligated to divorce her]. She is not entitled to a ketubah - neither the fundamental requirement nor the additional amount. Nor is she entitled to any of the conditions of the ketubah. [The rationale is that] it is her own deeds that cause her to become forbidden to her husband.
Halacha 7
What is the law with regard to the rights these women have to their dowries? Whenever a woman's dowry endures, she is entitled to take her property when she leaves [her husband's household after divorce].16 This applies even when she commits adultery.
[If the property is not intact, the following laws apply.] If the woman was ash'niyah or forbidden as a result of a positive commandment - whether or not her husband was aware of the prohibition - the same laws that apply to other women with regard to their dowries apply to her. Similarly, if the woman was anaylonit or was forbidden because of a negative prohibition of the Torah [that was not punishable by death - neither by the hand of God nor by an earthly court], the same laws that apply to other women with regard to their dowries apply to her.17
[What are those laws?] The husband is liable for nichsei tzon barzel. With regard to nichsei m'log, if anything was lost or stolen, she suffers the loss. [The husband] is not liable to pay.
Halacha 8
[Different rules apply when] a woman is either an aylonit or prohibited because of a negative commandment, and [the husband] did not recognize her status. Whatever was lost, stolen, destroyed or damaged from nichsei tzon barzel, her husband is not liable to pay. For she gave him permission to use them.18
With regard to nichsei m'log, by contrast, whatever was lost or stolen, he is liable to pay. This is the opposite of all other women. Since the marriage bond is not of a binding nature, he did not acquire [rights to use] the nichsei m'log.19
Halacha 9
A woman who dissolves a marriage through the rite of mi'un is not entitled to any compensation at all for property that was destroyed. Nothing is expropriated from her husband in payment for what was lost or stolen, with regard to both nichsei m'log and nichsei tzon barzel.20 Instead, she takes whatever property is intact and departs.
Halacha 10
A woman who committed adultery is not entitled to a ketubah - neither the fundamental requirement nor the extra amount. Nor is the husband held responsible for any of her nichsei tzon barzel that were lost or stolen.21Needless to say, this ruling also applies with regard to her nichsei m'log.
[The above does not apply] only to an adulteress, but also to a woman who violates the faith of Moses,22 one who violates the Jewish faith,23 or one who is divorced because of a scandalous report.24 These women are not entitled to aketubah - neither the fundamental requirement nor the extra amount - nor are they granted any of the conditions of the ketubah.
When these [women are divorced], each one should take what remains from her dowry and depart. Her husband is not liable to pay anything, neither what was reduced in value nor what was lost.
Halacha 11
The following are the actions for which a woman is considered to have "violated the faith of Moses":
a) going out to the marketplace with her hair uncovered;25
b) taking vows or oaths that she does not keep;
c) engaging in sexual relations [with her husband] while in the niddah state;
d) failing to separate challah or feeding her husband food that is forbidden to eat - needless to say, this applies to forbidden crawling animals and animals that were not ritually slaughtered; it applies even to produce that was not tithed.26
How can the latter [two] matters be known? For example, she said: "So and so, the priest, [separated tithes] from this produce for me," "So and so separatedchallah [from this dough]," "So and so, the Sage, said this stain does not render me a niddah" - and after eating the food or engaging in sexual relations with her, the husband asked the person whose name was mentioned and he denied the occurrence of the incident. Another example: a woman's [conduct caused] it to be established in her neighborhood that she was in the niddah state,27 but she told her husband that she was ritually pure. He engaged in relations with her [and afterwards discovered the truth].
Halacha 12
What is meant by "the Jewish faith"? The customs of modesty that Jewish women practice. When a woman performs any of the following acts, she is considered to have violated the Jewish faith:
a) she goes to the marketplace or a lane with openings at both ends without having her head [fully] covered - i.e., her hair is covered by a handkerchief, but not with a veil like all other women,28
b) she spins [flax or wool] with a rose on her face29 - on her forehead or on her cheek - like immodest gentile women,
c) she spins in the marketplace and shows her forearms to men;30
d) she plays frivolously with young lads,
e) she demands sexual intimacy from her husband in a loud voice until her neighbors hear her talking about their intimate affairs, or
f) she curses her husband's father in her husband's presence.31
Halacha 13
Ezra ordained that a woman should wear a belt32 in her home at all times, as an expression of modesty. If a woman does not wear [such a belt], however, she is not considered to have violated the faith of Moses, nor does she forfeit her ketubah.
Similarly, if she goes from courtyard to courtyard without having her hair [fully] covered - as long as it is covered with a handkerchief, she is not considered to have violated the [Jewish] faith.
Halacha 14
A woman who violates the faith must have had a warning issued to her [prior to her having performed the act] and [the warning and her improper conduct must be observed by] witnesses before she forfeits her ketubah.
