Today's Laws & Customs:
• Today's 'Nasi': Shimon
In today's "Nasi" reading (see "Nasi of the Day" in Nissan 1), we read of the gift bought by the nasi of the tribe of Shimon, Shlumiel ben Tzurishadai, for theinauguration of the Mishkan.
Text of today's Nasi in Hebrew and English.
Today in Jewish History:
• Spies to Jericho (1273 BCE)
Two days before the conclusion of the thirty-day mourning period following the passing of Moses on Adar 7 (see Jewish History for the 7th of Nissan), Joshuadispatched two scouts--Caleb and Pinchas--across the Jordan River to Jericho, to gather intelligence in preparation of the Israelites' battle with the first city in their conquest of the Holy Land. In Jericho, they were assisted and hidden by Rahab, a woman who lived inside the city walls. (Rahab later married Joshua).
Link:
The Two Spies
Daily Quote:
Life is dependent on the air around us, and the quality of life is dependent on the quality of air. In an atmosphere of Torah and mitzvot there is healthy life. The first general step in healing is to purify the atmosphere, and is effected through the letters of Torah. When speaking words of Torah while in the store or walking in the street or riding the subway, one purifies the air...[Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak of Lubavitch]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Tzav, 4th Portion Leviticus 8:1-8:13 with Rashi
• Chapter 8
1And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, אוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
2Take Aaron and his sons with him, and the garments, and the anointing oil, and the sin offering bull, and the two rams, and the basket of unleavened bread, בקַח אֶת אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת בָּנָיו אִתּוֹ וְאֵת הַבְּגָדִים וְאֵת שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וְאֵת | פַּר הַחַטָּאת וְאֵת שְׁנֵי הָאֵילִים וְאֵת סַל הַמַּצּוֹת:
Take Aaron: This section was stated seven days before the erection of the Sanctuary, [and should have been stated earlier in Exod. Parashath Pekudei , which discusses the erection and consecration processes. [However], there is no [sequence of] earlier and later events in the Torah [i.e., Scripture does not always follow chronological order]. קח את אהרן: פרשה זו נאמרה שבעת ימים קודם הקמת המשכן, שאין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה:
Take Aaron: Take him over with [persuasive] words and attract him. — [Torath Kohanim 8:165] קח את אהרן: קחנו בדברים ומשכהו:
and the sin-offering bull [and the two rams, and the basket of unleavened bread]: [Which sin-offering bull, two rams, etc?] These are the ones mentioned in the section dealing with the command of the investitures in [parashath] וְאַתָּה תְּצַוֶּה, (Exod. Chapter 29), and now, on the first day of the investitures, He came back and urged him [in the matter] at the time they were to be put into practice. ואת פר החטאת וגו': אלו האמורים בענין צוואת המלואים בואתה תצוה, ועכשיו ביום ראשון למלואים חזר וזרזו בשעת מעשה:
3And assemble the entire community at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. גוְאֵת כָּל הָעֵדָה הַקְהֵל אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד:
Assemble [the entire community] at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting: This is one of the instances where a small [area] accommodated a large [number of people]. — [Lev. Rabbah 10:9] הקהל אל פתח אהל מועד: זה אחד מן המקומות שהחזיק מועט את המרובה:
4And Moses did as the Lord had commanded him, and the community assembled at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. דוַיַּעַשׂ משֶׁה כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֹתוֹ וַתִּקָּהֵל הָעֵדָה אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד:
5And Moses said to the community: This is the thing the Lord has commanded to do. הוַיֹּאמֶר משֶׁה אֶל הָעֵדָה זֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה לַעֲשׂוֹת:
This is the thing [the Lord has commanded to do]: [Moses said to Israel:] “The things you will see me doing before you, have all been commanded to me by the Holy One, blessed is He, that they be done; so do not say that I am doing them for my own honor or for my brother’s honor!” I have explained the entire passage involving the investitures in [parashath] וְאַתָּה תְּצַוֶּה (Exod. 29). זה הדבר: דברים שתראו שאני עושה לפניכם צוני הקב"ה לעשות, ואל תאמרו לכבודי ולכבוד אחי אני עושה. כל הענין הזה פירשתי בואתה תצוה:
6And Moses brought Aaron and his sons forward and bathed them in water. ווַיַּקְרֵב משֶׁה אֶת אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת בָּנָיו וַיִּרְחַץ אֹתָם בַּמָּיִם:
7And he placed the tunic upon him [Aaron], girded him with the sash, clothed him with the robe, placed the ephod upon him, girded him with the band of the ephod, and adorned him with it. זוַיִּתֵּן עָלָיו אֶת הַכֻּתֹּנֶת וַיַּחְגֹּר אֹתוֹ בָּאַבְנֵט וַיַּלְבֵּשׁ אֹתוֹ אֶת הַמְּעִיל וַיִּתֵּן עָלָיו אֶת הָאֵפֹד וַיַּחְגֹּר אֹתוֹ בְּחֵשֶׁב הָאֵפֹד וַיֶּאְפֹּד לוֹ בּוֹ:
8And he placed the choshen upon him, and he inserted into the choshen the Urim and the Tummim. חוַיָּשֶׂם עָלָיו אֶת הַחשֶׁן וַיִּתֵּן אֶל הַחשֶׁן אֶת הָאוּרִים וְאֶת הַתֻּמִּים:
The Urim: An inscription bearing the explicit Name of God. את האורים: כתב של שם המפורש:
9And he placed the cap on his [Aaron's] head, and he placed on the cap, towards his face, the golden showplate, the holy crown, as the Lord had commanded Moses. טוַיָּשֶׂם אֶת הַמִּצְנֶפֶת עַל רֹאשׁוֹ וַיָּשֶׂם עַל הַמִּצְנֶפֶת אֶל מוּל פָּנָיו אֵת צִיץ הַזָּהָב נֵזֶר הַקֹּדֶשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה:
and he placed on the cap: The sky-blue cords affixed to the showplate he placed over the cap. Thus the showplate was suspended on (עַל) the cap. וישם על המצנפת: פתילי תכלת הקבועים בציץ נתן על המצנפת, נמצא הציץ תלוי במצנפת:
10And Moses took the anointing oil and anointed the Sanctuary and everything in it and sanctified them. יוַיִּקַּח משֶׁה אֶת שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וַיִּמְשַׁח אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְאֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ וַיְקַדֵּשׁ אֹתָם:
11And he sprinkled from it upon the altar seven times, and he anointed the altar and all its vessels and the washstand and its base, to sanctify them. יאוַיַּז מִמֶּנּוּ עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים וַיִּמְשַׁח אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְאֶת כָּל כֵּלָיו וְאֶת הַכִּיֹּר וְאֶת כַּנּוֹ לְקַדְּשָׁם:
And he sprinkled from it upon the altar: I do not know where [in Scripture] he was commanded to perform these sprinklings. ויז ממנו על המזבח: לא ידעתי היכן נצטוה בהזאות הללו:
12And he poured some of the anointing oil upon Aaron's head, and he anointed him to sanctify him. יבוַיִּצֹק מִשֶּׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה עַל רֹאשׁ אַהֲרֹן וַיִּמְשַׁח אֹתוֹ לְקַדְּשׁוֹ:
And he poured…and anointed [him]: At first, he [Moses] poured [the oil] on his [Aaron’s] head, and afterwards, he placed it between his eyelids, and drew it with his finger, from one [eyelid] to the other. — [Ker. 5b] ויצק, וימשח: בתחלה יוצק על ראשו, ואחר כך נותן בין ריסי עיניו ומושך באצבעו מזה לזה:
13And Moses brought Aaron's sons forward and clothed them with tunics, girded them with sashes, and bound them up with high hats, as the Lord had commanded Moses. יגוַיַּקְרֵב משֶׁה אֶת בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן וַיַּלְבִּשֵׁם כֻּתֳּנֹת וַיַּחְגֹּר אֹתָם אַבְנֵט וַיַּחֲבשׁ לָהֶם מִגְבָּעוֹת כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה:
and bound them up: Heb. וַיַַַּחִבשׁ, an expression denoting binding. ויחבש: לשון קשירה:Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 29 - 34
• Chapter 29
The Name of God appears eighteen times in this psalm, corresponding to which our Sages established eighteen blessings-the Amidah. The entire psalm can be interpreted as referring to the giving of the Torah and the ingathering of the exiles.
1. A psalm by David. Render to the Lord, children of the mighty, render to the Lord honor and strength.
2. Render to the Lord the honor due to His Name; bow down to the Lord in resplendent holiness.
3. The voice of the Lord is over the waters, the God of glory thunders; the Lord is over mighty waters.
4. The voice of the Lord resounds with might; the voice of the Lord resounds with majesty.
5. The voice of the Lord breaks cedars; the Lord shatters the cedars of Lebanon.
6. He makes them leap like a calf, Lebanon and Sirion like a young wild ox.
7. The voice of the Lord strikes flames of fire.
8. The voice of the Lord makes the desert tremble; the Lord causes the desert of Kadesh to tremble.
9. The voice of the Lord causes the does to calve, and strips the forests bare; and in His Sanctuary all proclaim His glory.
10. The Lord sat [as King] at the Flood; the Lord will sit as King forever.
11. The Lord will give strength to His people; the Lord will bless His people with peace.
Chapter 30
This psalm teaches one not to be distressed if God visits suffering upon him in this world, for only through suffering can one enter the World to Come. Even one of great spiritual stature should realize that his stability is not guaranteed, but that all is in the hands of God.
1. A psalm, a song of dedication of the House, by David.
2. I exalt You, Lord, for You have uplifted me, and did not allow my enemies to rejoice over me.
3. Lord, my God, I cried out to You, and You healed me.
4. Lord, You have brought up my soul from the grave; You have kept me alive, that I should not descend to the pit.
5. Sing to the Lord, you His pious ones, and praise His holy Name.
6. For His wrath endures but for a moment, when He is conciliated there is [long] life; when one retires at night weeping, joy will come in the morning.
7. In my security I thought, "I shall never falter.”
8. Lord, by Your favor You have made my mountain stand strong; when You concealed Your countenance I was alarmed.
9. I called to You, O Lord, and I made supplication to my Lord:
10. What profit is there in my death, in my going down to the grave? Can dust praise You? Can it proclaim Your truth
11. Lord, hear and be gracious to me; Lord, be a help to me.
12. You have turned my mourning into dancing; You have undone my sackcloth and girded me with joy.
13. Therefore my soul shall sing to You, and not be silent; Lord my God, I will praise You forever.
Chapter 31
Composed by a destitute and oppressed David, running from Saul while placing his trust in God, this psalm instructs man to put his trust in God alone.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. In You I have taken shelter, O Lord, I shall never be shamed; rescue me in Your righteousness.
3. Turn Your ear to me, save me quickly; be to me a rock of refuge, a fortress to deliver me.
4. For You are my rock and my fortress; for the sake of Your Name, direct me and lead me.
5. Remove me from the net they planted for me, for You are my stronghold.
6. I entrust my spirit into Your hand; You will redeem me, Lord, God of truth.
7. I despise those who anticipate worthless vanities; but I trust in the Lord.
8. I will rejoice and delight in Your kindness, for You have seen my affliction; You know the troubles of my soul.
9. You have not delivered me into the hand of the enemy; You have set my feet on spacious ground.
10. Be gracious to me, O Lord, for I am in distress; my eye wastes away from vexation-my soul and my stomach.
11. For my life is spent in sorrow, my years in sighing; my strength fails because of my iniquity, and my bones are wasted away.
12. Because of my adversaries I have become a disgrace-exceedingly to my neighbors, and a dread to my friends; those who see me outside flee from me.
13. Like a dead man, I was forgotten from the heart; I became like a lost vessel.
14. For I have heard the slander of many, terror on every side, when they assembled together against me and plotted to take my life.
15. But I trusted in You, O Lord; I said, "You are my God.”
16. My times are in Your hand; save me from the hands of my enemies and pursuers.
17. Shine Your countenance upon Your servant; deliver me in Your kindness.
18. O Lord, let me not be ashamed, for I have called You; let the wicked be shamed, let them be silent to the grave.
19. Let the lips of falsehood-which speak insolently against the righteous, with arrogance and contempt-be struck dumb.
20. How abundant is Your good that You have hidden for those who fear You; in the presence of man, You have acted for those who take refuge in You.
21. Conceal them from the haughtiness of man, in the shelter of Your countenance; hide them in a shelter from the strife of tongues.
22. Blessed is the Lord, for He has been wondrous in His kindness to me in a besieged city.
23. I said in my panic, "I am cut off from before Your eyes!" But in truth, You heard the voice of my pleas when I cried to You.
24. Love the Lord, all His pious ones! The Lord preserves the faithful, and repays with exactness those who act haughtily.
25. Be strong and fortify your hearts, all who put their hope in the Lord!
Chapter 32
This psalm speaks of forgiveness of sin, and of the good fortune of one who repents and confesses to God wholeheartedly.
1. By David, a maskil.1Fortunate is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
2. Fortunate is the man to whom the Lord does not reckon his sin, and in whose spirit there is no deceit.
3. When I was silent, my limbs wore away through my wailing all day long.
4. For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me; my marrow became [dry] as the droughts of summer, Selah.
5. My sin I made known to You, my iniquity I did not cover. I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord," and You have forgiven the iniquity of my transgression forever.
6. For this let every pious man pray to You, at a time when You may be found; indeed, the flood of many waters will not reach him.
7. You are a refuge to me; protect me from distress; surround me with songs of deliverance forever.
8. I will enlighten you and educate you in the path you should go; I will advise you with what I have seen.
9. Be not like a horse, like a mule, senseless, that must be muzzled with bit and bridle when being adorned, so that it not come near you.
10. Many are the agonies of the wicked, but he who trusts in the Lord is surrounded by kindness.
11. Rejoice in the Lord and exult, you righteous ones! Sing joyously, all you upright of heart!
Chapter 33
This psalm teaches the righteous and upright to praise God. For the more one knows of the Torah's wisdom, the more should he praise God, for he knows and understands His greatness.
1. Sing joyously to the Lord, you righteous ones; it is fitting for the upright to offer praise.
2. Extol the Lord with a harp; sing to Him with a ten-stringed lyre.
3. Sing to Him a new song; play well with sounds of jubilation.
4. For the word of the Lord is just; all His deeds are done in faithfulness.
5. He loves righteousness and justice; the kindness of the Lord fills the earth.
6. By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts.
7. He gathers the waters of the sea like a mound; He places the deep waters in vaults.
8. Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world tremble before Him.