[The following rule applies when a woman] transgresses privately, her husband knows that she violated the faith and [therefore] gives her a warning, [but the warning] was not observed by witnesses, and then she transgresses again. Should the husband claim that she violated [the faith] after receiving a warning,33 and the woman claims not to have transgressed, or not to have received a warning, the husband must pay her [the money due her by virtue of her] ketubah if he desires34 to divorce her, after she takes an oath that she has not transgressed. [This oath is required because] she would not be entitled to any payment if she admitted to having transgressed after having received this warning.
Halacha 15
What is meant by "a woman who is divorced because of a scandalous report"? For example, there were witnesses that she performed a very indecent act that indicates that a sin was committed, but there is no definitive testimony [that she committed adultery].
What is implied? She was alone in her courtyard, and they saw a perfume salesman leaving. They entered immediately afterwards and saw her getting up from bed and putting on her underwear or tying her belt, or they found wet spittle on the canopy above the bed.35 Alternatively, they saw them coming out of a dark place [together], or one helping the other up from a trench or the like, or they saw him kissing the opening of her cloak, or saw them kissing each other, or embracing each other, or they entered a room one after the other and locked the doors,36 or any similar act [that would arouse suspicion].
[In all these instances,] if her husband desires to divorce her, she is not entitled to receive [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah. There is no necessity for a warning [in this instance].37
Halacha 16
[When a woman] violates the faith of Moses or the Jewish faith, and similarly, one about whom is issued a scandalous report, her husband is not compelled to divorce her. If he desires [to remain married], he need not divorce her.38
Nevertheless, even when her husband does not divorce her, she is not entitled to a ketubah.39 [The rationale is that] a ketubah was ordained by our Sages so that a husband should not consider the divorce [of his wife as] a light matter. Our Sages were concerned only with modest Jewish women. This institution was not enacted for women [who act] wantonly. On the contrary, let their husbands think that divorcing them is a light matter.
Halacha 17
When a man sees his wife commit adultery, or he was informed of this by one of his relatives or her relatives - whether male or female - whom he trusts and whose statements he believes, he is obligated to divorce her and is forbidden to engage in relations with her,40 for he relies on their word as true.
He must [however] pay her [the money due her by virtue of her] ketubah,41[unless] she admits that she has committed adultery, in which case she should be divorced without receiving her ketubah. Therefore, if [her husband saw her commit adultery himself], he can require her to take an oath, while she holds a sacred object, that she did not commit adultery while married to him.42 [Only afterwards] can she collect the money [due her by virtue of] her ketubah. With regard to other matters,43 he cannot require her to take an oath, except through the convention of gilgul [sh'vuah].44
Halacha 18
When a woman tells her husband that she willingly committed adultery, no attention is paid to her words. [We suspect] that she is attracted to another man [and wants to be released from marriage to her husband so that she can marry him].45 She does, however, lose the rights to her ketubah - both the fundamental requirement and any extra amount - and [her right to any of her property] that was destroyed, for she admitted that she has committed adultery.46 If he believes her and considers her word to be true, he is obligated to divorce her.
A court, however, does not obligate a man to divorce his wife through any means, unless two witnesses come forth and testify that the person's wife willingly committed adultery in their presence. [In such a situation,] he is compelled to divorce her.
Halacha 19
A woman who committed adultery unknowingly47 or who was raped is permitted to [continue marital relations with] her husband, as [implied the Numbers 5:13, which describes adultery:] "and she was not raped," indicating that if she was raped, she is permitted. [This applies whether] she was raped by a gentile or by a Jew.
Whenever [a woman] was forced into relations at the outset, she is permitted [to her husband], even if she ultimately consented - even if she says: "Let him continue, if he had not raped me, I would have hired him." For [her] natural inclination has overcome her; originally, she was forced against her will.
Halacha 20
When women have been abducted by robbers, they are considered as though they have been taken captive and were raped; they are permitted to their husbands.48 If, however, they were left alone and they went to the robbers on their own initiative, they are considered to have acted willingly and they are forbidden to their husbands.
The laws applying to a woman who acted unwittingly and to one who was raped are the same. For acting unwittingly is comparable to a deed committed under coercion.
Halacha 21
When does the above apply? When the woman's husband was an Israelite. If, however, a priest's wife [committed adultery] unwittingly or under duress, she is forbidden to her husband. For these relations cause her to be deemed a zonahat all times, and he is forbidden to have relations with a zonah, as will be explained in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah.49
Halacha 22
With regard to both an Israelite's wife and a priest's wife who have been raped, they are entitled to their ketubah - both the fundamental requirement and the additional amount. She does not lose anything in this regard. We compel50 the priest to pay [her the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah and then to divorce her.
Halacha 23
When a priest's wife tells her husband: "I was raped," or "I unwittingly had relations with another man," he should not pay any attention to her words. [We suspect that perhaps] she was attracted to another man.
If he believes her, or he was told about it by a person upon whose word he relies, he should divorce her and pay her [the money due her by virtue of her]ketubah.51
Halacha 24
[The following rules apply when] a man tells his wife in the presence of witnesses: "Do not enter into privacy with so and so." If two witnesses observed her entering into privacy with the said person, and she and he remained there sufficient time for relations to have taken place,52 she is forbidden to engage in relations with her husband until he causes her to drink "the bitter waters",53 as will be explained in Hilchot Sotah.54
If he dies before he has caused her to drink [these waters], she is not entitled to her ketubah. Although witnesses did not see any [blatant] wanton act, there is no more wanton behavior than [disobeying her husband's words in] this [manner].
In the present age, when the waters [to test a] sotah are not available to us, the woman becomes forbidden to her husband forever. She must be divorced without receiving [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah, neither the fundamental requirement nor the additional amount, for it is her evil deeds that caused her to become forbidden.55
Halacha 25
[The following laws apply when a husband] tells [his wife] in private: "Do not enter into seclusion with so and so." If he observed her enter into seclusion with the said person, and she and he remained there sufficient time for relations to have taken place - in the present age,56 when the waters [to test a] sotah are not available to us - the woman becomes forbidden to her husband. He is obligated to divorce her and pay [her the money due her by virtue of] herketubah.
If she admits entering into seclusion with the said person after having received the warning, she must be divorced without receiving [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah. Therefore, she is required to take an oath in this regard.57 Only afterwards must he pay [her the money due her by virtue of] herketubah.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
A woman who does not have female physical characteristics and cannot conceive children, as mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 6. This halachah is speaking about an instance in which the husband was aware of his wife's condition.
|
| 2. |
See Chapter 15, Halachah 7.
|
| 3. |
The Rambam does not explicitly mention that the woman is not entitled to receive her sustenance during her husband's lifetime. This is taken for granted. Since their marriage is forbidden, our Sages did not bind their relationship by any of the guidelines they instituted to preserve harmony and peace in marriage. Even after his lifetime, she is not entitled to receive her sustenance.
|
| 4. |
In contrast to the previous and subsequent halachot, the Rambam does not mention divorce in this instance. The Noda BiY'hudah (Even HaEzer, Vol. II, Responsum 80) explains that the Rambam's wording leads to the following hypothesis: Since the husband was not aware of the woman's physical condition (if she was an aylonit), or the prohibition forbidding relations (if she was forbidden to him), he entered the marriage under mistaken premises. Hence, the marriage is not binding at all and no divorce is necessary. The couple must, however, be forced to separate.
The Noda BiY'hudah, however, rejects this hypothesis and maintains that the kiddushin are binding in such instances and a divorce is required.
|
| 5. |
Even though her husband is not obligated to redeem her from captivity - and the right to benefit from the produce is associated with that obligation - he is not required to return the produce. This is a penalty that our Sages imposed upon the woman (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 115:1).
|
| 6. |
A woman with whom he is forbidden to engage in relations because of Rabbinic decree. (See Chapter 1, Halachah 6.)
|
| 7. |
For the relationship is undesirable, and our Sages wish that it be terminated.
|
| 8. |
This extra amount is granted by the husband on his own volition because of the satisfaction generated by physical intimacy. It is not a requirement of the Sages (Rashi, Ketubot 101a).
|
| 9. |
Note the contrast to Halachah 6.
|
| 10. |
During the husband's lifetime, however, they are not entitled to support, for the court desires that the relationship be terminated (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 11. |
The Rambam's rationale is that although the husband is not liable for his wife's support while the couple are living together, this is only because the Sages desired to rend apart the couple's relationship. In principle, he should be liable, for she is entitled to a ketubah and the conditions of the ketubah. Therefore, in an instance where the couple are separating, and the woman demands payment for her support while her husband was abroad, he should be held liable.
Other authorities differ and free the husband from liability in this instance. It is their opinion that is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 116:1).
|
| 12. |
This point is also the subject of a difference of opinion among the Rabbis, and the Shulchan Aruch(loc. cit.) follows the view of the authorities who differ with the Rambam and do not hold the husband liable.
|
| 13. |
Our Sages instituted the marriage of a minor for her own benefit. If she does not desire to continue the marriage, it is she who suffers the consequences.
|
| 14. |
This additional amount was granted to the woman in consideration of the physical pleasure she gives her husband. Since he received that pleasure and knew that the woman had the right to terminate the relationship, he is liable for this amount.
|
| 15. |
For at the time, he had permission to use her property and benefit from it.
|
| 16. |
Even if the entire dowry is not intact, the woman takes the part that is intact. The remaining laws apply only to that portion of the dowry that no longer exists or that is unfit for use.
|
| 17. |
As the Rambam explains in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Yevamot 9:3), the rationale for this ruling is that, with the exception of the sh'niyot, the women mentioned in this halachah are all entitled to a ketubah. As a result, the same laws that apply to other women with regard to their dowries apply to them as well. With regard to a sh'niyah, even though she is not entitled to aketubah, our Sages imposed penalties on both her and her husband and required them to suffer a loss.