9. For He spoke, and it came to be; He commanded, and it endured.
10. The Lord has annulled the counsel of nations; He has foiled the schemes of peoples.
11. The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the thoughts of His heart throughout all generations.
12. Fortunate is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people He chose as a heritage for Himself.
13. The Lord looks down from heaven; He beholds all mankind.
14. From His dwelling-place He looks intently upon all the inhabitants of the earth.
15. It is He Who fashions the hearts of them all, Who perceives all their actions.
16. The king is not saved by a great army, nor a warrior rescued by great might.
17. The horse is a false guarantee for victory; with all its great strength it offers no escape.
18. But the eye of the Lord is directed toward those who fear Him, toward those who hope for His kindness,
19. to save their soul from death and to sustain them during famine.
20. Our soul yearns for the Lord; He is our help and our shield.
21. For our heart shall rejoice in Him, for we have put our trust in His Holy Name.
22. May Your kindness, Lord, be upon us, as we have placed our hope in You.
Chapter 34
This psalm tells of when David was in grave danger while at the palace of Achish, brother of Goliath. David acted like a madman, letting spittle run down his beard, and writing on the doors: "Achish, king of Gath, owes me one hundred thousand gold coins," leading Achish to eject him from the palace. In his joy, David composed this psalm in alphabetical sequence.
1. By David, when he feigned insanity before Avimelech,1 who then drove him away, and he left.
2. I bless the Lord at all times; His praise is always in my mouth.
3. My soul glories in the Lord; let the humble hear it and rejoice.
4. Exalt the Lord with me, and let us extol His Name together.
5. I sought the Lord and He answered me; He delivered me from all my fears.
6. Those who look to Him are radiant; their faces are never humiliated.
7. This poor man called, and the Lord heard; He delivered him from all his tribulations.
8. The angel of the Lord camps around those who fear Him, and rescues them.
9. Taste and see that the Lord is good; fortunate is the man who trusts in Him.
10. Fear the Lord, you His holy ones, for those who fear Him suffer no want.
11. Young lions may want and hunger, but those who seek the Lord shall not lack any good thing.
12. Come, children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord.
13. Who is the man who desires life, who loves long life wherein to see goodness?
14. Guard your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit.
15. Turn away from evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it.
16. The eyes of the Lord are directed toward the righteous, and His ears toward their cry.
17. The wrath of the Lord is upon the evildoers, to excise their memory from the earth.
18. But when they [repent and] cry out, the Lord hears, and saves them from all their troubles.
19. The Lord is close to the broken-hearted, and saves those with a crushed spirit.
20. Many are the afflictions of a righteous person, but the Lord rescues him from them all.
21. He protects all his bones; not one of them is broken.
22. Evil brings death upon the wicked, and the enemies of the righteous are condemned.
23. The Lord redeems the soul of His servants; all who take shelter in Him are not condemned.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 38• Lessons in Tanya
• Wednesday, Nissan 5, 5775 · March 25, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 38
ולא שדבקות המחשבה ושכל האדם בו יתברך היא מצד עצמה למעלה מדבקות קיום המצות מעשיות בפועל ממש
It is not that attachment of man’s thought and intellect to G‑d is intrinsically superior to attachment through the actual, practical fulfillment of the mitzvotdependent on action —
כמו שכתוב לקמן
for as will be explained further on the unity with G‑d achieved by performance of mitzvotis described in the same terms as the unity of husband and wife — “kiddushin”, as we say in the blessing preceding the fulfillment of a mitzvah: “...G‑d,... Who sanctified us (קדשנו) with His commandments....” Naturally, man cannot attain this degree of unity with G‑d by his own efforts. It is only by G‑d’s kindness in charging us with the mitzvot that we become united with Him thereby.
Obviously, the quality of man’s attachment to G‑d through kavanah cannot surpass that of the performance of mitzvot, which possesses the G‑d-given ability to unite man with Him. Where, then, lies the superiority of kavanah over actual performance of mitzvot (described earlier as paralleling the superiority of soul over body)?
The Alter Rebbe now goes on to say that, like the actual mitzvot themselves, man’skavanah in performing them expresses G‑d’s Will. It is the illumination of Divine Will contained in kavanah that is superior. In the Alter Rebbe’s words:
אלא מפני שזהו גם כן רצונו יתברך, לדבקה בשכל ומחשבה וכוונת המצות מעשיות ובכוונת קריאת שמע ותפלה ושאר ברכות
Rather kavanah is superior because this, too, is G‑d’s Will — that one attach himself to Him by intellect and thought, and [by] the kavanah of the activemitzvot, and by one’s kavanah during the recital of Shema, and in prayer and other blessings;
והארת רצון העליון הזה המאירה ומלובשת בכוונה זו
and the illumination of the Supernal Will that radiates and is clothed in thiskavanah
היא גדולה לאין קץ למעלה מעלה מהארת רצון העליון המאירה ומלובשת בקיום המצות עצמן במעשה ובדבור בלי כוונה
is infinitely greater and loftier than the illumination of the Supernal Will that radiates and is clothed in the performance of the mitzvot themselves, in action and speech, without kavanah.
כגודל מעלת אור הנשמה על הגוף שהוא כלי ומלבוש הנשמה, כמו גוף המצוה עצמה שהוא כלי ומלבוש לכוונתה
This superiority of kavanah is similar to the superiority of the light of the soul over the body, which is a vessel and garment for the soul — just as the body of the actual mitzvah is a vessel and garment for its kavanah. For this reason, then, the performance of a mitzvah is likened to a body, and its kavanah to a soul.
ואף שבשתיהן, במצוה ובכוונתה, מלובש רצון אחד, פשוט בתכלית הפשיטות בלי שום שינוי וריבוי, חס ושלום, ומיוחד במהותו ועצמותו יתברך בתכלית היחוד
True, although both the actual mitzvah and its kavanah contain the same [Supernal] Will, which is perfectly simple, i.e., changeless and indivisible so that it cannot be said that kavanah contains “more” of G‑d’s Will and performance contains “less”,and [this Will] is united with G‑d’s essence and being in perfect unity,
אף על פי כן ההארה אינה שוה בבחינת צמצום והתפשטות
nevertheless, the illumination of the Supernal Will in one’s soul is different in terms of its contraction and expansion.*
In the performance of a mitzvah this illumination is in a state of “contraction”; one’s attachment to G‑d’s Will is not readily apparent. In the kavanah, however, the illumination is in a state of “expansion” and revelation in one’s soul: here, clearly, one’s thought and intellect are attached to G‑d.
*NOTE
In the note which follows, the Alter Rebbe traces the difference between mitzvot and theirkavanah to their source in the Supernal Sefirot.
Each Sefirah consists of an or, a “light”, and a keli, a vessel or receptacle for the or. Thekelim of the Sefirot have a well-defined character: one is Chochmah, another Binah, and so forth. The orot, however, are G‑dly energy, “simple” in the sense that they are devoid of definition, unlimited, and not restricted to any specific character.
Restated, this means that kelim are “contracted” and limited, while “orot” are “expanded” and unconfined — the very traits that differentiate between mitzvot and their kavanah.
הגהה
וכמו שכתוב בעץ חיים שכוונת המצות ותלמוד תורה היא במדרגת אור, וגוף המצות הן מדרגות ובחינת כלים
It is also so explained in Etz Chayim that kavanah in mitzvot and in Torah study is on the level of “light”, while the “body” i.e., performance of the mitzvot is the level and category of “vessels”.
שהם בחינת צמצום, שעל ידי צמצום האור נתהוו הכלים
These [vessels] represent “contraction”, for it is through contraction of the light that the vessels came into being,
כידוע ליודעי ח"ן
as is known to those familiar with the Kabbalah (lit., “esoteric wisdom”).
Similarly, the difference between mitzvot and their kavanah is one of contraction and expansion respectively, as explained above.
END OF NOTE
The Alter Rebbe now expands the analogy of body and soul to mitzvot and kavanah. He states that just as in the analogy all existence is classified into four categories, with two of them (mineral and vegetable) belonging in turn to the broader category of “body-beings”, and two (animal and man) to the broader category of “soul-beings”, so it is also with regard to mitzvotand kavanah.
The Alter Rebbe now resumes the thought intercepted by the above Note.
ונחלקת גם כן לארבע מדרגות
They, too (the mitzvot and their kavanah), are differentiated into four levels.
כי גוף המצות עצמן ממש הן ב׳ מדרגות, שהן מצות מעשיות ממש
For the “body” of the mitzvot themselves comprises two levels, namely, mitzvotconsisting of real action (as opposed to speech, which is merely “regarded as action”),
ומצות התלויות בדבור ומחשבה, כמו תלמוד תורה וקריאת שמע ותפלה וברכת המזון ושאר ברכות
and mitzvot performed with speech and thought, such as Torah study, reciting the Shema, praying, saying the grace after meals, and other blessings. Both these levels — (a) action, and (b) thought and speech — are subdivisions of the category of the “body” of mitzvot.
וכוונת המצות, לדבקה בו יתברך, שהיא כנשמה לגוף
The kavanah of mitzvot, i.e., one’s intention to attach oneself to G‑d by performing themitzvah, this (the kavanah) being like a soul for the body of the mitzvah,
נחלקת גם כן לשתי מדרגות, כמו שתי מדרגות הנשמה שהן בגוף החומרי שהן חי ומדבר
is likewise divided into two levels — corresponding to the two levels of soul found in material bodies, namely (a) in animals, and (b) in man.
The Alter Rebbe now goes on to discuss two levels in kavanah, the higher one of which is comparable to the soul of man, and the lower to the soul of animals.
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
Wednesday, Nissan 5, 5775 · March 25, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 101
Slaughtering an Animal and its Offspring on the Same Day
"You shall not slaughter it and its child on the same day"—Leviticus 22:28.
It is forbidden to slaughter an animal and its offspring on the same day—even if offered as a sacrifice to G‑d.
Slaughtering an Animal and its Offspring on the Same Day
Negative Commandment 101
Translated by Berel Bell
The 101st prohibition is that we are forbidden from slaughtering an animal and her child on the same day. This applies both to sanctified and non-sanctified animals.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not slaughter an animal and her child on the same day."
One who transgressed this prohibition and slaughtered them is punished by lashes.
The details of this mitzvah are fully explained in the fifth chapter of tractate Chulin.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 22:28.
Berachot - Chapter Eleven
Halacha 1
All blessings begin with "Blessed [are You, God...]" and conclude with "Blessed [are You, God...]," with the exception of the blessing after the recitation of theShema, blessings that come in succession to each other, the blessings over fruit and the like, the blessings over the fulfillment of the mitzvot, and the blessings that we have mentioned which are expressions of praise and thanks. The [latter blessings] include some that begin with "Blessed [are You, God...]" and do not conclude with "Blessed [are You, God...]" and others that conclude with "Blessed [are You, God...]" but do not begin with "Blessed [are You, God...]."
[There are certain exceptions to these rules,] for example, a small number of blessings over the mitzvot, such as the blessing recited [when reading from] a Torah scroll and [some of the blessings recited as an expression of praise and thanks;] for example, the blessing recited when one sees Jewish graves. The rest of the blessings over mitzvot begin with "Blessed [are You, God...]" and do not conclude [with "Blessed are You, God...].
Halacha 2
There are positive commandments that a person is obligated to make an effort to pursue [their fulfillment] until he performs them - for example, tefillin, sukkah,lulav, and shofar. These are referred to as obligations, since a person is obligated to fulfill them.
There are other mitzvot that are not obligations, but resemble voluntary activities - for example, [the mitzvot of] mezuzah and constructing a guardrail. A person is not obligated to dwell in a house that requires a mezuzah [just in order] to fulfill this mitzvah. Instead, if he desires, he can dwell in a tent or a ship for his entire life. Similarly, he does not have to build a house [just] in order to build a guardrail.
A blessing should be recited before fulfilling all positive commandments that are between man and God, whether they are mitzvot that are obligatory or are not obligatory.
Halacha 3
Similarly, with regard to all the Rabbinic mitzvot - both the mitzvot that the Rabbis established as obligations - e.g., reading the megillah, lighting Shabbat candles, and lighting Chanukah candles - and the mitzvot that are not obligations - e.g., an eruv or washing hands - one should recite a blessing before performing them, [praising God] "who has sanctified us with Your commandments and commanded us….”
Where has He commanded us [to fulfill these commandments]? In the Torah, which states [Deuteronomy 17:11]: "Act [according to the judgment] they relate to you." [Based on this Biblical verse, the blessing recited before fulfilling a Rabbinical commandment] can be interpreted as follows: Who has sanctified us with Your commandments and commanded us to listen to these [sages] who have commanded us to light Chanukah candles or read the megillah. The same applies regarding all Rabbinic commandments.
Halacha 4
Why do we not recite a blessing before washing our hands after [eating]? Because the Sages obligated us [to do] this only because of danger. Blessings are not recited over an [obligation that was instituted] because of danger.
To what can this be compared? To someone who strains drinking water at night because of the danger of leeches. [Surely,] he does not recite a blessing, [praising God,] "who commanded us to strain water." The same applies in all similar situations.
Halacha 5
[The following rules apply when] a person performs a mitzvah, but does not recite a blessing: If the fulfillment of the mitzvah still continues, he may recite the blessing even though he already performed it. If the mitzvah is a deed that is completed, he should not recite a blessing.
What is implied? When a person wrapped himself in tzitzit, donned tefillin, or sat in a sukkah without reciting a blessing at the outset, after wrapping himself [intzitzit] he should recite the blessing "... who commanded us to wrap ourselves intzitzit"; after donning [tefillin], he should recite the blessing "... who commanded us to put on tefillin"; after sitting [in the sukkah], he should recite the blessing "... who commanded us to sit in the sukkah." The same applies in all similar situations.
Halacha 6
In contrast, if a person slaughtered [an animal] without reciting a blessing, he should not recite the blessing "... who sanctified us with Your commandments and commanded us concerning slaughter," after the slaughter [is completed]. Similarly, if he covered [a fowl's] blood, separated terumah or the tithes, or immersed himself without reciting a blessing beforehand, he should not recite a blessing afterwards. The same applies in all similar situations.