With the exception of the case of a sh'niyah, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 116:1-4) does not accept the distinction made by the Rambam and applies the laws mentioned in the following halachah to all these instances.
|
| 18. |
Although he accepted responsibility for them, his acceptance was made under false premises. Hence, just as the marriage contract is not binding, so too, his acceptance of responsibility is not binding.
|
| 19. |
Therefore, he is held responsible for any loss that took place.
|
| 20. |
The rationale is that the court gave him the right to use this property, and according to the conditions they established, he is liable only if he divorces her.
|
| 21. |
Even if an object was lost because of the husband's negligence, he is not held liable (Chelkat Mechokek 115:20).
|
| 22. |
See the following halachah for a definition of this term.
|
| 23. |
See Halachah 12 for a definition of this term.
|
| 24. |
See Halachah 15 for a definition of this term.
|
| 25. |
Numbers 5:18 states that as part of the process of causing a sotah distress, her hair is uncovered. From this, Ketubot 72a derives the concept that a married Jewish woman's hair should always be covered. Similarly, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 21:2) prohibits a married woman from walking in the public domain with uncovered hair.
Although this custom was not practiced conscientiously in many European communities even within the religious population, our Torah authorities have always called for its observance. The failure of a woman to cover her hair is considered adequate grounds for divorce. It must, however, be emphasized that a husband who married a woman who he knew would not cover her hair cannot later divorce her on the grounds that she fails to do so, without making full settlement of his obligations according to the marriage contract.
|
| 26. |
I.e., prohibitions of Rabbinic origin as well as those explicit in the Torah.
|
| 27. |
E.g., she wore clothes customarily worn when she was a niddah. In the present age, it is not customary for women to wear special clothes while they are in the niddah state.
|
| 28. |
The previous halachah spoke of her going out to a public place with her hair totally uncovered. This halachah mentioned the covering of her hair, but not according to the accepted norms of modesty.
|
| 29. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Ketubot 7:4), the Rambam mentions wearing a rose or perfume in the same manner as worn by wanton gentile women.
|
| 30. |
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 115:4) states that this applies when she does so frequently, implying that if she did so on one particular occasion, she is not placed in this category. (See Beit Shmuel115:11.)
|
| 31. |
The Ramah (loc. cit.) follows more stringent opinions that state that even if she curses his father outside her husband's presence, or if she curses her husband himself to his face, she is placed in this category.
|
| 32. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 10:4). Rashi (Bava Kama 72b) interprets this term as referring to underwear. Based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Megillah 4:1), which explains that this practice was instituted after a woman was raped by a monkey, it would appear that the intent is a chastity belt.
|
| 33. |
And he is therefore not required to pay her ketubah.
|
| 34. |
See Halachah 16.
|
| 35. |
Why would wet spittle be found on the canopy? Obviously, someone was lying face up on the bed and could not turn to either side. This indicates that the woman had just been involved in sexual relations (Rashi, Yevamot 24b).
|
| 36. |
Our translation is based on the additions of the Ramah (Even HaEzer 11:1).
|
| 37. |
A woman who acts in this manner is considered to have committed adultery, and there is no need for a warning in such an instance.
|
| 38. |
As mentioned in Halachah 18, the court does not compel a man to divorce his wife unless two witnesses testify that she willingly committed adultery. Nevertheless, in the situations mentioned above, it is clear that our Sages desired that the woman be divorced. Moreover, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 115:4) states that it is a mitzvah to divorce such a woman.
The Ramah adds that even though in most cases we follow the enactment of Rabbenu Gershom, who forbade divorcing a woman against her will, in this instance an exception is made. Even if the woman does not consent to the divorce, her husband may divorce her.
|
| 39. |
Nor is she entitled to any of the provisions of the ketubah while they remain married, as stated above (Halachah 10). Note, however, the Chelkat Mechokek 115:18, who states that if the couple remain married, and afterwards the woman repents and begins conducting herself modestly, her husband is obligated to write a new ketubah for her.
|
| 40. |
When a married woman has committed adultery, she is forbidden to engage in sexual relations with her husband in the future. (Similarly, she is forbidden to engage in relations with the adulterer.) Since her husband either saw the matter himself or heard it from a person upon whom he relies, he is bound by this prohibition.
|
| 41. |
Since he has no binding evidence that she committed adultery that will be accepted by a court, she cannot be forced to forgo her claim for the money he is obligated to pay her.
|
| 42. |
The Rambam compares this to a situation in which a creditor desires to collect a debt supported by a promissory note, and the debtor states: "I have paid the note." Although the creditor is allowed to collect the debt, he must take an oath first.
|
| 43. |
Our translation follows the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah. According to this version, the intent is difficult to comprehend, as reflected in the questions raised by the Maggid Mishneh.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the proper version is בדברי אחר. The intent is that if the husband saw his wife commit adultery himself, he may require her to take an oath, because his claim is definite. If, by contrast, his claim is based on the statements of another person, his claim is not definite and he does not have the right to require her to take an oath.
|
| 44. |
I.e., if she is obligated to take another oath before collecting the money due her by virtue of herketubah, her husband may also require her to take the oath concerning adultery.
|
| 45. |
The husband need not divorce her, and he may continue engaging in marital relations with her without worrying that he is transgressing the prohibition mentioned in the previous halachah.
|
| 46. |
In cases of monetary law, we follow the principle that the statements of the principal himself are equal to those of 100 witnesses. Since she admitted committing adultery, she must suffer the financial consequences.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Nedarim 11:12), the Rambam explains that when the husband says, "I do not believe her," he is still permitted to engage in relations with her. We do not, however, say: "If you believe her, pay her the money due her by virtue of her ketubah," for we divide his statements (palg'nin dibburo), and apply them in one context, but not in another. This explanation has, however, aroused questions in certain commentaries.
|
| 47. |
E.g., two couples were married at the same time and the women unwittingly went into the wrong marriage chambers, and each thought that she was with her own spouse (Yevamot 33b). When, however, a woman commits adultery under the impression that she is allowed to do so, she is considered to have acted willfully, and she is forbidden to enter into relations with her husband (Ramah, Even HaEzer 178:3).
|
| 48. |
Ketubot 51b relates that in Babylonia there was a time when robber bands would frequently abduct women from their homes.
|
| 49. |
Chapter 17, Halachot 1 and 7; Chapter 18, Halachah 1. This prohibition is a result of the extra dimension of sanctity conveyed upon a priest and is not a reflection of the woman's lack of virtue.
|
| 50. |
With regard to the priest's prohibition against relations with these women, Leviticus 21:8 states: "And you shall make him holy." Yevamot 88b implies that the intent is that he should be forced to make himself holy, even if that involves compelling him against his will.
|
| 51. |
See the explanation in Halachah 18. The reason this woman is entitled to the money due her by virtue of her ketubah is that she did not commit adultery willingly.
|
| 52. |
Hilchot Sotah 1:2 explains this as the amount of time it takes to roast an egg and swallow it. In quantitative terms, the more stringent of the contemporary authorities have estimated this as 35 seconds.
|
| 53. |
This phrase is borrowed from Numbers 5:18. Hilchot Sotah 3:10 explains that the term is used because a bitter-flavored substance was added to the water.
|
| 54. |
Chapter 1, Halachah 2. Although there is no evidence that the woman actually committed adultery, since she was warned by her husband and violated his warning, the burden of proof is upon her. It is only through drinking the waters given a sotah that she can vindicate herself.
|
| 55. |
The Rambam is explaining why the woman is forced to forfeit her ketubah, although there is no conclusive proof of adultery. She knew about the prohibition against entering into privacy with the said individual and violated it willingly. Hence, she is required to suffer the consequences.
|
| 56. |
The Kessef Mishneh questions why the Rambam mentions "the present age." Seemingly, in the time of the Temple as well, a similar problem would arise - if the warning was not given in the presence of witnesses, the waters given a sotah could not be used to test the woman's faithfulness.
|
| 57. |
See Halachah 17 and notes.
|
Ishut - Chapter Twenty Five
Halacha 1
When a man marries a woman without having made any specifications about that matter, and it is discovered that she is bound by vows, he [may] divorce her without having to pay [her the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah - neither the fundamental requirement nor the additional amount.1
With regard to which vows does this rule apply? [I.e., a vow] not to eat meat, not to drink wine, or not to adorn herself with colored garments or with other objects with which women of her locale customarily adorn themselves.2 If, however, she is bound by other vows, she does not forfeit anything.
Halacha 2
Similar [rules apply when] a man marries a woman without having made any specifications about the matter, and it is discovered that she has one of the blemishes [that mar] a woman's [appeal to her husband], as outlined above.3 If the husband neither knew nor heard about this blemish, and did not willingly accept it, he [may] divorce [his wife] without having to pay [her the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah - neither the fundamental requirement nor the additional amount.