Halacha 7
There is no mitzvah for which the blessing should be recited after its fulfillment, with the exception of the immersion of a convert. [In this instance, the exception was made] because he could not say, "who sanctified us with Your commandments and commanded us." Until [the convert] immersed himself, he was neither sanctified nor commanded. Therefore, he recites the blessing over the immersion [only] after immersing himself. [This is allowed] since at the outset, he was unfit and unable to recite the blessing.
Halacha 8
Whenever the performance of a mitzvah constitutes the completion of one's obligation, he should recite the blessing before performing it. When, however, there is another commandment that follows the performance of a particular mitzvah, the blessing should not be recited until the other mitzvah is performed.
What is implied? When a person makes a sukkah, a lulav, a shofar, tzitzit,tefillin, or a mezuzah, he should not recite a blessing at the time he made [them]: [praising God for] "sanctifying us with Your commandments and commanding us to make a sukkah" or "a lulav," or "to write tefillin," because there is another commandment that follows this action.
When is the blessing recited? When one sits in the sukkah, shakes the lulav, hears the sounding of the shofar, wraps oneself in tzitzit, dons tefillin, or affixes the mezuzah. In contrast, when one constructs a guardrail, before constructing it one should recite the blessing "...who has sanctified us with Your commandments and commanded us to construct a guardrail." The same applies in all similar situations.
Halacha 9
The blessing shehecheyanu is recited:
[before] fulfilling every mitzvah that we are obligated to fulfill only at a specific time - e.g., shofar, sukkah, lulav, reading the Megillah, and [lighting] Chanukah candles,
[before fulfilling] every mitzvah that involves the acquisition of property - e.g.,tzitzit, tefillin, and a guardrail - and
[before fulfilling] every mitzvah that we are obligated to fulfill infrequently - for this resembles a mitzvah we are obligated to fulfill only at a specific time - e.g., circumcising one's son and redeeming him.
[before] fulfilling every mitzvah that we are obligated to fulfill only at a specific time - e.g., shofar, sukkah, lulav, reading the Megillah, and [lighting] Chanukah candles,
[before fulfilling] every mitzvah that involves the acquisition of property - e.g.,tzitzit, tefillin, and a guardrail - and
[before fulfilling] every mitzvah that we are obligated to fulfill infrequently - for this resembles a mitzvah we are obligated to fulfill only at a specific time - e.g., circumcising one's son and redeeming him.
If one did not recite the blessing shehecheyanu when making a sukkah or alulav, one should recite this blessing when fulfilling the mitzvah. The same applies in other similar situations.
Halacha 10
Whether a person performs a mitzvah for himself or for a colleague, before performing the mitzvah, he should recite the blessing "... who has sanctified us with Your commandments and commanded us...." He should, however, recite the blessingshehecheyanu only on mitzvot that he is performing for himself.
If a person is [intending to] fulfill several mitzvot, he should not recite the blessing "... who has sanctified us with Your commandments and commanded us to fulfill the mitzvot ---." Instead, he should recite a blessing over each mitzvah individually.
Halacha 11
Whoever performs a mitzvah for his own sake, whether it is an obligation incumbent upon him or not, should recite a blessing, [praising God "who sanctified us with Your commandments and commanded us] to perform ----." In contrast, if he performs a mitzvah on behalf of another person, the form of the blessing is ["who sanctified us... and commanded us] concerning the performance of ----."
Halacha 12
What is implied? Before donning tefillin, one recites the blessing "... to put ontefillin"; before wrapping oneself in tzitzit, one recites the blessing "... to wrap..."; before sitting in the sukkah, one recites the blessing "...to sit in the sukkah." Similarly, one recites the blessings "... to kindle the Sabbath light," and "... to complete the Hallel."
Similarly, if one affixes a mezuzah on one's own house, one should recite the blessing "... to affix a mezuzah"; if one erects a guardrail on one's roof, one should recite the blessing "... to erect a guardrail." Should one separateterumah for oneself, one should recite the blessing "... to separate [terumah]." Should one circumcise one's own son, one should recite the blessing "... to circumcise [one's] son." Should one slaughter one's Paschal sacrifice or festive sacrifice, one recites the blessing "... to slaughter...."
Halacha 13
If, however, one affixes a mezuzah for others, one should recite the blessing "... concerning the affixing of a mezuzah." Should one construct a guardrail for others, one should recite the blessing "... concerning the building of a guardrail." Should one separate terumah for others, one should recite the blessing "... concerning the separation of terumah. Should one circumcise a colleague's son, one should recite the blessing "... concerning the circumcision." The same applies in all similar situations.
Halacha 14
[The following rules apply] when a person performs a mitzvah on his own behalf and on behalf of others simultaneously. If the mitzvah is not obligatory in nature, he should use the form "... concerning..." for the blessing. Therefore, one recites the blessing "... concerning the mitzvah of eruv."
If the mitzvah is obligatory and he had the intent of fulfilling his own obligation and that of the others, he should use the form "... to..." for the blessing. Therefore, one recites the blessing "... to hear the sound of the shofar."
Halacha 15
When one takes the lulav, one should recite the blessing "... concerning the taking of the lulav." [This form is used] because a person fulfills his obligation when he picks [the lulav] up. If one recites the blessing before taking the lulav, one should recite the blessing "... to take the lulav," as one recites the blessing "... to sit in the sukkah." From this, one derives the principle that a person who recites a blessing after performing [a mitzvah] blesses "... concerning..." [the mitzvah's] performance.
With regard to the washing of hands and ritual slaughter, since they are of a voluntary nature, even if a person slaughters on his own behalf, he should recite the blessings "... concerning slaughter," "... concerning the covering of the blood," and "... concerning the washing of hands."
Similarly, one recites the blessing "... concerning the destruction of chametz," whether one searches for leaven on one's own behalf or on behalf of others. [This form is used] because once a person resolves in his heart to nullify his ownership [over chametz], the mitzvah of destroying it is fulfilled even before one searches, as will be explained in its place.
Halacha 16
[A blessing is not recited over] all practices that are customs. [This applies] even to a custom established by the prophets - for example, taking the willow branches on the seventh day of Sukkot. Needless to say, a blessing is not recited over customs established by the Sages - e.g., reading Hallel on Rosh Chodesh and on the intermediate days of Pesach.
Similarly whenever there is a question whether a practice requires a blessing or not, it should be performed without reciting a blessing.
A person should always take care not to recite blessings that are not necessary, and should recite many blessings that are required. Thus, David declared [Psalms 145:2]: "I will bless you each day."
Commentary Halacha 1
All blessings begin with "Blessed [are You, God...]" - "our Lord and King of the universe..."
and conclude with "Blessed [are You, God...]" with the exception of the blessing after the recitation of the Shema - Although the Shema interposes between this blessing and the blessings that precede it, they are still considered as blessings that come in succession to each other. This same rule applies to other blessings, e.g., the blessings Yishtabach and Baruch she'amar and the blessings before and after Hallel.
blessings that come in succession to each other - In this instance, the phrase "Blessed..." which begins the first blessing in the succession, applies to the blessings that follow as well.
the blessings over fruit - See Chapters 8 and 9.
and the like - See Hilchot Tefilah, Chapter 7. The blessings mentioned there are equivalent to the blessings recited over fruit.
the blessings over the fulfillment of the mitzvot - These blessings are discussed in this chapter.
and the blessings that we have mentioned which are expressions of praise and thanks. - The blessings mentioned in the previous chapter.
The [latter blessings] include some that begin with "Blessed [are You, God...]" and do not conclude with "Blessed [are You, God...]" - Indeed, most of the blessings mentioned in the previous chapter are structured in this manner.
and others that conclude with "Blessed [are You, God...]" but do not begin with "Blessed [are You, God...]." - e.g., the blessing on rain mentioned in Halachah 5.
[There are certain exceptions - The bracketed additions are based on the commentary of the Kessef Mishneh.
to these rules,] - i.e., blessings from these categories that both begin and concluded with "Blessed are You...."
for example, a small number of blessings over the mitzvot, such as the blessing recited [when reading from] a Torah scroll - See Hilchot Tefillah12:5. Other examples are the blessings over the haftarah and the blessing over consecrating a wife.
and [some of the blessings recited as an expression of praise and thanks;] for example, the blessing recited when one sees Jewish graves. - See Chapter 10, Halachah 10. Other examples are Kiddush, Havdalah, and the blessing sanctifying the new moon.
The rest of the blessings over mitzvot begin with "Blessed [are You, God...]" and do not conclude [with "Blessed are You, God...]."
1. Tefillin represent a mitzvah that we are required to fulfill each day, whilesukkah, lulav, and shofar are fulfilled only on the holidays with which they are associated. By mentioning both these types of obligations, the Rambam expresses his point more clearly. It is, nevertheless, worthy of question why the Rambam lists the mitzvot of sukkah, lulav, and shofar in this order. In Hilchot Shofar V'Sukkah V'Lulav, he discusses them in a different order.
2. See Hilchot mezuzah 6:1. The Rambam lists ten qualifications a house must have to require a mezuzah. A person may choose to live in a house that does not fulfill all these requirements.
3. The Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 6:1) derives the obligation to recite a blessing before fulfilling mitzvot as follows: Exodus 24:12 establishes an equation between Torah study and the mitzvot. Therefore, since blessings are recited before Torah study (see Hilchot Tefillah 7:10), a blessing should also be recited before fulfilling a mitzvah. It must, however, be emphasized that this is an asmachtah and the obligation to recite these blessings originates in Rabbinic law and not in the Torah itself.
4. According to the Rambam, there is one exception to this principle: the ritual immersion of a convert, as explained in Halachah 7. Although other authorities maintain that the blessing before washing hands should be recited after washing and not beforehand, as mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 2, the Rambam does not agree, and requires that this blessing also be recited before fulfilling the mitzvah.
5. The Rambam's statements imply that a blessing should not be recited before fulfilling any of the mitzvot between man and man. The Rabbis have given several explanations why blessings are not recited before fulfilling such commandments:
a) A blessing is recited only when a person can fulfill a mitzvah on his own, without requiring the assistance of another person. Many of the mitzvot between man and man require a recipient - e.g., charity cannot be given without a poor man being willing to receive it, a lost object cannot be returned unless its owner accepts it (Rashba, Vol. I, Responsum 18).
b) Many of the mitzvot between man and man (e.g., visiting the sick, comforting mourners, giving charity) were instituted because of undesirable circumstances. Hence, it is not appropriate that a blessing be recited in connection with them (Rav David Avudraham).
1. Tefillin represent a mitzvah that we are required to fulfill each day, whilesukkah, lulav, and shofar are fulfilled only on the holidays with which they are associated. By mentioning both these types of obligations, the Rambam expresses his point more clearly. It is, nevertheless, worthy of question why the Rambam lists the mitzvot of sukkah, lulav, and shofar in this order. In Hilchot Shofar V'Sukkah V'Lulav, he discusses them in a different order.
2. See Hilchot mezuzah 6:1. The Rambam lists ten qualifications a house must have to require a mezuzah. A person may choose to live in a house that does not fulfill all these requirements.
3. The Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 6:1) derives the obligation to recite a blessing before fulfilling mitzvot as follows: Exodus 24:12 establishes an equation between Torah study and the mitzvot. Therefore, since blessings are recited before Torah study (see Hilchot Tefillah 7:10), a blessing should also be recited before fulfilling a mitzvah. It must, however, be emphasized that this is an asmachtah and the obligation to recite these blessings originates in Rabbinic law and not in the Torah itself.
4. According to the Rambam, there is one exception to this principle: the ritual immersion of a convert, as explained in Halachah 7. Although other authorities maintain that the blessing before washing hands should be recited after washing and not beforehand, as mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 2, the Rambam does not agree, and requires that this blessing also be recited before fulfilling the mitzvah.
5. The Rambam's statements imply that a blessing should not be recited before fulfilling any of the mitzvot between man and man. The Rabbis have given several explanations why blessings are not recited before fulfilling such commandments:
a) A blessing is recited only when a person can fulfill a mitzvah on his own, without requiring the assistance of another person. Many of the mitzvot between man and man require a recipient - e.g., charity cannot be given without a poor man being willing to receive it, a lost object cannot be returned unless its owner accepts it (Rashba, Vol. I, Responsum 18).
b) Many of the mitzvot between man and man (e.g., visiting the sick, comforting mourners, giving charity) were instituted because of undesirable circumstances. Hence, it is not appropriate that a blessing be recited in connection with them (Rav David Avudraham).
[Although as stated in the previous chapter, a person is obligated to recite a blessing when undesirable events occur to him, it is not appropriate to do so when such events happen to a colleague. Should a person do so, he would appear to be rejoicing in his colleague's misfortune.]
c) The gentiles are also obligated to give charity and establish a stable society. Hence, they fulfill many of the positive commandments. Thus, the blessing recited before fulfilling a mitzvah, praising God for sanctifying - i.e., differentiating - "us with Your commandments" is inappropriate (Torah Temimah).
6. I.e., mitzvot that we are required to fulfill at a specific time.
7. I.e., mitzvot that have a voluntary dimension; thus, if one desires to carry within a carmelit on the Sabbath, one must establish an eruv; if one desires to eat bread, one must wash one's hands.
8. There are several types of eruvim, as the Rambam explains in Hilchot Eruvin. All are included in the same blessing.
9. There is a slight difficulty with the Rambam's statements. Although washing hands before eating has a voluntary aspect, as explained above, we are required to wash before prayer each morning. (See Chapter 6, Halachah 2.)
10. The Rambam's question is: Since these commandments were instituted by the Sages, how can we say that God commanded us to fulfill them?
11. The Rambam's statements are based on Shabbat 23a, except that he quotes a different portion of the proof-text mentioned by the Talmud in order to emphasize the positive nature of the Biblical commandment (Kessef Mishneh). Compare also to Chapter 6, Halachah 2, where he quotes another portion of the verse.
6. I.e., mitzvot that we are required to fulfill at a specific time.
7. I.e., mitzvot that have a voluntary dimension; thus, if one desires to carry within a carmelit on the Sabbath, one must establish an eruv; if one desires to eat bread, one must wash one's hands.
8. There are several types of eruvim, as the Rambam explains in Hilchot Eruvin. All are included in the same blessing.
9. There is a slight difficulty with the Rambam's statements. Although washing hands before eating has a voluntary aspect, as explained above, we are required to wash before prayer each morning. (See Chapter 6, Halachah 2.)