What is implied? If there is a bathhouse in the city, and he has relatives [in the town], he does not have the prerogative of saying: "I did not know about these blemishes." [This applies even if] the blemishes were located in hidden places. For we assume that he checks with his relatives [and asks them about his wife's condition]. [If he marries her nonetheless,] we can assume that he heard [about the blemishes] and accepted them.
If the town does not possess a bathhouse, or if he does not have relatives, he may issue a claim with regard to blemishes that are usually unseen. Regular fits of epilepsy are considered to be a blemish that is unseen.4
By contrast, with regard to physical blemishes that are openly seen, the husband cannot claim [not to have known about the blemish]. For they can be seen by everyone, and it may be assumed that he heard about them and accepted [the matter]. This law applies only in those places where it is customary for women to walk in the marketplace with their faces uncovered, and everyone recognizes each other and will say: "This is so and so's daughter," and "This is so and so's sister," as in the European cities of the present era.
In places where, by contrast, women do not go out to the marketplace at all, and if a girl goes out to the bathhouse in the evening she goes out veiled, and no one will see her except her relatives, a claim may be issued with regard to blemishes that can be openly seen as well.
[Such a claim may be issued] when there is no bathhouse in the city, or [the husband] does not have a relative with whom he can check. If, however, there is a bathhouse in the city, [even] when it is not customary for women to go out with their faces uncovered, if [the husband] has a relative in the city he may not issue such a claim, for everyone sees her naked in the bathhouse.
If the woman's habit is to cover herself and to hide even in the bathhouse, or she washes at night, or in a small private room in the bathhouse, so she will not be seen, and no one will know of her, [her husband] may issue a claim, even with regard to blemishes that can be seen openly.
These matters are concepts that reason dictates; they are not decrees of the Torah [to be accepted on faith].
Halacha 3
Some of the geonim have ruled that our Sages' statement that a husband can check [concerning his wife's appearance] with his relatives does not apply only to his relatives, but also to his friends. [According to their thesis,] even if a man lives in a city in which he does not have any relatives at all, if there is a bathhouse in the city he does not have the right to issue a claim, for it is impossible that he will not have friends, and he can tell one of his friends to have his wife or sister check the appearance of so and so [i.e., the woman he thinks of marrying]. Therefore, we assume that he had heard of [any blemishes she had] and accepted them.
I do not agree with this conclusion.5 For a man will not reveal all the concerns he has regarding matters such as these to anyone other than his relatives. Moreover, he will rely only on the word of his relatives.
Halacha 4
What is meant by a claim issued because of physical blemishes? If the blemishes that were found were such that it is certain that they existed before she was consecrated - e.g., an extra finger or the like - the burden of proof is on the father. He must prove that the husband knew about them and accepted them, or that they were such that we may assume that he knew.6 If he cannot bring proof, the woman may be divorced without receiving any [of the money due her by virtue] of her ketubah at all.7
[The following rules apply when] the blemishes were such that they could have come about after she was consecrated. If the blemishes were discovered after the woman entered her husband's home, the burden of proof is on the husband. He must show that she possessed these blemishes before she was consecrated, and that he entered into the relationship under false premises. If the blemishes were discovered while she still was in her father's home, the burden of proof is on [the father]. He must show that the blemishes came about after the consecration, and the husband suffered the loss.8
Halacha 5
If the husband brought proof that [the woman] had [the blemishes] before she was consecrated, or she admitted that fact, and the father brought proof that the husband had seen the blemishes and accepted them in silence, or that one could assume that he knew about them and accepted them, [the husband] is obligated with regard to the ketubah.
Halacha 6
If [a husband] had relations with his wife and waited several days,9 and [afterwards,] claimed that he discovered a blemish only then, his words are disregarded. [This applies] even if [the blemish] is in the folds [of the woman's skin] or on the sole of her foot. [The rationale is that] we presume that a man will not drink from a cup unless he checks it well first.10 [Therefore,] we assume that he knew [of the blemish] and accepted it.11
Halacha 7
[The following rules apply when a man] marries a woman and it is discovered that she does not have a fixed time for the onset of her menstrual period, but rather she does not feel anything until she begins to menstruate. She may engage in sexual relations only if she uses two cloths with which she checks herself, one before relations and one afterwards. In addition, her husband must also check himself with a cloth, as will be explained in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah.12
Halacha 8
Even though this is a great blemish, it does not cause the woman to forfeit anything [with regard to her ketubah], for she can inspect herself and engage in relations.