10. The Rambam's question is: Since these commandments were instituted by the Sages, how can we say that God commanded us to fulfill them?
11. The Rambam's statements are based on Shabbat 23a, except that he quotes a different portion of the proof-text mentioned by the Talmud in order to emphasize the positive nature of the Biblical commandment (Kessef Mishneh). Compare also to Chapter 6, Halachah 2, where he quotes another portion of the verse.
(Note the Ramban's objection to the Rambam's definition of Rabbinic commandments and the Kiryat Sefer's resolution of the difficulty in the fifth chapter of his introduction to the Mishneh Torah.)
12. See Chapter 6, Halachot 2-3, which explain that the obligation to wash after eating was instituted lest a person use Sodomite salt and, after eating, inadvertently pass his hands over his eyes and blind himself. Note also the objection of the Ra'avad to the Rambam's statements in Halachah 2 of that chapter.
13. There is a slight difficulty with the Rambam's statements. In Halachot 9 and 12, the Rambam states that a blessing is recited when one fulfills the mitzvah of constructing a guardrail. On the surface, the purpose of that mitzvah is to prevent danger. This question can, however, be resolved on the basis of Hilchot Tefillah 9:7, which states:
13. There is a slight difficulty with the Rambam's statements. In Halachot 9 and 12, the Rambam states that a blessing is recited when one fulfills the mitzvah of constructing a guardrail. On the surface, the purpose of that mitzvah is to prevent danger. This question can, however, be resolved on the basis of Hilchot Tefillah 9:7, which states:
One who says... "May He who showed mercy on a bird's nest... show mercy on us"... should be silenced, because these mitzvot are God's decrees and are not [expressions of] mercy.
Although the obvious reason for the mitzvah of chasing away the mother bird is to show mercy (and the Rambam himself gives such an explanation in the Guide to the Perplexed, Vol. III, Chapter 38), that mitzvah - and every mitzvah - is ultimately a Divine decree that surpasses human intellect. Any rationale we provide is limited and cannot define the mitzvah in a complete manner.
The same applies in the present instance. Although the obvious reason for constructing a guardrail is to prevent a dangerous situation from arising, this nevertheless represents only man's conception of the mitzvah. God's purpose is beyond our comprehension. Therefore, a Rabbinic ordinance like washing after the meal can be considered as having been established because of danger, and, for that reason, a blessing is not recited in connection with its performance. In contrast, with regard to a commandment from the Torah itself, there is no way that we can define the ultimate purpose for its performance and consider it as having been granted us only to avoid danger (Kinat Eliyahu). [See also Likkutei Sichot, Vol. IX. Note also that although the Rambam and theShe'iltot of Rav Achai Gaon mention reciting a blessing over the construction of a guardrail, the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat, Chapter 427) does not mention this blessing.]
14. To explain this concept, using one of the examples cited by the Rambam: When one puts on tefillin, one's fulfillment of the mitzvah continues throughout the entire time one is wearing them. Therefore, although one should recite the blessing before putting them on, if one did not, it is still proper to do so afterwards, because one is still fulfilling the mitzvah.
15. The Rambam gives examples of this concept in the following halachah.
16. Since the mitzvah is already completed, there is no further cause to recite the blessing. On the contrary, according to the Rambam, doing so would be a recitation of the blessing in vain. (See Hilchot Ishut 3:23.)
17. See note 17 in the commentary on the following halachah.
18. As he mentions in the previous halachah, the Rambam maintains that this exception applies only regarding the immersion of a convert. Other individuals - e.g., a woman immersing herself to emerge from the niddah state or, in the times of the Temple, a person immersing himself to emerge from other states of impurity - should recite a blessing before immersing. (As the Rambam states in Hilchot Tefillah 4:4, there is no difficulty in a person who is ritually impure reciting prayers.)
15. The Rambam gives examples of this concept in the following halachah.
16. Since the mitzvah is already completed, there is no further cause to recite the blessing. On the contrary, according to the Rambam, doing so would be a recitation of the blessing in vain. (See Hilchot Ishut 3:23.)
17. See note 17 in the commentary on the following halachah.
18. As he mentions in the previous halachah, the Rambam maintains that this exception applies only regarding the immersion of a convert. Other individuals - e.g., a woman immersing herself to emerge from the niddah state or, in the times of the Temple, a person immersing himself to emerge from other states of impurity - should recite a blessing before immersing. (As the Rambam states in Hilchot Tefillah 4:4, there is no difficulty in a person who is ritually impure reciting prayers.)
Tosafot, Berachot 51a, differ, maintaining that since an exception is made regarding the immersion of a convert, the Sages did not differentiate and required that the blessings for all immersions be recited afterwards. The Rambam's opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 200:1), while the Ramah follows Tosafot's view. (See also the commentary on Chapter 6, Halachah 2, which discusses whether the blessing for washing hands should be recited before washing or afterwards.)
19. Therefore, in this instance, at the outset, the Sages instituted the obligation to recite a blessing after immersion.
20. The Rambam's phraseology is somewhat problematic, for it implies that there is a separate mitzvah in making a sukkah or a lulav. His intent, however, is clear. When a mitzvah has two phases - the preparations for performing it and its actual performance - the blessing is recited only before the latter.
21. The commentaries have questioned the Rambam's intention in using the phrase "making a lulav." What has to be made? According to the Rambam (Hilchot Lulav 7:6), we are not required to bind the three species of the lulavtogether. This question can be resolved, however, because according to Rabbinical decree, it is desirable that the species be bound together (Rav Kapach).
22. Note the Chatam Sofer (Orach Chayim, Responsum 52), who states that whenever the fulfillment of a mitzvah takes a long time, one should recite the blessing before one completes the last phase. Thus, with regard to the construction of a guardrail, one should recite the blessing before constructing the last portion of the divider. (See also Halachah 4, note 13.)
23. In one of his responsa, the Rambam explains that just as we recite the blessing shehecheyanu over the acquisition of new clothing (Chapter 10, Halachah 1), we recite this blessing over the acquisition of new mitzvot.
24. According to Ashkenazic custom, the blessing shehecheyanu is not recited over circumcision. See Hilchot Milah 3:3 and commentary.
25. The Rambam's phraseology appears to indicate that it is proper to recite the blessing shehecheyanu when making the sukkah. The common practice, however, in both the Sephardic and Ashkenazic communities, is to recite the blessing when fulfilling the mitzvah. One should, however, also have in mind the construction of the sukkah.
26. For example, he affixes a mezuzah for a colleague.
27. One may, however, recite shehecheyanu for another individual with the intent that the other person answer Amen, and thus fulfill his requirement for reciting the blessing even when one has already recited the blessing oneself. (See Kessef Mishneh.)
28. See Sukkah 46a.
29. For example, mitzvot such as tefillin, shofar, or sukkah.
30. For example, mitzvot such as mezuzah or constructing a guardrail. The fulfillment of these mitzvot is not an absolute obligation, since, as the Rambam stated previously, one may dwell in a house that does not require a mezuzah or a guardrail. Nevertheless, once one builds such a house, there is an obligatory aspect to their performance. Hence, it is appropriate to say, "who has... commanded us to affix a mezuzah," and the like. Note the contrast to the "voluntary" mitzvot mentioned in Halachah 15.
31. Since the person is not performing the mitzvah on his own behalf, it is not appropriate that he praise God for commanding us to perform a specific activity. Therefore, he should use the form "... concerning the mitzvah of...."
20. The Rambam's phraseology is somewhat problematic, for it implies that there is a separate mitzvah in making a sukkah or a lulav. His intent, however, is clear. When a mitzvah has two phases - the preparations for performing it and its actual performance - the blessing is recited only before the latter.
21. The commentaries have questioned the Rambam's intention in using the phrase "making a lulav." What has to be made? According to the Rambam (Hilchot Lulav 7:6), we are not required to bind the three species of the lulavtogether. This question can be resolved, however, because according to Rabbinical decree, it is desirable that the species be bound together (Rav Kapach).
22. Note the Chatam Sofer (Orach Chayim, Responsum 52), who states that whenever the fulfillment of a mitzvah takes a long time, one should recite the blessing before one completes the last phase. Thus, with regard to the construction of a guardrail, one should recite the blessing before constructing the last portion of the divider. (See also Halachah 4, note 13.)
23. In one of his responsa, the Rambam explains that just as we recite the blessing shehecheyanu over the acquisition of new clothing (Chapter 10, Halachah 1), we recite this blessing over the acquisition of new mitzvot.
24. According to Ashkenazic custom, the blessing shehecheyanu is not recited over circumcision. See Hilchot Milah 3:3 and commentary.
25. The Rambam's phraseology appears to indicate that it is proper to recite the blessing shehecheyanu when making the sukkah. The common practice, however, in both the Sephardic and Ashkenazic communities, is to recite the blessing when fulfilling the mitzvah. One should, however, also have in mind the construction of the sukkah.
26. For example, he affixes a mezuzah for a colleague.
27. One may, however, recite shehecheyanu for another individual with the intent that the other person answer Amen, and thus fulfill his requirement for reciting the blessing even when one has already recited the blessing oneself. (See Kessef Mishneh.)
28. See Sukkah 46a.
29. For example, mitzvot such as tefillin, shofar, or sukkah.
30. For example, mitzvot such as mezuzah or constructing a guardrail. The fulfillment of these mitzvot is not an absolute obligation, since, as the Rambam stated previously, one may dwell in a house that does not require a mezuzah or a guardrail. Nevertheless, once one builds such a house, there is an obligatory aspect to their performance. Hence, it is appropriate to say, "who has... commanded us to affix a mezuzah," and the like. Note the contrast to the "voluntary" mitzvot mentioned in Halachah 15.
31. Since the person is not performing the mitzvah on his own behalf, it is not appropriate that he praise God for commanding us to perform a specific activity. Therefore, he should use the form "... concerning the mitzvah of...."
The general principles stated by the Rambam in this halachah (and illustrated in the four succeeding halachot) are as a whole reflected in the text of the blessings we recite. Nevertheless, with regard to this last point, most other authorities prefer that there be a uniform text for all blessings, whether we perform them on our own behalf or on behalf of others.
Also, there are certain particular blessings that some commentaries have cited as exceptions to these rules. There are, however, other commentaries who have explained these. For example, before eating matzah (and similarly, with regard to other mitzvot that involve partaking of certain foods), we recite the blessing "... concerning the eating of matzah," and not "...to eat matzah." This is because the activity of eating itself is not what God has commanded - indeed, man performs this function on his own accord - what is holy is the object that the person eats. By placing the emphasis on "the eating of" a particular food, we focus our attention on the food and not its actual consumption (Or Sameach).
Commentary Halacha 12
What is implied? Before donning tefillin - a mitzvah that we are obligated to fulfill each day
one recites the blessing "... to put on tefillin" - This is the blessing recited over the arm tefillin, and over both the arm and head tefillin when one does not speak between putting them on. Should one speak, one should recite the blessing "... concerning the mitzvah of tefillin" before putting the head tefillin on (Hilchot Tefillin 4:6).
The latter statement is problematic for the Rambam: Since the blessing is recited before putting on the head tefillin, it should use the form "... and commanded us to..." rather than "... and commanded us concerning the mitzvah of...."
before wrapping oneself in tzitzit - A mitzvah that, as mentioned in the previous halachah, has a non-obligatory nature. The Torah does not obligate us to wear tzitzit each day. (See Hilchot Tzitzit 3:11.) Nevertheless, a person who wears a garment requiring tzitzit is obligated to fulfill the mitzvah each day.
one recites the blessing "... to wrap..." - This blessing is recited before putting on the tallit gadol. As mentioned in the commentary on Hilchot Tzitzit, the Rambam does not mention the custom of wearing a tallit katan at all. It is our custom to recite the blessing "... concerning the mitzvah of tzitzit" for such a garment. It is possible to explain that the form "... concerning..." is used because, generally, we have touched unclean portions of our body before putting on the tallit katan. Hence, the blessing cannot be recited before donning the garment. Accordingly, the form "...concerning the mitzvah..." is more appropriate, as stated in Halachah 15.
before sitting in the sukkah - a mitzvah that is obligatory in nature, but which can be performed only during a certain time of the year.
one recites the blessing "...to sit in the sukkah." - It is our custom to recite this blessing even if one began sitting in the sukkah without reciting the blessing, and recited the blessing afterwards. From Halachah 15, however, it does not appear that the Rambam would accept this practice.
Similarly, one recites the blessings - The Rambam mentions Shabbat candles and Hallel specifically because these are Rabbinic mitzvot.
"... to kindle the Sabbath light," and "... to complete the Hallel." - This is the Sephardic custom. Today, in Ashkenazic communities, the text of the blessing is "... to read the Hallel."
Similarly, if one affixes a mezuzah on one's own house - The Rambam mentions the mitzvot of mezuzah and a guardrail for two reasons: First, as explained in the commentary on the previous halachah, there is a non-obligatory aspect to these mitzvot. Second, as explained in the following halachah, there is a difference whether one performs these mitzvot by oneself or whether one performs them on behalf of another person.
one should recite the blessing "... to affix a mezuzah"; if one erects a guardrail on one's roof, one should recite the blessing "...to erect a guardrail." - See Halachah 4, Note 13.
Should one separate terumah for oneself, one should recite the blessing "... to separate [terumah]." - The Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torahalso mention the separation of tithes in this context.
Should one circumcise one's own son, one should recite the blessing "... to circumcise [one's] son." - Although the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah265:2) mentions the Rambam's opinion, the Ramah states that it is customary to recite the blessing "... concerning the circumcision," at all times.
Should one slaughter one's Paschal sacrifice or festive sacrifice, one recites the blessing "... to slaughter...." - The Rambam mentions these mitzvot to contrast them with the following halachah, which describes their performance on behalf of another person. It would appear that the Rambam is making the point that one should use the form "... to..." when performing the mitzvah oneself even when, in general, it is more likely that the mitzvah be performed by an agent (Kin’at Eliyahu).
32. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 289:1) and other authorities mention the recitation of only the blessing "to affix a mezuzah."
33. Even if he would perform such a mitzvah only on his own behalf, he would use this form, as explained in the following halachah.
34. See Halachah 3.
35. In this instance as well, were he to perform the mitzvah only for himself, he would use this form.
36. As mentioned in Halachot 5 and 6, once a mitzvah has been fulfilled, it is no longer proper to recite a blessing. The mitzvah of lulav, however, represents an exception to the rules stated there. Unlike tefillin or sukkah, the mitzvah of lulavdoes not continue for the entire time one holds it. Instead, as the Rambam states, as soon as one picks it up, one fulfills the obligation as required by the Scriptural Law (mid'oraita). Nevertheless, it is still permissible to recite a blessing, because the Sages ordained that the mitzvah be fulfilled by carrying out the nanu'im (shakings) of the lulav in the Hallel prayers.
33. Even if he would perform such a mitzvah only on his own behalf, he would use this form, as explained in the following halachah.
34. See Halachah 3.
35. In this instance as well, were he to perform the mitzvah only for himself, he would use this form.
36. As mentioned in Halachot 5 and 6, once a mitzvah has been fulfilled, it is no longer proper to recite a blessing. The mitzvah of lulav, however, represents an exception to the rules stated there. Unlike tefillin or sukkah, the mitzvah of lulavdoes not continue for the entire time one holds it. Instead, as the Rambam states, as soon as one picks it up, one fulfills the obligation as required by the Scriptural Law (mid'oraita). Nevertheless, it is still permissible to recite a blessing, because the Sages ordained that the mitzvah be fulfilled by carrying out the nanu'im (shakings) of the lulav in the Hallel prayers.
Since this dimension of the mitzvah remains, one may still recite a blessing. Nevertheless, since mid'oraita one has fulfilled one's obligation, it is not proper to use the form "... to...," which implies an activity to be fulfilled in the future (Tosafot, Pesachim 7b).
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 651:5) relates that the blessing "... concerning the mitzvah of lulav" should be recited even when one recites the blessing before picking up the lulav.
38. This refers to an instance when the fulfillment of a mitzvah continues beyond the first moment, and one did not recite the blessing at the outset, as explained in Halachah 4. According to the Rambam, one should change the form of the blessings in such an instance. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision, explaining that we should not change the form of the blessings. It is the Ra'avad's view that is accepted in practice at present.
39. There is a distinction between these mitzvot and those mitzvot mentioned in Halachot 11 and 12 that were described as not being obligatory in nature. One is not obligated to live in a house that requires a mezuzah. Nevertheless, should one dwell in such a house, one is obligated to fulfill the mitzvah. In contrast, there is never any obligation to carry out the activities which require one to fulfill the mitzvot described in this halachah.
40. See also Halachah 3.
41. The Rambam states in Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 2:1-2:
38. This refers to an instance when the fulfillment of a mitzvah continues beyond the first moment, and one did not recite the blessing at the outset, as explained in Halachah 4. According to the Rambam, one should change the form of the blessings in such an instance. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision, explaining that we should not change the form of the blessings. It is the Ra'avad's view that is accepted in practice at present.
39. There is a distinction between these mitzvot and those mitzvot mentioned in Halachot 11 and 12 that were described as not being obligatory in nature. One is not obligated to live in a house that requires a mezuzah. Nevertheless, should one dwell in such a house, one is obligated to fulfill the mitzvah. In contrast, there is never any obligation to carry out the activities which require one to fulfill the mitzvot described in this halachah.
40. See also Halachah 3.
41. The Rambam states in Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 2:1-2:
It is a positive mitzvah from the Torah to destroy chametz.... What is the destruction to which the Torah refers? To nullify chametz within one's heart and to consider it as dust, and to resolve within one's heart that he possesses nochametz at all.
Nevertheless, since the Sages required one to search for chametz throughout one's house (see Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 2:3), the mitzvah is not completely fulfilled until the search is completed. Therefore, a blessing may be recited.
43. Hilchot Lulav 7:20-22 relates that while the Temple was standing, willow branches were placed near the altar on each of the seven days of the Sukkot festival, with the exception of the Sabbath. At present, to commemorate that practice, it is customary to take willow branches on the seventh day of the holiday and hit them five times against the ground.
44. In contrast to the recitation of Hallel on the festivals, which the Rambam (Hilchot Chanukah 3:6) considers a mitzvah instituted by the Sages, the recitation of Hallel on Rosh Chodesh was not uniformly accepted among the Jewish community in Talmudic times. Thus, Ta'anit 28b relates that the great Sage Rav was not accustomed to reciting Hallel on Rosh Chodesh. Rather, it is a custom that was practiced in Babylon for years, and ultimately became universally accepted. Therefore, certain portions are not recited and a blessing is not recited.
43. Hilchot Lulav 7:20-22 relates that while the Temple was standing, willow branches were placed near the altar on each of the seven days of the Sukkot festival, with the exception of the Sabbath. At present, to commemorate that practice, it is customary to take willow branches on the seventh day of the holiday and hit them five times against the ground.
44. In contrast to the recitation of Hallel on the festivals, which the Rambam (Hilchot Chanukah 3:6) considers a mitzvah instituted by the Sages, the recitation of Hallel on Rosh Chodesh was not uniformly accepted among the Jewish community in Talmudic times. Thus, Ta'anit 28b relates that the great Sage Rav was not accustomed to reciting Hallel on Rosh Chodesh. Rather, it is a custom that was practiced in Babylon for years, and ultimately became universally accepted. Therefore, certain portions are not recited and a blessing is not recited.
The Ra'avad and Tosafot, Ta'anit (ibid.) differ and maintain that, in contrast to taking the willow, which is not an involved practice, the recitation of Hallel is worthy of a blessing. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 422:2) quotes the Rambam's opinion and states that it is the accepted practice in Eretz Yisrael. In contrast, the Ramah follows the other view.
45. Since there was no special sacrifice ordained for each of the latter days of Pesach individually, but rather the same sacrifices were offered throughout the festival, the full Hallel is not recited. The same laws that govern the recitation ofHallel on Rosh Chodesh apply.46. The Kessef Mishneh and other commentaries give several examples of such practices:
a) Separating tithes from produce that is classified as d'mai (produce sold by an unlearned person). The Sages required this separation as a safeguard, because they were unsure whether the unlearned person had separated the tithes or not. Although the tithes should be separated because of this doubt, since it is possible that they had been separated previously, a blessing should not be recited.
b) Covering the blood of a kvi. The Sages were unsure whether such an animal should be classified as a behemah, whose blood should not be covered, or as achayah, whose blood must be covered. Because of the doubt, we cover the animal's blood. We do not, however, recite a blessing (see Hilchot Shechitah14:4).
c) Dwelling in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret. Although it is customary to dwell in the sukkah on this day in the diaspora, in deference to the possibility that Sukkot actually began on the second day, a blessing is not recited. (See Hilchot Sukkah 6:13.)
47. The blessing is not recited lest the deed one performs not be necessary, and thus the blessing one recites would be considered as taking God's name in vain.
Note the question of the Kessef Mishneh concerning the Rambam's decision (Hilchot Kri'at Shema13 2:13) that a person who is unsure whether he recited the Shema should recite its blessings as well.
48. Sukkah 46a quotes a similar verse and comments, "Each day, respond to Him in a manner that reflects His blessings."
48. Sukkah 46a quotes a similar verse and comments, "Each day, respond to Him in a manner that reflects His blessings."
The Rambam appears to be implying that a person should be continuously aware of the kindness God is granting him and respond by blessing Him.
Shechitah - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
There are five factors that disqualify ritual slaughter and the fundamentals of the laws of shechitah are to guard against each of these factors: They are:shehiyah, dirasah, chaladah, hagramah, and ikur.1
Halacha 2
What is meant by shehiyah? A person began to slaughter and lifted up his hand before he completed the slaughter and waited. Whether he did so inadvertently, intentionally, or because of forces beyond his control, [the following rules apply] if he or another person completed the slaughter. If he waited the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it, his slaughter is not acceptable. If he waited less than this amount of time, his slaughter is acceptable.
Halacha 3
With regard to a small domesticated animal:2, the measure of shehiyah is the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it. With regard to a large domestic animal,3 the measure of shehiyahis the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it.4 With regard to a fowl, the measure of shehiyah is the amount of time it would take to lift up a small animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it.5
Halacha 4
When a person cut [the signs] for a while, waited for a while, cut for a while, waited for a while until he concluded the slaughter without waiting the measure that disqualifies an animal at any one time, but over the times he waited over the entire period would equal the measure of shehiyah, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah.6
Similarly, if he waited the amount of time it takes to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and cut only a portion of the signs, but not to slaughter it entirely, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah.
Halacha 5
If he slaughtered the majority of one of the signs for a fowl or the majority of both signs for an animal, the slaughter is permitted even if he waited half the day and then returned and finished cutting the signs.7 For since the minimum measure for slaughter was met, it is as if he is cutting slaughtered meat.
Halacha 6
If one cuts half or less of the windpipe and waits an extended period, he may return and complete the slaughter; [his previous acts] are of no consequence.8If, however, he cut the majority of [an animal's] windpipe or perforated the gullet even slightly and then waited the [disqualifying] measure, [the slaughter] is unacceptable.9 [This applies] whether he returned and completed cutting where he began or slaughtered the animal entirely in a different place. [The rationale is] that when the majority of the windpipe is slit or the gullet of either an animal or a fowl is perforated even slightly, the animal is comparable to a nevelah and ritual slaughter is not effective for it, as will be explained.10
Halacha 7
It is thus explained for you that the concept of shehiyah does not exist with regard to the windpipe of a fowl at all. For if he slit the majority of the windpipe and waited, he has already completed the slaughter of [the fowl]. When he goes back and completes it, it is as if he is cutting meat.11 If he slit less than half the windpipe and waited, he may return and [complete the] slaughter whenever he desires,12 for it is not disqualified as a nevelah unless the majority of the windpipe has been cut.
Halacha 8
[The following rules apply when] one slaughtered a fowl and waited, but does not know whether the gullet was perforated or not.13 He should return and cut the windpipe alone in another place,14 let [the fowl] be until it dies, and then check the gullet from the inside.15 If a drop of blood was not found on it, it is apparent that it was not perforated and it is acceptable.
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
If he inserted the knife beneath the [animal's] skin and slit both the signs in the ordinary fashion, hid the knife under tangled wool, or spread a cloth over the knife and the neck18 and slaughtered under the cloth, since the knife is not openly revealed, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah. Similarly, if slaughtered less than half the signs withchaladah and completed the slaughter without chaladah, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah.
Halacha 11
What is meant by dirasah?19 For example, one struck the neck with a knife as one strikes with a sword, cutting the signs at one time, without passing [the knife] back and forth or one placed the knife on the neck and pressed, cutting downward like one cuts radishes or squash until he cuts the signs, [the slaughter] is unacceptable.
Halacha 12
What is meant by hagramah?20 This refers to one who slaughters at a high point on the windpipe21 where it is not fit to slaughter. There are two [nodes, like kernels of] wheat at the top of the windpipe, at the large ring.22 [The following rules apply if] one slaughtered in the midst of these kernels. If he left even the slightest portion of them intact above [the place of slaughter], it is acceptable, for he slaughtered from the slanting cap [of the windpipe] or lower. This is within the place that is fit for ritual slaughter. If, however, he did not leave any portion of them intact, but instead cut above them, this is considered as [being slaughtered with] hagramah and it is unacceptable.
Halacha 13
If one slit the majority of one sign [for a fowl] or the majority of both signs [for an animal] and then completed the slaughter through dirasah or hagramah, it is acceptable, for the minimum measure was slaughtered in the proper manner.23
If at first, he slit a third [of the windpipe]24 through hagramah, and then cut two thirds in the appropriate manner, the slaughter is acceptable.25 If he cut a third in the appropriate manner, cut a third through hagramah, and then cut the last third in the appropriate manner, the slaughter is acceptable.26 If at first, he slit a third through hagramah, cut a third in the appropriate manner, and then cut a third through hagramah, the slaughter is unacceptable.27 If one cut [a portion of] an animal's throat with derisah or chaladah, it is unacceptable, whether it was the first or second third.28
Halacha 14
Halacha 15
If one of the signs was displaced and afterwards, one slit the other, the slaughter is unacceptable.31 If one slit one of the signs [of a fowl] and then discovered that the other one was displaced, but it is unknown whether it was displaced before slaughter32 or after slaughter,33 there is an unresolved question whether [the fowl] is a nevelah.
Halacha 16
If the sign that was cut for ritual slaughter is discovered to have been displaced, [the fowl or animal]34 is acceptable, for certainly, it was displaced after the slaughter. For if it had been displaced before ritual slaughter, it would have hung loosely and it would not have been able to be slaughtered [effectively].35
Halacha 17
When does the above apply? When [the slaughterer] did not hold the signs in his hand when he slit them. If, however, he held the signs and slaughtered, it is possible that [the signs] could have been slit [effectively even] after they were displaced.36 Therefore, if a sign is discovered to be displaced and slaughtered,37 there is an unresolved question whether [the animal or the fowl] is a nevelah.
Halacha 18
Whenever we have used the term "unacceptable," the animal is a nevelah and if a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of it, he is liable for lashes for partaking of a nevelah. For only an acceptable slaughter as commanded by Moses our teacher of blessed memory prevents an animal from being considered a nevelah as we explained.38 Whenever there is an unresolved doubt whether slaughter [is acceptable], there is an unresolved doubt whether the animal is a nevelah.39 A person who partakes of it is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 19
When the thigh of an animal and [the meat40 of] its hollow were removed and thus it appears lacking when it crouches, it is a nevelah.41 [It is] as if half of it was cut away and it was divided into two bodies. Thus slaughter is not effective with regard to it.
Similarly, if [the animal's] backbone was broken together with the majority of the meat, its back was ripped open like a fish, the majority of the windpipe was been severed,42 or the gullet was perforated in a place fit for slaughter,43 it is considered as a nevelah while alive and slaughter will not be effective with regard to it. The same laws apply to both an animal and a fowl with regard to all these matters.
Halacha 20
The gullet has two membranes: the external membrane is red and the inner membrane is white.44 If only one of them is perforated, [the animal] is acceptable.45 If they are both perforated even to the slightest degree in a place fit for slaughter, it is a nevelah.46 [This applies] whether it was slaughtered in the place of the perforation or in another place, slaughter will not be effective with regard to it. If they were both perforated, [even when] one [hole] does not correspond to the other, the animal is a nevelah47.