[The following rules apply if] she inspected herself and then engaged in relations, and when she and her husband cleaned themselves afterwards, blood was found on either his cloth or her cloth.13 If this phenomenon recurred on three consecutive occasions, she is forbidden to remain married to her husband. Instead, she must be divorced, and she is not entitled to the money due [her by virtue of] her ketubah - neither the fundamental requirement nor the additional amount.14 Nor do any of the provisions of the ketubah apply to her. [She suffers these losses] because she is not fit to engage in sexual relations.15
When he divorces her, he may never remarry her. [This restriction was instituted,] lest her condition heal, in which instance his decision to divorce her would not have been final.16
Halacha 9
When does the above apply? When the woman had this condition from the beginning of her marriage, and on the first occasion that she engaged in relations she menstruated.
If, however, this ailment occurred after she married, it is the husband who suffers the loss.19 Therefore, if [the couple] engaged in relations once and the woman did not menstruate, and afterwards she began to menstruate whenever they engaged in relations, he must divorce her and pay her all [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah. He may never remarry her, as explained above.
Halacha 10
Similarly, if a woman suffers blemishes after marriage, even if she becomes a leper [the loss is her husband's]. If he desires to remain married to her, he may. If he desires to divorce her, he must pay [her the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah.
Halacha 11
[The following rules apply when] a husband suffers blemishes after he marries. Even if his hand or foot is cut off, or he becomes blinded in one eye,20 and his wife no longer desires to live with him, he is not forced to divorce her and pay [her the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah. Instead, if she desires to remain married, she may. If she does not desire this, she may obtain a divorce without receiving [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah, as is the law concerning any woman who rebels against her husband.21
If, however, he becomes22 afflicted by [constant] bad breath or a smell from his nose, or becomes a collector of dog feces, a miner of copper, or a tanner,23 he is forced to divorce his wife and pay [her the money due her by virtue of] herketubah [if she desires to terminate the marriage].24 If she desires, she may remained married to her husband.
Halacha 12
If a man becomes a leper,25 he is compelled to divorce his wife and pay [her the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah. Even if she desires to remain married to him, her request is not heeded. Instead, they are compelled to separate, because [having relations with] her will cause his flesh to be consumed. If she says: "I will remain married to him, [and we will live in the presence of] witnesses, so that we will not engage in relations," her request is heeded.
Halacha 13
[The following rules apply when] a woman's husband had [constant] bad breath or a smell from his nose, or he was a collector of dog feces, or the like, and he died [childless, causing his wife to be obligated to fulfill the mitzvah of eitheryibbum or chalitzah]. If [the yavam] possesses the same difficulty that his brother, [the late husband,] had, she has the right to say: "I was willing to accept this difficulty with regard to your brother. I am not willing to accept it with regard to you." He should perform the rite of chalitzah and pay [her the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah.26
"May you see your children [father] children, and may there be peace over Israel."27
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
The husband is not required to pay his wife the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, because their marriage agreement is considered to be a mekach ta'ut, an agreement entered into under false premises. For he did not expect to marry a woman bound by such vows. Nevertheless, in contrast to the law stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 6, in this instance - since the husband did not make an explicit statement to this effect when he consecrated the woman - he is required to divorce her formally.
|
| 2. |
These vows are considered by Ketubot 72b to cause innui nefesh, "the oppression of the soul." When a woman is bound by these restrictions, she will be depressed, and she will not be pleasant company for her husband. Hence, he is entitled to divorce her.
|
| 3. |
See Chapter 7, Halachah 7. In the instance described in the present halachah, a divorce is necessary because the husband did not make an explicit statement of intent.
|
| 4. |
The intent is epileptic fits that follow a set pattern. At these times the woman will not go out in public, and her affliction will therefore not be known.
|
| 5. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 117:5) follows the Rambam's rulings. Rabbenu Asher follows the other opinion that the Rambam mentioned. It is also cited by the Ramah (loc. cit.).
|
| 6. |
E.g., a blemish on her face that her prospective husband obviously must have seen.
|
| 7. |
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 117:8) quotes opinions that maintain that if the father issues a definite claim, the burden of proof is on the husband.
|
| 8. |
The Rambam's wording literally means "his field became flooded." The intent is that the woman had already become his wife, and her suffering the blemish is his loss.
|
| 9. |
The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that, as evident from the rationale the Rambam gives, what is important is that the couple engage in relations. For then we may assume that the husband looked at his wife's body first. The Rambam mentions waiting several days only to show that even if he waited - and thus it would appear that there is some basis to his claim - his words are disregarded.
|
| 10. |
The Rambam is obviously using a euphemism. The intent is that a husband will not enter into relations until he has looked at his wife's body.
|
| 11. |
The Maggid Mishneh notes the similarity to the laws regarding a husband's claim that his wife was not a virgin, as mentioned in Chapter 11, Halachah 15.
|
| 12. |
In that source (Chapter 4, Halachah 16), the Rambam states that the woman must insert a cloth into her vagina before relations and inspect it to make sure that there is no sign of bleeding. Similarly, after relations, both she and her husband must wipe themselves with cloths and check whether there is any sign of bleeding.
The Rambam's opinion is not accepted by all other authorities. Although his view is mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 186:2), the Shulchan Aruch favors the view that requires such an inspection only on the first three occasions of intercourse after marriage.
|
| 13. |
Since the inspection was made directly after relations, we assume that she menstruated in the midst of the relations. It is forbidden to continue relations in such a situation.
|
| 14. |
Although there are authorities who maintain that she is entitled to the additional amount, the Rambam (and similarly, the Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 117:1) frees the husband of the obligation. The rationale is that in contrast to an aylonit, he is forbidden to have relations with her. And in contrast to a sh'niyah, he could not have known that this condition existed beforehand. Hence, he is not obligated at all.
|
| 15. |
The recurrence of this phenomenon on three consecutive occasions is considered to be achazakah, causing us to presume that the woman will continue to experience menstrual bleeding in the midst of relations. Hence, these relations are forbidden.
|
| 16. |
I.e., the husband might consider his divorce as if it were made conditionally - i.e., that if her condition heals, it is not effective. For this reason, it is made clear that he may never marry her again.
|
| 17. |
For the sexual experience is different with each man, and it is possible that she will not menstruate in the midst of relations with another man. If, however, this occurs three times, with three different men, she is no longer permitted to marry.
|
| 18. |
Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 4:21.
|
| 19. |
Since there was no difficulty at the time of marriage, it is the husband who bears the burden of the loss. (See Halachah 4.)
|
| 20. |
If, however, he becomes blinded in both eyes, or both his hands are cut off, he is compelled to divorce his wife (Ramah, Even HaEzer 154:4).
|
| 21. |
As explained in Chapter 14, Halachah 8, above.
|
| 22. |
If, before marriage, his prospective bride knew that he had these difficulties, or was involved in these professions and married him nevertheless, they are not considered to be grounds for divorce (Ramah, Even HaEzer 154:1).
|
| 23. |
All these professions cause a man to have a foul odor.
|
| 24. |
Although divorce proceedings must be commenced by the man, in these and certain other situations the court compels a man to commence these proceedings.
|
| 25. |
Here, the intent is not leprosy as described in the Torah (tzara'at), but rather the illness that is referred to as leprosy in contemporary terms.
|
| 26. |
I.e., pay this money from her deceased husband's estate.
|
| 27. |
This verse is lacking in all manuscript copies and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. It appears to be a printer's addition so that the text will conclude on a positive note. (The connection to the previous subject is based on the exegesis of the verse in Ketubot 50a.)
We find several halachot of the Mishneh Torah in which the Rambam concludes with a thought whose relevance goes beyond that of the laws that he outlined in that work, and others like this text, that conclude with the final relevant law without adding such thoughts.
|
• Sunday, Adar 10, 5775 · 03/01/2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Tetzaveh, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 55-59.
Tanya: The cause being (p. 125)..."The flesh of man." (p. 125).
At birkat hamazon, before washing the fingers,1 say al naharot bavel, lamnatzei'ach bin'ginot, avarcha, zeh cheilek (p. 88).
When tachanun is not said, say shir hamaalot b'shuv, livnei korach, avarcha, zeh cheilek.
After washing the fingers say vay'dabeir eilai (p. 89).
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayikra, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 55-59.
Tanya: Something of this (p. 165)...of the Torah. (p. 167).
Before embarking on a journey from your place of residence, arrange a Chassidicfarbrengen and receive a parting blessing from your good friends, and as the familiar expression goes: Chassidim never say farewell, for they never depart from each other. Wherever they are, they are one family.
Daily Thought:
Unimaginable Journeys
Each journey the soul travels takes her higher.
Some journeys are painful, but with purpose. The purpose overwhelms the pain and transforms it into joy.
Some journeys are painful, but with no purpose in sight. There is no medicine to wash away the pain.
There is no medicine, other than the faith that every journey the soul travels takes her higher. Some so much higher, she cannot even imagine their meaning. Until she arrives.[Likutei Sichot, vol. 14, pg. 325. Vayishlach 5714:2-6. Shmot 5719:3-4.]
____________________________
Nice article. What about ezTalks for your free video conferencing?
ReplyDeleteezTalks Cloud Meetings is the lifetime free use service which allows you to host meetings with up to 100 participants for free in lifetime period. It offers full featured functions including Group Video/Audio Chat
Screen Sharing,Annotation,WhiteBoard, IM for Group/Private Chat,Recording, Playback and more.
Details pls visit www.eztalks.com
alternative to webex
gotomeeting alternatives
group video call apps
gotomeeting free alternative
alternatives to webex
alternatives to webex
online group chat
google screen share