Halacha 21
When the gullet is perforated and a scab forms which covers it, the scab is of no consequence and it is considered perforated as it was beforehand.48 If a thorn is detected standing in the gullet, there is an unresolved doubt whether the animal is a nevelah. We fear that perhaps a scab developed in the place of a perforation and it is not visible.49 If, however, a thorn is lying lengthwise50 in the gullet, we are not concerned about it, for most desert animals eat thorns continuously.51
Halacha 22
The gullet cannot be checked from the outside, only from the inside.52 What is implied? One should turn it inside out and check it. If a drop of blood is found upon it, it can be concluded that it was perforated.
Halacha 23
When the majority of the cavity of the windpipe53 has been severed in the place fit for slaughtering,54 [the animal] is a nevelah. This also applies if it has a hole the size of an isar.55
[The following rules apply if the windpipe of an animal] was perforated with small holes.56 If the perforations did not detract [from the flesh, they disqualify the animal if,] when they are added together, they constitute the majority [of the windpipe]. If they detract from the flesh, [they disqualify the animal if,] when they are added together, their sum is the size of an isar.57 Similarly, if a strand [of flesh] is removed from [the windpipe], it [disqualifies the animal if its area] is the size of an isar.
With regard to a fowl, [a more stringent rule applies]:58 Whenever the strip [of flesh that was removed] or the holes that detract from the flesh [are large enough so that they] could be folded so that when placed over the opening of the windpipe, it would cover the majority [of its cavity],59 it is a nevelah. If not, it is acceptable.
Halacha 24
Halacha 25
When a windpipe has been perforated62 and it is not known whether it was perforated before the slaughter or afterwards,63 we perforate it again in another place and compare the two holes. If they resemble each other, it is permitted.64
We compare only [a hole in] a large ring to [a hole in] a large ring or [a hole in] a small [ring] to [a hole in] a small [ring], but not [a hole in] a small [ring] to a [a hole in] a large [ring]. For the entire windpipe is made up of a series of rings. Between each [large] ring is a small, soft ring.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
The Rambam describes each of these terms in the subsequent halachot in this chapter.
|
| 2. |
I.e., a sheep or a goat.
|
| 3. |
I.e., a cow.
|
| 4. |
I.e., each animal is considered according to its category. It will take more time to deal with a large animal than a smaller one and the time factor is adjusted accordingly.
|
| 5. |
The Rambam's ruling favors the opinion of Shmuel over Rav. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro explains that generally, we follow the principle that the halachah follows Rav's approach with regard to the Torah prohibitions. Nevertheless, in this instance, since there are other Sages who support Shmuel's view, the Rambam favors his opinion. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah23:2), in addition to the Rambam's view, Rav Yosef Caro quotes Rashi's position which rules much more stringently with regard to shehiyah for a fowl. The Rama states that the common custom is to disqualify any ritual slaughter involving shehiyah of the slightest time for both animals and fowl.
|
| 6. |
Although the Ra'avad and Rav Moshe HaCohen dispute the Rambam's ruling, it is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah23:3). The Rama reiterates the stringency stated above.
|
| 7. |
In addition to the Rambam's view, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 23:5) quotes the view of Rashi cited by the Tur that as long as the cutting of the signs is not completed, shehiyah can disqualify an animal. Hence, as an initial and preferred option, one should show respect for this view. The Rama rules even more stringently, stating that even after the fact, the slaughter is disqualified. For that reason, he continues, if the majority of the signs are cut, but the animal is lingering alive, rather than cut the signs further, one should hit it on its head to kill it.
|
| 8. |
For until half of the windpipe is cut, the animal is not considered as trefe.
|
| 9. |
He cannot return and correct the slaughter, for the animal is already considered as a nevelah.
|
| 10. |
Halachah 19.
|
| 11. |
As stated in Halachah 5.
|
| 12. |
As stated in Halachah 6.
|
| 13. |
If the gullet was perforated, the slaughter is unacceptable. If not, it is acceptable.
|
| 14. |
Theoretically, he could also cut the windpipe in the same place and complete the slaughter in that manner. Nevertheless, our Sages advised against doing so, for in this way, it is much easier to perforate the gullet when cutting the windpipe and thus he might disqualify the slaughter unnecessarily (Kessef Mishneh). See the Turei Zahav 23:6 who offers another rationale. As mentioned above, the Rama rules that whenever one waits during the slaughter of a fowl or an animal, the slaughter is disqualified.
A parallel law - slaughtering the animal in a different place - does not apply with regard to an animal. For to slaughter the animal, he must slit the gullet and we fear that he will cut at a place where it had been perforated previously (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 15. |
I.e., he should cut the gullet off at its top and/or bottom and turn it inside out. If he is able to find a drop of blood, he can assume that it is perforated and it is unacceptable. An external examination of the gullet is not sufficient for the surface of the gullet is red and a drop of blood will not be noticeable. Its inner surface, however, is skin-colored and the blood will be noticed (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 16. |
Chullin 20b states that this term is derived from the word chuldah meaning "weasel," i.e., an animal that hides in the foundation of homes. Similarly, chaladah involves "hiding" the knife when slaughtering; i.e., inserting it in a way that the blade is not open to the eye. Implied is that the proper way to slaughter is for the slaughterer to hold the animal or fowl with its neck upward and to draw the knife back and forth across the neck.
|
| 17. |
Certainly, this applies when he inserted the knife below both signs and slaughtered the animal by moving the knife back and forth while pointed upward (Siftei Cohen 24:6).
|
| 18. |
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes other authorities who explain that this is referring to a situation where the person tied the cloth around the animal's neck, attached it with wax, or the like. If, however, he merely loosely spread the cloth over the animal, the slaughter is acceptable. He concludes, however, that the Rambam's opinion should be respected. In his Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 24:8), he rules according to the other views, but states: "One should show concern for his (the Rambam's) opinion at the outset."
|
| 19. |
The term doreis means "prey" or "strike," i.e., killing with a blow, rather than drawing back and forth as is required for ritual slaughter.
|
| 20. |
The Maggid Mishneh gives two interpretations of the term hagramah:
a) "lift up," as in II Kings 9:13; i.e., he lifted the knife above its proper place; and
b) "tip," as in Bava Batra 88b; i.e., he tipped the knife upward.
|
| 21. |
The Rambam speaks only with regard to the windpipe, because he defines hagramah as slaughtering the animal in an improper place. If one would slit the gullet above the proper place, the animal would become disqualified as a trefe immediately (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 22. |
The Maggid Mishneh states that the windpipe is made up of many rings. Over the top ring, there is a flap (cap) of flesh which is slanted. (This is the area of the larynx. See also Chapter 1, Halachah 7, and notes.) At the top of this flap, there are two kernel-like buttons of flesh. As long as the slaughterer leaves some portion of these kernels intact, the slaughter is acceptable.
|
| 23. |
The Rambam derived this concept from a comparison to the laws of shehiyah mentioned in Halachah 5. The same concept applies if one slaughters more than half the signs appropriately and then completes the slaughter through chaladah. Indeed, it can be explained that the Rambam does not mention this law with regard to chaladah, because it is obvious. For in chaladah, the slaughter is essentially correct; it is only the manner in which one inserts the knife that is unacceptable (Kessef Mishneh).
As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 5, there are opinions who differ and disqualify the slaughter. Similarly, with regard to the laws at hand, there are opinions that are more stringent, except with regard to hagramah. In that instance, they accept the leniency mentioned by the Rambam. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 24:12) quotes both of the views without stating which should be followed. The Rama goes further and states that it is customary to rule stringently even with regard to hagramah, and even with regard to fowl.
|
| 24. |
This addition is necessary, for as stated above, if the gullet is perforated, the slaughter is disqualified.
|
| 25. |
For the majority of the windpipe was cut in an acceptable manner and the preliminary cutting did not cause the animal to be considered as a trefe.
|
| 26. |
Here also, the majority of the windpipe is cut in an acceptable manner. The fact that the two thirds were not cut directly after each other is not significant.
|
| 27. |
For the majority of the windpipe has not been slit in an acceptable manner.
|
| 28. |
The rationale for the Rambam's words has been discussed at length by the commentaries, because with regard to chaladah, in Halachah 10, he writes that there is an unresolved question whether the slaughter is disqualified, while here he appears to say that it is definitely unacceptable. The Rivosh (Responsum 187), the Kessef Mishneh, the Maggid Mishneh, and the Siftei Cohen24:18 all offer lengthy - and somewhat forced - explanations to attempt to resolve the apparent contradiction. The core of the explanation of the Kessef Mishneh is that since the majority of the windpipe was slit in the proper place, it is not disqualified because a portion was not.
Needless to say, if one cuts the last third in either of these fashions, according to the Rambam, the slaughter is not disqualified, for it has already been completed (through slitting more than half of the sign[s] in an acceptable manner). The Rama, however, would disqualify the slaughter as stated above.
|
| 29. |
The term ikur means "uproot." The Kessef Mishneh states that, according to the Rambam, the fact that the signs have slipped from their place does not cause the animal to be deemed a trefe(see, however, Chapter 9, Halachah 21, and notes). Nevertheless, such a condition disqualifies the animal, for it is impossible for the ritual slaughter to be carried out in the proper manner.
|
| 30. |
For the slaughter was already completed in an acceptable manner. Compare to the following halachah.
|
| 31. |
This applies even with regard to a fowl. Although it is only necessary for one of the signs of a fowl to be cut in the appropriate manner, the other one must be fit to be slit in an appropriate manner (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 32. |
In which instance it would disqualify it.
|
| 33. |
In which instance, it would be acceptable.
|
| 34. |
With regard to a fowl, the sign in question is the only sign slit. With regard to an animal, the other sign must have been slaughtered effectively.
|
| 35. |
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 24:18) rule more stringently and maintain that it is necessary to slaughter another animal, displace its signs afterwards, and compare the two. Only if they are similar is the slaughter accepted. Moreover, the Shulchan Aruch continues stating that, at present, we are not expert at making this comparison and hence, forbid an animal whenever such a condition arises.
|
| 36. |
Because the slaughterer will hold the signs in the proper position by hand.
|
| 37. |
And we do not know whether the slaughterer held it by hand or not.
|
| 38. |
See Chapter 1, Halachot 1 and 4.
|
| 39. |
Since an animal is forbidden during its lifetime, its meat is permitted only when we are certain that the slaughter was acceptable (Radbaz).
|
| 40. |
The addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh.
|
| 41. |
I.e., even though the animal still has a certain vestige of vitality, it is considered as if it has died already and it imparts ritual impurity as a nevelah does (Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTumah 2:1).
|
| 42. |
In this and the following instance, the Siftei Cohen 33:4 rules that the animal is a trefe and not anevelah.
|
| 43. |
If, however, the gullet was perforated at a higher point in the neck (see Halachah 12), it is considered as a trefe and not a nevelah.
|
| 44. |
I.e., skin-colored.
|
| 45. |
For the one that is not perforated is sufficient to protect the animal sufficiently for it to survive.
This leniency applies when the inner membrane is perforated due to sickness. If, however, it is perforated due to a thorn, we fear that the outer membrane may also be perforated, but that perforation cannot be detected [see Halachah 22; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 33:4)].
|
| 46. |
As above, if the gullet was perforated at a higher point in the neck (see Halachah 12), it is considered as a trefe and not a nevelah (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 47. |
With regard to other organs which have two membranes, e.g., the brain and the lungs, the animal is not considered as trefe unless the holes correspond to each other. In this instance, however, the ruling is much more severe because the gullet is stretched and becomes extended. Thus even if the place of the holes do not correspond, they can match each other at times [Kessef Mishneh, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:4)].
|
| 48. |
For as the gullet expands, it is possible that the scab will open (Rashi, Chullin 42a).
|
| 49. |
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 33:9) rules more leniently, stating that unless a trace of blood is detected on the outer side, we do not disqualify an animal because a thorn was implanted in the gullet.
|
| 50. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:9) rules that this applies even if the thorn is lying widthwise, as long as it is not implanted in the membrane. [Indeed, some versions of the Mishneh Torahsubstitute widthwise for lengthwise.]
|
| 51. |
And yet do not suffer any internal damage.
|
| 52. |
Because, as stated above (see Halachot 8, 19), since its outer membrane is red, a trace of blood will not be obvious.
|
| 53. |
I.e., the slit goes from side to side in a manner in which the majority of the cavity is slit. The Rambam (based on Chullin 44a,b) is emphasizing that this measure disqualifies an animal even if when including the thickness of the flesh of the windpipe, the slit would not cover the majority of the windpipe.
|
| 54. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 7, and notes.
|
| 55. |
An Italian coin, frequently used in the Talmudic era. In his commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot9:5), the Rambam states that an isar is the weight of four barley corns.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 34:2) states that we are unfamiliar with the measure of an isar. Therefore, the laws applying to an animal should resemble those applying to a fowl and if the slit covers the majority of the cavity of the windpipe, it is disqualified. The Rama states that, for an animal, an isar is smaller than the majority of the cavity of the windpipe. Therefore he states that perhaps the intent of the Shulchan Aruch, is the majority of the cavity of a fowl. He cautions anyone who has a doubt to rule stringently and disqualify the animal.
|
| 56. |
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:3) speaks of perforating the windpipe "like a sifter."
|
| 57. |
In his Kessef Mishneh and his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 34:3), Rav Yosef Caro writes that as long as the flesh between the holes is not larger than the holes themselves, it is included together with them in this measure.
|
| 58. |
For the entire windpipe of a fowl may not be the size of an isar (Rashi, Chullin 45a).
|
| 59. |
The addition is based on the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh. For each particular fowl, this measure is calculated individually (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 60. |
Our translation is based on the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh who quotes the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 34) who explains that in contrast to the previous halachah which speaks of a hole the area of an isar, this halachah is speaking about a hole through which an isar can be slipped through on its side.
It must be emphasized that the Rambam's ruling depends on the interpretation of Chullin 54a advanced by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi. Rashi advances a different interpretation of that passage on which basis, the Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah34:5-6) quotes both opinions without stating which is favored.
|
| 61. |
The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rashi who explains that if the windpipe is slit across we rule more stringently, for the stress of breathing will extend the windpipe and cause the slit to expand. This does not apply when it is split lengthwise.
|
| 62. |
In a manner that would disqualify the animal.
|
| 63. |
Were it to have been perforated afterwards, the perforation would not be significant.
|
| 64. |
For it is apparent that the first hole was also made after the animal's death. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 34:9) states that we are not proficient in inspecting the animal in this way and should disqualify it in all situations.
|
Shechitah - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
When a Jew who does not know the five factors that disqualify ritual slaughter and the like concerning the laws of shechitah that we explained1slaughters [an animal] in private,2 it is forbidden for him and others to partake [of the animal that] he slaughtered. It is close to being considered a nevelah because of the doubt involved.3 When a person eats an olive-sized portion of its meat, he is worthy of stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 2
Even if [such a person] slaughtered [animals] properly in our presence four or five times and this slaughter which he performed in private appears to be a proper and complete the slaughter, it is forbidden to partake of it. Since he does not know the factors that can disqualify ritual slaughter, it is possible that he will cause the slaughter to be disqualified unknowingly.4 For example, he may wait, apply pressure to the animal's neck and slit it, slaughter with a blemished knife, or the like inadvertently.
Halacha 3
[Even] when a Jew knows the laws of ritual slaughter, he should not slaughter in private as an initial and preferred option until he slaughters in the presence of a wise man many times until he is familiar and ardent.5 If, however, at the outset, he slaughtered in private, his slaughter is acceptable.6
Halacha 4
When one knows the laws of ritual slaughter and slaughters in the presence of a wise man until he becomes familiar with ritual slaughter, he is called an expert. Any expert may slaughter in private as an initial and preferred option. Even women7 and servants8 may slaughter as an initial and preferred option.
Halacha 5
When deaf-mute,9 an intellectually or emotionally imbalanced person, a child,10or a drunkard whose mind became befuddled11 slaughters, their slaughter is unacceptable. Since they do not have [adequate] mental control, we fear that they blundered. Therefore if they slaughtered in the presence of a knowledgeable person and he saw that they slaughtered properly, their slaughter is acceptable.
Halacha 6
Halacha 7
When we saw from a distance that a Jew slaughtered [an animal] and departed and we do not know whether or not he knows the laws of ritual slaughter or not, [the animal] is permitted. Similarly, if a person tells his agent: "Go out and slaughter an animal on my behalf," and he finds a slaughtered animal, but does not know whether his agent or another person slaughtered it, [the animal] is permitted.15 [The rationale for both these laws is] that the majority of people who slaughter are expert.16
Halacha 8
[The following rules apply when a person] loses a kid or a chicken. If he finds it slaughtered at home, it is permitted. [The rationale is that] the majority of people who slaughter are expert. If he finds it in the market place, it is forbidden; perhaps [it was slaughtered improperly and] became a nevelah and was therefore cast into the market place.17 Similarly, if he finds it on the waste dump at home, it is forbidden.18
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
When a gentile slaughters, even though he slaughters in the presence of a Jew, [using] a finely [honed] knife,23 and even if he was a minor,24 his slaughter is anevelah. According to Scriptural Law, one is liable for lashes for partaking of it,25 as [implied by Exodus 34:15]: "[Lest] he shall call you and you shall partake of his slaughter." Since the Torah warns lest one partake of his slaughter, you can infer that his slaughter is forbidden. He cannot be compared to a Jew who does not know the laws of ritual slaughter.
Halacha 12
Halacha 13
If a gentile began to slaughter and slit the minority of the signs and a Jew completed the slaughter or a Jew began the slaughter and a gentile completed it,28 it is invalid.29 [The rationale is that] slaughter [is considered an integral act, a single continuity] from the beginning to the end.30 If, however, a gentile slit [a portion of] an organ that does not cause the animal to be considered a nevelah, e.g., he slit half the windpipe and a Jew completed the slaughter, it is acceptable.31
Halacha 14
A Jew who is an apostate because of his transgression of a particular transgression32 who is an expert slaughterer may slaughter as an initial and preferred option.33 A Jew of acceptable repute must check the knife and afterwards give it to this apostate to slaughter with, for it can be presumed that he will not trouble himself to check [the knife].34
If, by contrast, he was an apostate because of worship of false deities, one who violates the Sabbath in public,35 or a heretic who denies the Torah and [the prophecy of] Moses our teacher, as we explained in Hilchot Teshuvah,36 he is considered as a gentile and [an animal] he slaughters is a nevelah.
Halacha 15
[Even though] a person is disqualified as a witness because of his violation of a Scriptural prohibition,37 he may [still] slaughter in private if he was an expert.38For he would not leave something which is permitted and partake of something that is forbidden.39 This is a presumption that applies with regard to all Jews, even those who are wicked.
Halacha 16
These Tzadukkim, Beotosim, 40 their disciples and all that err, following their path, who do not believe in the Oral Law - their slaughter is forbidden. If, however, they slaughtered [an animal] in our presence, it is permitted. For their slaughter is forbidden only because it is possible they blunder. Since they do not believe in the laws of ritual slaughter, we do not accept their word when they say, "We did not blunder."41
Halacha 17
When the Jews were journeying through the desert, they were not commanded to slaughter non-sacrificial animals.42 Instead, they would cut off their heads or slaughter them and eat as the other nations do. In the desert, they were commanded that everyone who desires to slaughter an animal [in the prescribed way] should slaughter only for the sake of a peace offering, as [Leviticus 17:3-5] states: "When a man from the house of Israel will slaughter an ox... and he will not bring it to the Tent of Meeting... [it will be considered as (spilled) blood]... so that the Children of Israel will bring their sacrifices... and slaughter these sacrifices as peace-offerings." If, however, a person desired to cut an animal's head off and partake [of the animal], in the desert, this was allowed.
Halacha 18
This mitzvah43 is not observed forever, nor in the desert alone, at the time it was permitted to kill animals [and partake of them]. There they were commanded that when they would enter Eretz Yisrael, killing animals [for food] would be forbidden and ordinary animals could only be eaten after ritual slaughter. They would be allowed to slaughter in every place except the Temple Courtyard,44 as [Deuteronomy 12:20-21] states: "When God your Lord will expand your boundaries... and you shall slaughter from your cattle and your sheep which God your Lord gave you." This is the mitzvah to be observed for generations - to slaughter and then to eat.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
The five factors mentioned in the previous chapter and how to prepare a knife [Kessef Mishneh; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:2)].
|
| 2. |
If, however, a wise man supervises his actions, the slaughter is acceptable, as indicated by Halachah 5. The Maggid Mishneh quotes the Rashba as ruling that such a person may slaughter in the presence of a wise man even as an initial and preferred option. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:3) accepts this ruling, but the Rama does not.
|
| 3. |
There is no factor that we see that would cause us to disqualify the slaughter. Nevertheless, since it is highly probable that he slaughtered the animal in a way that disqualified it and rendered it anevelah, the animal is prohibited and placed in this category.
|
| 4. |
Moreover, even if afterwards, he is taught the laws of ritual slaughter and states that he observed them when he slaughtered the animal, the ruling is not revised. Since he did not know the laws at that time, we fear that he did not observe them (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 5. |
This training process is still observed in the present age. Even though a person is familiar with the laws of ritual slaughter, he must first undergo apprenticeship under the guidance of a master and receive authorization to slaughter [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:1).
|
| 6. |
I.e., after the fact, since he knows the laws, we do not disqualify the slaughter.
|
| 7. |
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:1) states that woman should not be allowed to slaughter as an initial and preferred option.
|
| 8. |
This refers to Canaanite servants whose Halachic status is the same as women. The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 1) rules that in general servants may not serve as ritual slaughterers. See Siftei Cohen 1:2.
|
| 9. |
See Halachah 9 which grants a person with only one of these handicaps to slaughter.
|
| 10. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:5) states that this refers to a child who does not know how to maneuver his hands for ritual slaughter. If he knows how to maneuver his hands he may be given an animal to slaughter at the outset. The Rama emphasizes that even so, the child may only slaughter in the presence of others. He may not slaughter alone. Furthermore, the Rama states that it is not customary for a person to receive authorization to slaughter until he is eighteen. TheSiftei Cohen 1:25, however, rules more stringently.
|
| 11. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:8) states that one who becomes as drunk as Lot (see Genesis, ch. 19) may not slaughter. One who has not reached this stage of inebriation may slaughter at the outset. The Rama rules more stringently, stating that a person should never slaughter when drunk, for it is likely that he will disqualify the slaughter.
|
| 12. |
With regard to his proficiency in the laws of ritual slaughter.
|
| 13. |
Those mentioned in the previous chapter and how to check a knife; there is no need for him to be knowledgeable with regard to all the particulars of the laws of ritual slaughter.
|
| 14. |
The Kessef Mishneh explains that when there is no alternative (see the following halachah), we rely on the principle that most of those who slaughter are knowledgeable regarding its laws. Nevertheless, in this instance, since we have the opportunity to clarify the matter, we do so.
|
| 15. |
With regard to questions of business law, we rely on the presumption that an agent will perform the mission with which he was charged. We do not, however, accept this principle with regard to questions involving the Torah's prohibitions (Hilchot Terumot 4:6). Nevertheless, even if we know for certain that the agent did not slaughter the animal, we consider it as permitted because of the reason stated by the Rambam.
|
| 16. |
And when there is no alternative we can rely on this presumption.
From the statements of the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:1), it appears that there is a slight difference between the present age and the Talmudic period. In the Talmudic era, most people were proficient in both the laws and practice of ritual slaughter. In the present age, this applies only to those who are occupied professionally in this field. Nevertheless, the laws remain the same, for we assume that only a person who is knowledgeable will actually slaughter animals.
|
| 17. |
We are not speaking about a waste dump in the market place. In such an instance, all opinions would agree that the animal is forbidden. Instead, we are speaking about a situation where it was found in the marketplace at large. Chullin 12b records a dispute between two Sages concerning this matter and the Rambam chooses the more stringent ruling.
|
| 18. |
For the circumstances indicate that it was discarded.
As mentioned, there is a difference of opinion in the Talmud regarding this issue. Most Rishonimfollow the more lenient view and rule that if the slaughtered animal is found in an ordinary place in the marketplace or in a waste dump at home, it is permitted. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah1:4) also follows this view.
|
| 19. |
Another person should recite the blessing for him [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:7)].
|
| 20. |
As long as he has the ability to speak, he is not considered to be intellectually underdeveloped.
Rabbenu Asher explains that such a person should not slaughter as an initial and preferred option, because there is a difficulty with his recitation of the blessing. For a person must recite a blessing in a manner that enables him to hear it and that is impossible for such an individual. Indeed, the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 1:6) rules that a person who is dumb should not separate terumah at the outset for that reason [Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:6)].
|
| 21. |
For we fear that he will err and not detect his error. The Siftei Cohen 1:35 quotes opinions that rule that a blind person should not slaughter even when others are watching him.
|
| 22. |
In this instance as well, the Siftei Cohen 1:36 mentions views that maintain that a person who was never able to see should not slaughter. Even after the fact, one should not partake of his slaughter.
|
| 23. |
And is well-versed in the laws of ritual slaughter [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 1:1)].
|
| 24. |
One might think that the slaughter of a minor has an advantage, because a minor's worship of idols is not significant.
|
| 25. |
Thus a gentile's slaughter is not recognized by Scriptural Law. See, however, the following halachah.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that the reason the animal is forbidden is that, in general, when a gentile slaughters, his intent is that the animal is an offering to his false deity, it is, however, permissible to benefit from the animal. We do not consider it as a sacrifice to idols (Chullin 13b; see Chapter 2, Halachah 2), because we assume the gentile is not really sincere in his worship, he is merely mimicking his ancestors.
Rabbeinu Asher differs and explains that the Scriptural command for ritual slaughter states: "Andyou shall slaughter," implying that the slaughtering must be a Jew. Hence, a gentile is inherently disqualified; his thoughts are of no consequence. See the Siftei Cohen 2:2 and the Turei Zahav 2:1 who discuss this issue.
|
| 26. |
E.g., a resident alien who accepts the Seven Universal Laws Commanded to Noah and his descendants (see Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 14:7).
|
| 27. |
According to the Rambam, if he does not serve false deities and knows the laws of ritual slaughter, his slaughter is acceptable according to Scriptural Law.
One might ask: If so, why is an animal slaughtered by a child a nevelah? A child is not liable for the service of false deities. The Lechem Mishneh answers that ultimately, the child will grow up and worship false deities.
|
| 28. |
See the Siftei Cohen 2:27 maintains that if the Jew slit the majority of the gullet and windpipe, the slaughter is acceptable even if the gentile completed it.
|
| 29. |
Thus if a gentile slit the majority of the windpipe or any portion of the gullet, the slaughter is disqualified [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 2:10)].
|
| 30. |
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:18 for another application of this principle.
|
| 31. |
For, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 11, even if the windpipe is half slit because of other factors, it can be slaughtered acceptably.
|
| 32. |
As the Rambam states in Hilchot Teshuvah 3:9, there is a concept of an apostate with regard to one transgression, i.e., "a person who has made a fixed practice of willfully violating a certain transgression [to the extent that] he is accustomed to transgressing and his deeds are public knowledge... provided he does so with the intent of angering God."
|
| 33. |
Although he repeatedly violates that particular transgression, we do not assume that he will not slaughter correctly.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro cites Chullin 4a which states that as long as if given a choice whether to eat kosher meat or non-kosher meat, the person would choose the kosher meat - even if he would partake of the non-kosher meat if kosher meat was not available - it is permitted to partake of an animal he slaughtered. The Kessef Mishneh continues, explaining that as long as one does not transgress with the intent of angering God, one may partake of an animal he slaughtered. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 2:5), he rules that an apostate who transgresses with the intent of angering God resembles a gentile and his slaughter is inherently unacceptable.
Kin'at Eliyahu notes that there is some difficulty with the Kessef Mishneh's interpretation, becauseHilchot Teshuvah specifically states that a person is deemed an apostate only when his transgression is performed with the intent of angering God.
|
| 34. |
Although we do not assume that he will definitely transgress, it is logical to presume that he will not be careful in his observance.
Although it also cites the Rambam's view, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 2:6) mentions the opinion of the Tur and others who rule that if the person is not an apostate with regard to partaking of non-kosher meat, it is not even necessary to check his knife. He may slaughter in private. If, however, he is an apostate with regard to partaking of non-kosher meat, his knife must be checked. Moreover, if he shows no concern for kashrut at all, his slaughter is not acceptable [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 2:50].
|
| 35. |
See the conclusion of Hilchot Shabbat.
|
| 36. |
Hilchot Teshuvah 3:8.
|
| 37. |
See Hilchot Edut 10:1-3.
|
| 38. |
In this instance, the Rambam does not even require him to have another person observe him. Since his disregard for Jewish observance is not as severe as that of an apostate, he is allowed to slaughter on his own.
|
| 39. |
I.e., he would not slaughter the animal in an invalid way when it would be just as easy for him to slaughter it in an acceptable way.
|
| 40. |
Tzadok and Beotus were two of the greatest students of Antigonus of Socho. As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avot 1:3), after they heard Antigonus teach: "Do not be as servants who serve their master for the sake of receiving a reward," they forsook Jewish practice, saying: "Is it just that we labor without receiving a reward?"
They began splinter sects with the intent of swaying the people after them. At first, they sought to abandon Jewish practice entirely. They saw, however, the people would not accept this and so they focused their complaints on the Oral Law, arguing that although the Written Law was of Divine origin, the Oral Law was not. Their intent, however, was to deny the entire Torah.
|
| 41. |
The Rambam appears to be saying that there is no inherent difficulty with these individuals slaughtering an animal. The only question is whether or not they slaughtered correctly. Hence, when it is possible to verify that the slaughter was performed correctly, the animal is permitted. They are not placed in the same category as apostates. Kin'at Eliyahu adds that, based on the previous halachah, these Tzadukim must also be Sabbath observant.
|
| 42. |
There is a difference of opinion concerning this point among the Sages (Chullin 17a). The Rambam follows Rabbi Akiva's perspective.
|
| 43. |
The obligation to offer as a sacrifice an animal which one desires to ritually slaughter.
|
| 44. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
|
Shechitah - Chapter 5
Halacha 1
We have already explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot1that the term trefeemployed by the Torah refers to an animal that is on the verge of death. The term trefe - which literally means "torn apart" - was employed only because the Torah speaks with regard to prevalent situations, e.g., a lion or the like attacked it and wounded it, but it had not died yet.
Halacha 2
There are other maladies which if they affect an animal will cause it to be considered trefe. They were transmitted as a halachah to Moses at Sinai. [In particular,] eight [conditions that cause an animal to be considered as] trefewere transmitted to Moses at Sinai.2 They are derusah, nekuvah, chaseirah, netulah, pesukah, keru'ah, nefulah, and sheburah.3
Halacha 3
Although they were all transmitted as halachot to Moses at Sinai,4since onlyderusah is explicitly mentioned in the Torah,5 [our Sages] ruled more stringently with regard to it. Any questionable situation that arises with regard to derisah[causes the animal] to be forbidden. There are, by contrast, questionable situations that may arise with regard to the seven other conditions [that render an animal] trefe in which [the animal] is permitted as will be explained.6
Halacha 4
Derusah refers to a situation where a lion or the like will attack an animal and assault it with its paw or a hawk, an eagle, or the like will assault a fowl.7 [The laws of] derisah apply with regard to a large domesticated animal8 or a large wild beast only when it is attacked by a lion.9 [The laws of derisah apply with regard to] a small domesticated animal10 or a small wild beast only when it is attacked by a wolf or a larger animal. [The laws of] derisah apply with regard to kids and lambs even when attacked by cats, foxes, martens,11 and the like. Needless to say, this applies with regard to fowl.12
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
[The laws of] derisah apply [when] a weasel attacks a fowl. [The laws of]derisah do not apply at all when a dog attacks, not when it attacks a fowl, an animal, or a beast. [The laws of] derisah apply [when] an hawk attacks kids or lambs should its claws penetrate to [the animal's] inner cavity.15
Halacha 7
[The laws of] derisah apply only [when] the attacking animal [strikes its victim] with its forelegs. If it strikes it with its hindlegs,16 we show no concern.17[Similarly, the laws of] derisah apply only [when the attacking animal strikes its victim] with its claw. If it bites it, we show no concern unless it penetrates to its internal cavity.18 We then check if it perforated one of the organs [that cause an animal to be considered trefe if] even the tiniest perforation was made.
[The laws of] derisah apply only [when] the attacking animal has that intent. If, however, the beast of prey fell and its claws became lodged in the other animal, [the laws of] derisah do not apply.19 [Similarly, the laws of] derisah apply only [when the attacking animal] is alive. If, however, it attacked and was killed, but its claws remained lodged in the victim and were not removed until after [the attacker's] death, we are not concerned.20
Halacha 8
What are the laws applying to an animal that was attacked? Whenever we stated that "we show concern," the attacked animal should be slaughtered and its entire internal cavity - from its feet to its forehead - must be checked. If it is found to be flawless with regard to all the factors [that render an animal] trefeand there is no sign that it was attacked,21 it is permitted.22 If there is a sign that it was attacked, it is trefe and forbidden by Scriptural Law.
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
When there is a question whether [an animal] has been attacked or not, we do not permit it unless it is checked as one would [an animal] that had definitely been attacked.27
What is implied? When a lion enters among oxen and a claw was found in the back of one of them,28 we suspect that the lion attacked it. We do not rationalize and say: "Maybe it scratched itself on a wall."29
Similarly, if a fox or a marten enter among fowls, [the predator] is silent and they crowing, we fear that he attacked.30 If, however, the predator is roaring and they are crowing, [we assume that] they are crowing out of fear of him and his roaring. Similarly, if he cuts off the head of one of them,31 we assume his fury has subsided. Similarly, if both [the predator] and [the fowl] are silent, we do not suspect [anything]. For if he had harmed them, they would crow.32
Halacha 12
When there is a question of whether or not a predator entered [a place where animals are kept] or we saw [an animal] enter [such a place], but were unable to see if it is one of the predators or not, we do not harbor suspicions.33
Similarly, if a fowl entered a woods or reeds and came out with its head or neck dripping blood, we do not suspect that it was attacked. Instead, we say: "Perhaps it was wounded among the trees."34
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 4:8-9.
|
| 2. |
All the 70 conditions the Rambam mentions in Chapter 10 are included in these eight general categories.
|
| 3. |
These terms are defined in this and the following chapters.
|
| 4. |
And thus all are judged with the severity appropriate for questions of Scriptural Law.
|
| 5. |
Exodus 22:30 speaks of "meat torn apart in the field."
|
| 6. |
The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 29) questions the Rambam's statements, for since these other conditions are considered questions of Scriptural Law, whenever a doubt arises, we rule stringently. The Turei Zahav 29:1 explains that the severity involving derisah concerns a sefek seifkah, a condition of multiple doubt. See also the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh which offers several resolutions to this question.
|
| 7. |
As will be explained in the following halachot, the laws of derisah do not concern only the wounds to the victim's organs that the attacking animal causes. Instead, the concern is that even a superficial wound can cause the victim to die, because there is poison in the attacker's claws that will affect the victim. (Exactly, what that means in contemporary terms is difficult to understand. Some have suggested that the attacker's claws are infected with bacteria which could be considered comparable to poison. That explanation, however, cannot be easily resolved with some of the points in the subsequent halachot.)
The intent of this and the following halachah is that "the poison" of certain animals or fowl is effective in harming some and not in harming others.
|
| 8. |
An ox.
|
| 9. |
If, however, it is attacked by smaller animals of prey, even a tiger, we assume that its strength will enable it to defend itself (Kessef Mishneh). The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 57:1) follows a more stringent opinion which rules that the laws of derisah apply when any predator larger than a wolf attacks a large animal.
|
| 10. |
A sheep or a goat.
|
| 11. |
We have quoted the definition of this term given by Rashi. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bava Batra 2:5), the Rambam defines the term in Arabic as alnamas, a small predator.
|
| 12. |
See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:5) which discusses the question whether leniency can be granted when a cat enters a chicken coop.
|
| 13. |
For it can harm fowl larger than itself.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:3) qualifies this matter, saying that these laws do not apply when a hawk attacks a chicken. The Tur and the Rama, however, state that this applies only to large chickens, but not to smaller ones.
|
| 14. |
Here also, the Tur and the Rama (loc. cit.) add a further point, stating that the laws of derisahapply with regard to a falcon regardless of the size of the bird it attacks.
|
| 15. |
Compare to the following halachah. The Kessef Mishneh explains that in this halachah, the Rambam is not concerned with the question of whether the attacker perforated one of the organs whose perforation disqualifies an animal. For if so, it would not have been necessary for the Rambam to mention derisah. If such an organ was perforated, even a large animal is disqualified. Instead, the intent is whether the "poison" of the attacker is sufficient to kill the victim.
|
| 16. |
This refers to a beast. The laws of derisah apply, by contrast, when a fowl attacks with its feet (Turei Zahav 57:10; Siftei Cohen 57:19).
|
| 17. |
Needless to say, if it delivers a mortal wound with its hindlegs, the victim is disqualified. Here, however, we are speaking about "poisoning" an animal through derisah and that applies only when it attacks with its foreleg and with its claws [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:6)].
|
| 18. |
With regard to this and wounding with its legs, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states, "they are no different than a thorn," i.e., there is no question of "poison."
|
| 19. |
For then it will not release its poison.
|
| 20. |
For it releases its "poison" only when it withdraws its claws and only when it is alive.
For this same reason, if ritual slaughter is performed on the animal that is being attacked before the attacking animal removes its claws, the slaughtered animal is permitted [Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 57:8)].
|
| 21. |
As explained in the following halachah.
|
| 22. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:18) mentions a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if such an examination can be relied upon in the present age. The Rama rules that we should be stringent, not rely on the examination, and hence, declare any animal that was attacked - or there is a question whether it was attacked - forbidden.
|
| 23. |
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro explains that the fact that the flesh turns red indicates that the poison from the predator has penetrated the animal's flesh and will ultimately, cause the intestines to be perforated. The Kessef Mishneh questions, however, why the Rambam mentions only the intestines. Since - as mentioned in the previous halachah - it is necessary to inspect the entire body, seemingly (and indeed, the Tur rules accordingly), the same laws would apply if red marks were found on the flesh above any organ whose perforation can disqualify the animal. He explains that perhaps this is indeed the Rambam's intent and he mentions the intestines only because there are many disqualifying factors involved with them. Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:16), he quotes the Rambam's wording without emendation. The Siftei Cohen 57:38) quotes the Tur's ruling.
|
| 24. |
Here also we assume that the poison will ultimately cause the organ below the flesh to become perforated (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 25. |
Here too the rationale is that once the poison has begun to have an effect, it will ultimately penetrate through and perforate the entire organ. There is, however, a difference between the signs and the other organs. With regard to the other organs, as soon as the flesh above the organ is affected, the animal is considered trefe. With regard to the signs, they themselves must be affected. It is possible to explain that the signs are tougher and more resilient than the other organs. Hence, the fact that the flesh above them is affected is no proof that they will also be affected (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 26. |
This applies even when a small portion of the windpipe becomes red. Although a perforation in the windpipe does not disqualify it unless it is the size of the majority of its cavity (Chapter 3, Halachah 23), we assume that the poison of the predator will ultimately cause such a perforation (Siftei Cohen 57:40).
|
| 27. |
As mentioned in Halachah 8. As stated in the notes to that halachah, there are authorities - and this is the custom cited by the Rama - it is customary in the present era not to rely on this examination and to regard any animal that was attacked - or even if there is a doubt whether it was attacked - as trefe.
|
| 28. |
An animal does not release its poison until the claw is removed (Halachah 7), and is this instance, it is implanted in the animal. We, nevertheless, disqualify it, for in this instance, we say that the animal released its poison when it lost its claw (Turei Zahav 57:21). Alternatively, we fear that it was also attacked with another claw and that claw was removed (Rambam LeAm).
|
| 29. |
And the claw which had been implanted in the wall became stuck in it. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:14) emphasizes that this ruling is followed even if the claw is dried out (and thus is unlikely to have come from an animal recently).
|
| 30. |
And that is why they are clamoring.
|
| 31. |
The Rama 57:9 states that this applies when we do not see that he attacked others. If, however, we see that he attacked others, we do not assume that his rage subsided.
|
| 32. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:11) states that this applies only when we see that he did not attack any animals. If, however, we saw an attack, the fact that he and the victims were silent is not significant.
|
| 33. |
For there is a multiple doubt involved. Perhaps the predator entered and perhaps it did not. Even if it entered, perhaps it wounded the animal and perhaps it did not (see Chullin 53b).
|
| 34. |
I.e., it scratched itself and caused itself a wound. We must, however, check to see that the gullet was not perforated (Radbaz). The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 57:13) states in the present age we do not rely on our inspection and therefore forbid any fowl that comes to us with a neck that is bleeding.
|
• Wednesday, Nissan 5, 5775 · 25 March 2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Tazria, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 29-34.
Tanya: Ch. 40. However (p. 197)...discussed at length. (p. 201).
In Birkat Hamazon, in Retzei (p. 91), say baal hayeshuot ("b" in the first word)u'vaal hanechamot ("v" in the second word).
My grandfather commented on the saying, "The place of man does not honor him; rather man honors his place."1 The term, kavod, "honor," has two implications. One iskaveid, "liver," as the Torah says,2 "Pharaoh's heart is kaveid ("heavy"), and the Sages comment, "His heart became like a liver," (cold, insensitive). The other meaning iskavod, "honor," signifying the revelation of a supernal encompassing illumination.
"The place of man does not honor him": Place (and circumstances) do not make him cold and insensitive.3 Rather, "Man honors his place," man has the capacity and the power to illuminate4 his environment ("place") with the light of Torah and avoda.
When the soul descends into the body, it is administered an oath to be a tzadik,5 This oath, sh'vua, implies sova, "satiety"; the person is generously endowed with eminent powers to be able to fulfill G-d's intention in having the soul descend (into the material world). And just as it is with the soul's descent, so is it also with every person, in whatever place he may be.6
FOOTNOTES
1. Taanit 21b.
2. Sh'mot 7:14.
3. As in the first meaning of kavod.
4. As in the second meaning of kavod.
5. See Tanya, beginning.
6. Just as the soul in general is endowed with powers to accomplish its purpose "below," so is every individual given the power and ability to illuminate his environment - the place (see above) in which he finds himself.
Daily Thought:
Delight Condensed
What is divine wisdom?
Divine wisdom is the inner delight of the Infinite, condensed and crystallized until fit for human consumption.
What is a mitzvah?
A mitzvah is divine wisdom condensed and crystallized until it can be performed as a physical action.
That is why in the study of Torah there is infinite delight.
That is why in the act of a mitzvah there is unlimited joy.[Maamar Arbaah Rashei Shanim Heim, 5731. Tanya, Igeret Hakodesh 29.]
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment