Today's Laws & Customs:
• Today's 'Nasi': Gad
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 Gad, Elyasaf ben De'uel, for the inauguration of the Mishkan.
Text of today's Nasi in Hebrew and English.
Today in Jewish History:
• The Town of Afula Was Founded (1925)
The town of Afula in Northern Israel was founded in this date in 1925. It is located on the presumed site of the tower ("Ophel") mentioned in the Biblical account of an Aramean general's visit to the Prophet Elisha (II Kings 5:24).
Afula's central location in the Jezreel Valley makes it the market center of the region; it is often referred to as "the Capital of the Valley."
Because of the town's proximity to Judea and Samaria, it has repeatedly been a target of terrorist attacks following the Oslo "peace process" and during the second Intifada.
Daily Quote:
On the day that the Holy Temple was destroyed, a Jew was plowing his field when his cow suddenly called out. An Arab was passing by and heard the call of the cow. Said the Arab to the Jew: "Son of Judah! Unyoke your cow, free the stake of your plow, for your Holy Temple has now been destroyed." The cow then called a second time. Said the Arab to the Jew: "Son of Judah! Yoke your cow, reset the stake of your plow, for Moshiach has now been born."[Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot 2:4]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Tzav, 5th Portion Leviticus 8:14-8:21 with Rashi
• Chapter 8
14And he brought the sin offering bull close, and Aaron and his sons leaned their hands [forcefully] upon the head of the sin offering bull. ידוַיַּגֵּשׁ אֵת פַּר הַחַטָּאת וַיִּסְמֹךְ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו אֶת יְדֵיהֶם עַל רֹאשׁ פַּר הַחַטָּאת:
15And he slaughtered [it], and Moses took the blood, and placed it on the horns of the altar, around, with his finger, and he purified the altar. And he poured the blood at the base of the altar, and sanctified it [the altar], to effect atonement upon it. טווַיִּשְׁחָט וַיִּקַּח משֶׁה אֶת הַדָּם וַיִּתֵּן עַל קַרְנוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וַיְחַטֵּא אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְאֶת הַדָּם יָצַק אֶל יְסוֹד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וַיְקַדְּשֵׁהוּ לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו:
and he purified the altar: He cleansed and purified it [to convert it] from its alien state, into holiness. ויחטא את המזבח: חטאו וטהרו מזרות להכנס לקדושה:
and sanctified it: with this service. ויקדשהו: בעבודה זו:
to effect atonement upon it: [i.e., to effect] all atonements from now on. לכפר עליו: מעתה כל הכפרות:
16And he took all the fat which was on the innards, and the diaphragm with the liver, and the two kidneys together with their fat. And Moses caused [them] to [go up in] smoke on the altar. טזוַיִּקַּח אֶת כָּל הַחֵלֶב אֲשֶׁר עַל הַקֶּרֶב וְאֵת יֹתֶרֶת הַכָּבֵד וְאֶת שְׁתֵּי הַכְּלָיֹת וְאֶת חֶלְבְּהֶן וַיַּקְטֵר משֶׁה הַמִּזְבֵּחָה:
and the diaphragm of the liver: Besides the liver, [meaning] that he took a little of the liver along with the diaphragm. ואת יתרת הכבד: על הכבד (שמות כט יג) לבד הכבד, שהיה נוטל מעט מן הכבד עמה:
17And the bull, its hide, its flesh, and its waste, he burned with fire outside the camp, as the Lord had commanded Moses. יזוְאֶת הַפָּר וְאֶת עֹרוֹ וְאֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ וְאֶת פִּרְשׁוֹ שָׂרַף בָּאֵשׁ מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה:
18And he brought near the burnt offering ram, and Aaron and his sons leaned their hands [forcefully] upon the head of the ram. יחוַיַּקְרֵב אֵת אֵיל הָעֹלָה וַיִּסְמְכוּ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו אֶת יְדֵיהֶם עַל רֹאשׁ הָאָיִל:
19And he slaughtered [it], and Moses dashed the blood on the altar, around. יטוַיִּשְׁחָט וַיִּזְרֹק משֶׁה אֶת הַדָּם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב:
20And he cut up the ram into its pieces, and Moses made the head, the pieces and the fat [go up in] smoke. כוְאֶת הָאַיִל נִתַּח לִנְתָחָיו וַיַּקְטֵר משֶׁה אֶת הָרֹאשׁ וְאֶת הַנְּתָחִים וְאֶת הַפָּדֶר:
21But the innards and the legs, he washed in water, and Moses made the entire ram [go up in] smoke on the altar. It was a burnt offering [with] a pleasing fragrance, a fire offering to the Lord, as the Lord had commanded Moses. כאוְאֶת הַקֶּרֶב וְאֶת הַכְּרָעַיִם רָחַץ בַּמָּיִם וַיַּקְטֵר משֶׁה אֶת כָּל הָאַיִל הַמִּזְבֵּחָה עֹלָה הוּא לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ אִשֶּׁה הוּא לַיהֹוָה כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה:Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 35 - 38
• Chapter 35
This psalm is an awe-inspiring and wondrous prayer about David's enemies-that they be as chaff before the wind, chased by the angel of God. It also declares that everything comes about through God's help.
1. By David. Fight my antagonists, O Lord, battle those who battle against me.
2. Take hold of shield and armor and arise to help me.
3. Draw a spear, and bar the way before my pursuers; say to my soul, "I am your deliverance.”
4. Let those who seek my life be shamed and disgraced; let those who devise my harm retreat and be humiliated.
5. Let them be as chaff before the wind; let the angel of the Lord thrust them away.
6. Let their path be dark and slippery; let them be chased by the angel of the Lord.
7. For without cause have they laid their nets in the pit for me; without cause have they dug [pits] for my soul.
8. Let darkness come upon him unawares; let the very snare that he hid trap him, in darkness he will fall in it.
9. And my soul shall exult in the Lord, rejoice in His deliverance.
10. My entire being shall declare: Lord, who is like You? Who saves the poor from one stronger than he, the poor and the destitute from one who would rob him.
11. Corrupt witnesses rise up [against me], they demand of me things of which I do not know.
12. They repay me evil for good, death for my soul.
13. But I wore sackcloth when they were ill; I afflicted my soul with fasting. Let my prayer return upon my own bosom.
14. As if it were my friend, my brother, I went about; like a mother in mourning, I was bent over in gloom.
15. But when I limped, they rejoiced and gathered; the lowly gathered against me-even those whom I do not know; they laugh and cannot be quiet.
16. With flattery and scorn, for the sake of a meal,1 they gnash their teeth at me.
17. My Lord, how long will You look on? Restore my life from their darkness; from young lions, my soul.
18. I will thank You in a great congregation, amidst a mighty nation I will praise You.
19. Let not those who hate me without cause rejoice over me; [let not] those who despise me without reason wink their eye.
20. For they speak not of peace, rather they scheme deceitful matters against the broken of the land.
21. They opened their mouths wide against me, they said, "Aha! Aha! Our eyes have seen [his misfortune].”
22. You saw, Lord, be not silent; my Lord, be not distant from me.
23. Rouse and awaken Yourself to my judgement, to my cause, my God and my Lord.
24. Judge me according to your righteousness, Lord my God; let them not rejoice over me.
25. Let them not say in their hearts, "Aha! We have our desire!" Let them not say, "We have swallowed him!”
26. Let them be shamed and disgraced together, those who rejoice at my trouble; let them be clothed in shame and humiliation, those who raise themselves arrogantly over me.
27. Let those who desire my vindication sing joyously and be glad; let them say always, "Let the Lord be exalted, Who desires the peace of His servant.”
28. My tongue will speak of Your righteousness, Your praise, all day long.
Chapter 36
This psalm is a message to those who follow their evil inclination, that tells them, "Do not place the fear of God before you," and brings them to sin by beautifying evil deeds in their eyes. For so is his way: "He descends (to earth) and corrupts, then goes up (to the Heavenly Court) and prosecutes."
1. For the Conductor, by the servant of the Lord, by David.
2. [I think] in my heart: Sin says to the wicked, "There is none [who need place] the fear of God before his eyes.”
3. For Sin makes itself appealing to him, until his iniquity be found and he is hated.
4. The speech of his mouth is evil and deceit; he fails to reason, to improve.
5. On his bed he contemplates evil, he stands in a path that is not good; he does not despise evil.
6. O Lord, Your kindness is in the heavens; Your faithfulness is till the skies.
7. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, Your judgements extend to the great deep; man and beast You deliver, O Lord.
8. How precious is Your kindness, O God; man takes shelter in the shadow of Your wings.
9. They will be filled by the abundance of Your house; from the stream of Your Eden, You will give them to drink.
10. For the source of life is with You; in Your Light do we see light.
11. Extend Your kindness to those who know You, and Your righteousness to the upright of heart.
12. Let not the foot of the arrogant overtake me; let not the hand of the wicked drive me away.
13. There1 the doers of evil fell, thrust down, unable to rise.
Chapter 37
King David exhorts his generation not to be jealous of the prosperity of the wicked, for it may lead to falling into their ways. Rather, put your trust in God, conduct yourselves with integrity, and God will take care of everything.
1. By David. Do not compete with the wicked; do not envy doers of injustice.
2. For like grass they will be swiftly cut down; like green vegetation they will wither.
3. Trust in the Lord and do good; then will you abide in the land and be nourished by faith.
4. Delight in the Lord, and He will grant you the desires of your heart.
5. Cast your needs upon the Lord; rely on Him, and He will take care.
6. He will reveal your righteousness like the light, your justness like the high noon.
7. Depend on the Lord and hope in Him. Compete not with the prosperous, with the man who invents evil schemes.
8. Let go of anger, abandon rage; do not compete with [one who intends] only to harm.
9. For the evildoers will be cut down; but those who hope in the Lord, they will inherit the earth.
10. For soon the wicked one will not be; you will gaze at his place and he will be gone.
11. But the humble shall inherit the earth, and delight in abundant peace.
12. The wicked one plots against the righteous, and gnashes his teeth at him.
13. My Lord laughs at him, for He sees that his day will come.
14. The wicked have drawn a sword and bent their bow to fell the poor and destitute, to slaughter those of upright ways.
15. But their sword shall enter their own hearts, and their bows shall break.
16. Better the little of the righteous, than the abundant wealth of the wicked.
17. For the strength of the wicked will be broken, but the Lord supports the righteous.
18. The Lord appreciates the days of the innocent; their inheritance will last forever.
19. They will not be shamed in times of calamity, and in days of famine they will be satisfied.
20. For the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord are as fattened sheep: consumed, consumed in smoke.
21. The wicked man borrows and does not repay; but the righteous man is gracious and gives.
22. For those blessed by Him will inherit the earth, and those cursed by Him will be cut off.
23. The steps of man are directed by God; He desires his way.
24. When he totters he shall not be thrown down, for the Lord supports his hand.
25. I have been a youth, I have also aged; yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his offspring begging bread.
26. All day he is kind and lends; his offspring are a blessing.
27. Turn away from evil and do good, and you will dwell [in peace] forever.
28. For the Lord loves justice, he will not abandon his pious ones-they are protected forever; but the offspring of the wicked are cut off.
29. The righteous shall inherit the earth and dwell upon it forever.
30. The mouth of the righteous one utters wisdom, and his tongue speaks justice.
31. The Torah of his God is in his heart; his steps shall not falter.
32. The wicked one watches for the righteous man, and seeks to kill him.
33. But the Lord will not abandon him in his hand, nor condemn him when he is judged.
34. Hope in the Lord and keep His way; then He will raise you high to inherit the earth. When the wicked are cut off, you shall see it.
35. I saw a powerful wicked man, well-rooted like a vibrant, native tree.
36. Yet he vanished, behold he was gone; I searched for him, but he could not be found.
37. Watch the innocent, and observe the upright, for the future of such a man is peace.
38. But sinners shall be destroyed together; the future of the wicked is cut off.
39. The deliverance of the righteous is from the Lord; He is their strength in time of distress.
40. The Lord helps them and delivers them; He delivers them from the wicked and saves them, because they have put their trust in Him.
Chapter 38
A prayer for every individual, bewailing the length of the exile. One who is in distress should recite this psalm, hence its introduction, "A psalm... to remind" (to remind us to recite it in times of distress). One can also derive many lessons from it.
1. A psalm by David, to remind.
2. O Lord, do not rebuke me in Your anger, nor chastise me in Your wrath.
3. For Your arrows have landed in me, Your hand descended upon me.
4. There is no soundness in my flesh because of Your rage, no peace in my bones because of my sin.
5. For my iniquities have flooded over my head; like a heavy load, they are too heavy for me.
6. My wounds are rotted; they reek because of my foolishness.
7. I am bent and extremely bowed; all day I go about in gloom.
8. My sides are inflamed; there is no soundness in my flesh.
9. I am weakened and extremely depressed; I howl from the moaning of my heart.
10. My Lord, all that I desire is before You; my sighing is not hidden from You.
11. My heart is engulfed, my strength has left me; the light of my eyes they, too, are not with me.
12. My friends and companions stand aloof from my affliction; my intimates stand afar.
13. The seekers of my life have laid traps; those who seek my harm speak destructiveness; they utter deceits all day long.
14. But I am like a deaf man, I do not hear; like a mute that does not open his mouth.
15. I was like a man that does not perceive, and in whose mouth there are no rebuttals.
16. Because for You, O Lord, I wait; You will answer, my Lord, my God.
17. For I said, "Lest they rejoice over me; when my foot falters they will gloat over me.”
18. For I am accustomed to limping, and my pain is constantly before me.
19. For I admit my iniquity; I worry because of my sin.
20. But my enemies abound with life; those who hate me without cause flourish.
21. Those who repay evil for good resent me for my pursuit of good.
22. Do not forsake me, O Lord; do not be distant from me, my God.
23. Hurry to my aid, O my Lord, my Salvation.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 38• Lessons in Tanya
• Thursday, Nissan 6, 5775 · March 26, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 38
כי מי שדעתו יפה לדעת את ה׳ ולהתבונן בגדולתו יתברך
The first level is that of a person discerning enough to know G‑d and to reflect on His greatness,
ולהוליד מבינתו יראה עילאה במוחו, ואהבת ה׳ בחלל הימני שבלבו
and to create out of his understanding a lofty fear in his mind and a love of G‑d in the right part of his heart (the seat of the divine soul’s emotions),
להיות נפשו צמאה לה׳ לדבקה בו
so that his soul thirsts for G‑d [seeking] to cleave to Him
על ידי קיום התורה והמצות, שהן המשכת והארת אור אין סוף ברוך הוא על נפשו לדבקה בו
by fulfilling the Torah and mitzvot, which are the extension and illumination of the Ein Sof-light upon one’s soul by which one may cleave to Him.
In other words, this person’s desire to cleave to G‑d through the only means of doing so, viz., Torah and mitzvot, stems from a love and awe of G‑d created by intellectual appreciation of His greatness. His kavanah in mitzvot (i.e., his desire to cleave to G‑d through mitzvot) thus has an intellectual basis.
ובכוונה זו הוא לומד ומקיים המצות, וכן בכוונה זו מתפלל ומברך
When he studies [Torah] and fulfills the mitzvot [it is] with this kavanah, and likewise when he prays and recites blessings [it is] with this kavanah of cleaving to G‑d Whose greatness he has come to understand.
הרי כוונה זו על דרך משל כמו נשמת המדבר, שהוא בעל שכל ובחירה, ובדעת ידבר
Such kavanah is analogous to the soul of a human being, who possesses intelligence and freedom of choice and who speaks with wisdom, for such kavanahis likewise based on intellect and choice.
ומי שדעתו קצרה לידע ולהתבונן בגדולת אין סוף ברוך הוא
The second level of kavanah is that of a person whose understanding is too limited to know and to reflect on the greatness of the blessed Ein Sof,
להוליד האהבה מבינתו בהתגלות לבו, וכן היראה במוחו, ופחד ה׳ בלבו
so as to create out of his understanding a revealed love in his heart, and also awe in his mind and dread of G‑d in his heart. His level of understanding is inadequate to create a palpable spiritual emotion.
Since one’s observance of the mitzvot is contingent on love of G‑d, and refraining from sin is contingent on fear of G‑d, how can one who cannot evoke these emotions because of his limited understanding fulfill the Torah and mitzvot? What motivates him?
Such a person, the Alter Rebbe will say, is motivated by his arousal of the “hidden love,” the love of G‑d (which also comprises an aspect of fear) hidden in the heart of every Jew.
Even if he cannot arouse this love to a revealed state, where he can actually feel this love (and fear) in his heart, he can surely arouse it in his mind, so that at that level he will experience a conscious desire to attach himself to G‑d. This desire will lead him to study Torah and fulfill the mitzvot, since this is the only way for him to realize his wish.
In this case, his kavanah in Torah study and in mitzvot (i.e., his desire to cleave to G‑d) is based on “instinct”, i.e., on the innate love of G‑d found in his heart. This level of kavanahtherefore resembles the soul of an animal, whose actions are instinctive, not rational.
In the Alter Rebbe’s words:
רק שזוכר ומעורר את האהבה הטבעית המסותרת בלבו
He merely recalls and arouses the natural love hidden in his heart,
ומוציאה מההעלם והסתר הלב אל הגילוי במוח, על כל פנים
and brings it out of concealment in his heart to a state of consciousness, in his mind at least (even if he cannot arouse a revealed feeling of love in his heart, surely he can summon it to mental consciousness),
שיהיה רצונו שבמוחו ותעלומות לבו מסכים ומתרצה בריצוי גמור באמת לאמיתו
so that his will in his mind and in the recesses of his heart should approve and consent, with complete willingness and perfect sincerity
למסור נפשו בפועל ממש על יחוד ה׳
to surrender his life in martyrdom, in actual fact (not merely as a figure of speech), forhis affirmation of the unity of G‑d (rejecting belief in any other divinity),
כדי לדבקה בו נפשו האלקית ולבושיה, ולכללן ביחודו ואחדותו
in order to attach to Him his divine soul and its garments of thought, speech and action, and to unite them with His unity —
שהוא רצון העליון המלובש בתלמוד תורה וקיום המצות, כנ״ל
which is identical with the Supernal Will that is clothed in Torah study and performance of the mitzvot, as explained above.
Like martyrdom that one undergoes out of love for G‑d, study of the Torah and performance of the mitzvot unite the soul with G‑d. Therefore, one’s arousal of his natural love of G‑d (to the point where he is prepared to offer his life for G‑d’s unity) will also motivate him to fulfill the Torah and mitzvot.
וגם היראה כלולה בה, לקבל מלכותו, שלא למרוד בו, חס ושלום
This [natural love] also comprises fear [of G‑d]: acceptance of His dominion, so as not to rebel against Him, G‑d forbid, through sin.
ובכוונה זו הוא סר מרע ועושה טוב, ולומד ומתפלל ומברך
When, motivated by this kavanah (which is born of his innate love and fear of G‑d), one “turns away from evil” (by refraining from sin) and “does good” (by observing themitzvot), and studies, prays, and recites the blessings,
בפירוש המלות לבדו, בלא דחילו ורחימו בהתגלות לבו ומוחו
thinking merely of the meaning of the words, without conscious love and fear of G‑d in his heart and mind, which would lend emotional intensity to his prayer; lacking revealed love and fear, he prays only with the meaning of the words; when one fulfills the Torah in this manner,
הרי כוונה זו, על דרך משל, כמו נשמת החי שאינו בעל שכל ובחירה
this level of kavanah is analogous to the soul of an animal, which possesses neither intelligence nor freedom of choice,
וכל מדותיו, שהן יראתו מדברים המזיקים אותו ואהבתו לדברים הנאהבים אצלו, הן רק טבעיים אצלו, ולא מבינתו ודעתו
and whose emotions — its fear of harmful things and its love of pleasing things — are merely natural to it, not a product of its intelligence or understanding.
וכך הן, על דרך משל, היראה והאהבה הטבעיות המסותרות בלב כל ישראל
So, too, by way of example, are the natural love and fear hidden in the heart of every Jew; they, too, are not a product of intelligence or choice,
כי הן ירושה לנו מאבותינו, וכמו טבע בנפשותינו
for they are our inheritance from our Patriarchs, and are like a natural instinct in our souls,
כנזכר לעיל
as mentioned above, in ch. 18.
The Alter Rebbe explained there that the Patriarchs bequeathed to their descendants as an eternal inheritance, a divine soul with an intrinsic love (and fear) of G‑d. Because this love is merely instinctive and natural, its function as motivation (kavanah) for the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvot is likened to the soul of an animal.
To summarize: Both the performance and kavanah of mitzvot are divided into two categories.
The two levels in performance (the “body” of the mitzvot) are analogous to the two classes of “body”-creatures — inanimate beings and plants. They are (a) mitzvot performed with action and (b) mitzvot performed through speech or thought.
The two levels in kavanah (the “soul” of the mitzvot) correspond to the two classes of “soul”-creatures — animals and man. They are: (a) kavanah generated by one’s intellectual contemplation of G‑dliness, and (b) kavanah arising from one’s natural love (and fear) of G‑d.
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
Thursday, Nissan 6, 5775 · March 26, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 147
Covering Blood
"...and spills its blood, and he shall cover it with earth"—Leviticus 17:13.
We are commanded to cover the blood of a ritually slaughtered bird or non-domesticated animal.
Covering Blood
Positive Commandment 147
Translated by Berel Bell
The 147nd mitzvah is that we are commanded to cover the blood when slaughtering a bird or a chaya.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "When he spills its blood, he must cover [the blood] with earth."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 6th chapter of tractate Chulin.
FOOTNOTES
1.An animal with antlers, such as a deer.
2.Lev. 17:13.
Milah - Chapter One
HILCHOT MILAH
THE LAWS OF CIRCUMCISION
It contains one positive mitzvah:THE LAWS OF CIRCUMCISION
To circumcise males on the eighth day.
This mitzvah is explained in the following chapters.
Halacha 1
Circumcision is a positive mitzvah [whose lack of fulfillment] is punishable bykaret, as [Genesis 17:14] states: "And an uncircumcised male who does not circumcise his foreskin - this soul will be cut off from his people."
A father is commanded to circumcise his son, and a master, his slaves. This applies both to those who are born in his home and to those purchased by him. If the father or the master transgressed and did not circumcise them, he negated the fulfillment of a positive commandment. He is not, however, punished by karet, for karet is incurred only by the uncircumcised person himself. The court is obligated to circumcise that son or slave at the proper time and should not leave an uncircumcised male among the Jewish people or their slaves.
Halacha 2
We may not circumcise a person's son without his knowledge, unless he has transgressed and did not circumcise him. [In such an instance,] the court must circumcise [the child] against [the father's] will.
If the matter does not become known to the court and they do not circumcise him, when [the child] reaches bar mitzvah, he is obligated to circumcise himself. With each and every day that passes after he has reached bar mitzvah, he negates a positive commandment. He is not, however, liable for karet until he dies uncircumcised, having intentionally [failed to perform the mitzvah].
Halacha 3
A master is obligated to circumcise both a slave who was born as the property of a Jewish owner and a slave purchased from the gentiles. [There is, however, a difference between the two.] A home-born slave should be circumcised on the eighth day [of his life]. In contrast, a slave who is purchased should be circumcised on the day he was purchased. If he was purchased on the day he was born, he should be circumcised on that day.
Halacha 4
There are, however, slaves that are purchased who should be circumcised on the eighth day [of their lives], and home-born slaves who should be circumcised on the day they are born.
What is implied? Should one purchase a maidservant and purchase [the rights to] her fetus [separately], when she gives birth, the baby should be circumcised on the eighth day. Although the fetus itself was purchased separately, since [the master] purchased his mother before the child was born, he should be circumcised on his eighth day.
Halacha 5
If a person purchased a maidservant for her offspring, or purchased a maidservant with the intent of not immersing her as a slave, even though her offspring is born in his domain, the child should be circumcised on the day he was born.
[This ruling was granted, because] this child is considered as if he alone has been purchased [by his master], and it is as if he purchased him this day. His mother is not included among the maidservants of the Jewish people, so that the child could be considered "home-born." If his mother immersed herself after she gave birth, the child should be circumcised on the eighth day.
Halacha 6
When a person purchases a slave from the gentiles and the slave does not consent to be circumcised, we may be patient with him for twelve months. It is forbidden to maintain him for any longer period while he remains uncircumcised, and one must sell him to gentiles.
If, at the outset, while the slave was still in the possession of his gentile master, he made a stipulation that he would not be circumcised, it is permissible to maintain him although he is not circumcised, provided he accepts the seven universal laws commanded to the descendants of Noah and becomes a resident alien.
If he refuses to accept these seven laws, he should be killed immediately. A resident alien may be accepted only in the era when the laws of yovel are in effect.
Halacha 7
When a convert enters the congregation of Israel, he is obligated to undergo circumcision first. If he had been circumcised while he was a gentile, it is necessary to extract the blood of the covenant on the day that he converts.
Similarly, a child who was born without a foreskin must have blood extracted for circumcision on the eighth day. An androgynous, a child with both male and female sexual organs, must be circumcised on the eighth day. Similarly, a child born by Caesarian section and a child who has two foreskins should both be circumcised on the eighth day.
Halacha 8
Circumcision is performed only during the day, after the rising of the sun, as [Leviticus 12:3] states, "On the eighth day...," i.e., during the day, and not at night. [This applies to a circumcision performed] at the appropriate time, the eighth day [after birth], and [to a circumcision performed] after the appropriate time, from the ninth day and onward.
If one performed the circumcision after dawn, it is acceptable. It is acceptable [at any time] throughout the entire day. Nevertheless, it is a mitzvah to [perform the circumcision] early, in the beginning of the day, since "the eager perform mitzvot early."
Halacha 9
When a circumcision [is performed] at its appropriate time, [its performance] supersedes [the prohibition against labor] on the Sabbath. When it [is] not [performed] at its appropriate time, [its performance] does not supersede [the prohibition against labor] on the Sabbath or the festivals. Whether or not it is performed at its appropriate time, [its performance] supersedes [the prohibition against removing signs of] tzara'at.
What is implied? If there was a sign of tzara'at on the foreskin, it may be cut off with the foreskin. Although there is a prohibition against cutting off the signs oftzara'at, the performance of a positive commandment supersedes the observance of a negative commandment.
Halacha 10
Just as the circumcision of sons supersedes [the prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath, so too, the circumcision of those slaves who are circumcised on the eighth day [of their lives] supersedes [the prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath when the eighth day [of their life] falls on the Sabbath. There is [one] exception - a slave whose mother did not immerse herself until after she gave birth. Although such a slave is circumcised on the eighth day, his circumcision does not supersede [the prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath.
Halacha 11
[The circumcision of the following individuals] does not supersede [the prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath:
a child who was born without a foreskin;
a child who was born in the eighth month of pregnancy before his development was completed; he is considered to be a stillborn, for he will not live;
a child born by Caesarian section;
an androgynous; and
a person with two foreskins.
a child who was born without a foreskin;
a child who was born in the eighth month of pregnancy before his development was completed; he is considered to be a stillborn, for he will not live;
a child born by Caesarian section;
an androgynous; and
a person with two foreskins.
These individuals are circumcised on [the following] Sunday, the ninth day of their lives.
Halacha 12
When a child is born beyn hash'mashot, which is a period when it is undetermined whether it is considered day or night, we count from the night, and he is circumcised on the ninth day [following the day he was born], which could be the eighth day.
When a child is born beyn hash'mashot on Friday, his circumcision does not supersede the Sabbath prohibitions, because the Sabbath prohibitions are never superseded because of a doubtful situation. Rather, he should be circumcised on [the following] Sunday.
Halacha 13
[The following principles apply when] a child is born in the eighth month [of pregnancy]:1 If the child's nails and hair are completely formed, we assume that this is a completely formed infant that should have been born in the seventh month, but whose birth was delayed. Hence, the baby may be carried on the Sabbath, is not considered to be a stone, and may be circumcised on the Sabbath.
If, however, when the baby was born, its hair and nails were incompletely formed, we can be certain that this child is in its eighth month of development and should not have been born until the ninth month, but was born prematurely. Therefore, he is considered as a stone and may not be moved on the Sabbath.
Nevertheless, if such an infant remains alive for thirty days, he is considered to be a child who will live and is governed by all the same rules as other infants.2
Whenever a human child lives longer than thirty days, it is no longer considered to be a stillborn.
Whenever a human child lives longer than thirty days, it is no longer considered to be a stillborn.
Halacha 14
[The following rules apply when] a child is born in the seventh month of gestation: If a child is born with his limbs completely formed,3 we assume that he will live and he should be circumcised on the eighth day [even if it falls on the Sabbath].
If there is a question whether a child4 was born in the seventh month or in the eighth month, he can be circumcised on the Sabbath. The rationale is: If he was born in the seventh month and his limbs are completely formed, it is appropriate that [his circumcision] supersede [the prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath. If he was born in the eighth month, circumcising him [does not constitute a violation of the Sabbath prohibitions].5
It is like cutting meat, because he is like a stillborn if he is, in fact, born in the eighth month.
It is like cutting meat, because he is like a stillborn if he is, in fact, born in the eighth month.
Halacha 15
When a child's head emerges from his mother's birth canal beyn hash'mashoton Friday, but his entire body does not emerge until after the Sabbath night [has commenced], the child should not be circumcised on the Sabbath.6
Whenever a child's circumcision does not supersede the Sabbath prohibitions, [such circumcision] also does not supersede the prohibitions of the first day of a festival.7 It does, however, supersede the prohibitions of the second day of a festival.8 On Rosh HaShanah, however, it does not supersede [the prohibitions] of either the first or the second day.9 Similarly, a circumcision that is not carried out at the appropriate time10 does not supersede [the prohibitions of either of] the two days of Rosh HaShanah.11
Halacha 16
A sick person should not be circumcised until he regains his health. Seven full days should be counted from the time he regains his health until he is circumcised.
When does the above apply? When he recovers from high fever or from a similar illness. If, however, a person's eyes hurt, as soon as his eyes heal he may be circumcised immediately. The same applies in all similar circumstances.
Halacha 17
Halacha 18
When a woman circumcised her first son and he died because the circumcision sapped his strength, and similarly, circumcised her second son and he also died because of the circumcision, she should not circumcise her third son at the appropriate time. Rather, she should wait until he becomes older and his strength increases. [This applies regardless of whether] the first two children were sired by the same father or not.
We should not circumcise a child who is afflicted with any sickness at all, since the danger to life takes precedence over everything. Circumcision can be performed at a later date, while it is impossible to bring a single Jewish soul back to life.
Commentary Halacha 1
Circumcision is a positive mitzvah - Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 215) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 2) consider this one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
[whose lack of fulfillment] is punished by - Circumcision and the Paschal sacrifices are the only positive commandments for which the Torah prescribes punishment if they are not fulfilled. In both instances, the punishment is the same (karet).
karet - Premature death at the hand of God (Mo'ed Katan 28a) and a severe spiritual punishment, the "soul's being cut off," and not being granted a share in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1,5).
as [Genesis 17:14] states: "And an uncircumcised male who does not circumcise his foreskin - this soul will be cut off from his people." - The citation of the verse from Genesis is significant. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Chulin 7:6), the Rambam writes that our fulfillment of this mitzvah is not based on God's commandment to Abraham, but rather on the commandment issued to Moses (Leviticus 12:3), "On the eighth day, the child's foreskin will be circumcised." Nevertheless, the commandment to Abraham is still significant, and many particulars concerning circumcision are derived from it.
A father - and not a mother (Kiddushin 29a)
is commanded to circumcise his son - Although when the son reaches the age of bar mitzvah, he is obligated by the mitzvah. Until that time, the father is responsible for the fulfillment of the mitzvah.
The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 2) questions the extent of the father's responsibility. If the father does not circumcise his son before the latter reaches majority, is the father still charged with the mitzvah (together with the son) or is the son solely responsible for the mitzvah?
Likkutei Sichot (Vol. 11) explains that the question is dependent on a difference of opinion between the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. The Babylonian Talmud (Kiddushin 29a) derives the mitzvah from the verse (Genesis 21:4), "And Avraham circumcised his son, Isaac." This indicates that the mitzvah is primarily the father's (although after the son reaches adulthood, he also becomes responsible). In contrast, the Jerusalem Talmud (Kiddushin 1:7) quotes as a proof-text for the mitzvah (Leviticus 12:3), "On the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised." The Korban Eidah explains that this implies the mitzvah is the son's. Since he is not able to perform it himself as a youth, however, his father is given the responsibility while the child is a minor.
Likkutei Sichot continues, explaining that the Rambam's position is obvious from his discussion of the blessings recited for the mitzvot in Hilchot Berachot, Chapter 11. In Halachah 11 of that chapter, the Rambam explains that if one performs a mitzvah on one's own behalf, one should use the form, "who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to...." In contrast, if one performs a mitzvah on behalf of another person, one uses the form, "... and commanded us concerning...."
Rav Yitzchak ben Sheshet (Responsum 131) notes that the Rambam (Hilchot Bikkurim 11:5) rules that one should recite the blessing "...concerning the redemption of a son," implying that the mitzvah is not the father's, but the son's (merely that as an infant, the son cannot fulfill it). In contrast, in Chapter 3, Halachah 1, the Rambam states that a father should recite the blessing "... to circumcise...," implying that the mitzvah is his.
and a master, his slaves. - Here, the responsibility for the mitzvah is surely the master's. This circumcision is one of the stages in the process by which the slave attains the status of eved C'na'ani, an intermediate rung between a gentile and a Jew. He is obligated to fulfill all the negative commandments and all those positive commandments that are not associated with a specific time. (See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 12:11.)
This applies both to those who are born in his home - i.e., a non-Jewish maidservant gave birth to a male child
and to those purchased by him. - See Genesis 17:27, which relates that Abraham circumcised both these categories of servants.
If the father or the master transgressed and did not circumcise them, he negated the fulfillment of a positive commandment. - Note the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 19:6):
If a person transgressed and did not circumcise his son or his servants born in his home... on the eighth day, he transgresses a very great and severe mitzvah, to which there is no comparison among the other mitzvot. He can never compensate for [the lack of fulfillment of] this mitzvah.
His sin is much more severe than a person who did not build a sukkah on Sukkot, or one who did not eat matzah on Pesach.
His sin is much more severe than a person who did not build a sukkah on Sukkot, or one who did not eat matzah on Pesach.
He is not, however, punished by karet, for karet is incurred only by the uncircumcised person himself. - This is obvious from the proof-text quoted above.
The court is obligated to circumcise that son or slave at the proper time and should not leave an uncircumcised male among the Jewish people or their slaves. - Kiddushin, loc. cit., interprets Genesis 17:10, "You must circumcise every male," as a charge to the Jewish court, making them responsible for circumcising every member of the people.
Commentary Halacha 2
We may not circumcise a person's son without his knowledge - SeeHilchot Chovel UMazik 7:13-14, where the Rambam describes the prohibition against "stealing" the performance of a mitzvah from a colleague, and the fine of ten gold pieces for doing so. The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 382:1) explicitly associates this concept with circumcising a person's son without his knowledge.
unless he has transgressed and did not circumcise him. - The Rambam's phraseology has raised questions among the halachic authorities. Is his intent that once the father has allowed the eighth day to pass, the obligation falls on the court, or is his intent that only after the father makes it obvious that he does not want to circumcise his son that they become responsible? Similarly, the question has been raised what should be done if the father is unaware that a son has been born to him, or is prevented from carrying out the circumcision by factors beyond his control. Should the circumcision be carried out on the eighth day, or should the family wait until the father returns? See Avnei Nezer (Yoreh De'ah, Responsum 318) and Rav Kapach's commentary.
[In such an instance,] the court must circumcise - the obligation mentioned in the previous halachah falls upon them
[the child] against [the father's] will. - Even if he protests, the mitzvah should be performed.
If the matter does not become known to the court and they do not circumcise him, when [the child] reaches bar mitzvah he is obligated to circumcise himself. - Tzafenat Paneach explains that there are three aspects to the mitzvah of circumcision:
a) to remove the foreskin;
b) to be circumcised;
c) not to be uncircumcised. (See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.)< /p>
b) to be circumcised;
c) not to be uncircumcised. (See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.)< /p>
The first aspect involves a single deed. The second and third dimensions, however, are ongoing qualities that a person continues to possess even after the deed of circumcision is completed. Thus, the Or Zarua quotes Menachot43b, which relates that when King David entered the bathhouse, he was upset for he was "naked," without mitzvot. When he remembered that he was circumcised, he relaxed, realizing that he was still involved with the performance of a mitzvah.
This indicates that, even years after his circumcision, he was considered to be fulfilling the mitzvah. In contrast, with regard to the mitzvot of tefillin and tzitzit, although he had just removed them, he was no longer considered to be involved in the performance of these mitzvot.
With each and every day that passes after he has reached bar mitzvah, he negates a positive commandment. - Some of the manuscript editions of theMishneh Torah state, "It is as if he negates a commandment." The mitzvah of circumcision is not negated until the person dies without fulfilling it. Unlike tefillin or tzitzit, where each day a person performs a different mitzvah, there is only one mitzvah of circumcision (Rav Kapach).
He is not, however, liable for karet until he dies uncircumcised - As mentioned above, there are two dimensions to the punishment of karet: premature death and the cutting off of the soul. According to the Rambam, a person who does not circumcise himself is liable only for the second aspect of this punishment, since until he dies, it is not known whether he will perform the mitzvah or not (Kessef Mishneh).
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's statements, stating that each day he does not perform the mitzvah, he is liable for karet and is worthy of premature death. (Even according to the Ra'avad, were the person to circumcise himself, he would no longer be liable for karet).
having intentionally - but not if he was unaware of the mitzvah or was prevented from fulfilling it by forces beyond his control
[failed to perform the mitzvah]. - The Rambam's phraseology raises the question whether a person is liable forkaret if he initially failed to perform the mitzvah intentionally, and then was prevented from fulfilling it by forces beyond his control.
Commentary Halacha 3
A master is obligated to circumcise both a slave who was born as the property of a Jewish owner - i.e., the "home-born slave" mentioned inGenesis 17:12
and a slave purchased from the gentiles. - Such servants are also mentioned in the above verse.
[There is, however, a difference between the two.] A home- born slave should be circumcised on the eighth day [of his life] - as is a Jewish child. The above verse states that "all those born in your house" - i.e., also slaves - should be circumcised on the eighth day (Rashi, Shabbat 135b).
In contrast, a slave who is purchased should be circumcised on the day he was purchased. - Since Genesis 17:13 repeats the commandment, "Circumcise all home-born [slaves] and those purchased with your money," we can assume that there are slaves who are to be circumcised immediately (Rashi, loc. cit.).
If he was purchased on the day he was born, he should be circumcised on that day - provided, of course, that the surgery will not affect the infant's health. (Note the Guide to the Perplexed, Vol. III, Chapter 49, which explains that both physically and spiritually, a child is not prepared for circumcision until the eighth day.)
Commentary Halacha 4
There are, however - certain exceptions to the rules mentioned in the previous halachah that are also mentioned in Shabbat 135b. There are some
slaves that are purchased who should be circumcised on the eighth day [of their lives] - as explained in this halachah
and - some
home-born slaves who should be circumcised on the day they are born -as explained in the following halachah.
What is implied? Should one purchase a maidservant and purchase [the rights to] her fetus [separately] - This is possible when the maidservant herself belonged to one master and the fetus to another (Rambam in his responsa).
when she gives birth the baby should be circumcised on the eighth day. Although the fetus itself was purchased separately, since [the master] purchased his mother before the child was born - the child is considered "home-born" and
he should be circumcised on his eighth day. - The Kessef Mishneh relates that, according to the Rambam, even if the master at first purchased only the rights to the fetus, and then purchased the mother, since she gave birth while in his domain, the slave is considered "home-born," and is circumcised on the eighth day.
Commentary Halacha 5
If a person purchased a maidservant for her offspring - In his responsum cited above, the Rambam compares this to a person who buys a tree for its fruit - i.e., he is not the actual owner of the tree, but is entitled to all the fruit it produces. Similarly, in this instance, the master is not the owner of the maidservant; what he has purchased is the right to her offspring. Therefore, none of the offspring are considered "home-born," and must be circumcised immediately.
or purchased a maidservant with the intent of not immersing her as a slave - Through immersion in a mikveh, a female maidservant becomes ashifchah C'na'anit and attains the intermediate status mentioned in the Commentary on Halachah 1.
As the Rambam mentions in the following halachah, it is possible to purchase a gentile slave and maintain possession of him or her without changing his or her status in the above manner.
even though her offspring is born in his domain, the child should be circumcised on the day he was born. - The first instance mentioned does not require explanation. With regard to the second category, the Rambam elaborates:
[This ruling was granted, because] this child is considered as if he alone has been purchased [by his master], and it is as if he purchased him this day. His mother is not included among the maidservants of the Jewish people, so that the child could be considered 47homeborn." - In the responsum cited above, the Rambam explains that the concept of a "home-born" slave is derived from God's commandment to Abraham. All the members of Abraham's household had accepted his beliefs and way of life. In contrast, a slave who is unwilling to accept the mitzvot cannot be considered part of a Jewish household, and her children are not "home-born."
If his mother immersed herself after she gave birth - This shows that the stipulation that she need not be immersed (see the following halachah) is nullified and considered of no consequence. Therefore, she is considered to be part of the household, and
the child should be circumcised on the eighth day. - The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision and maintains that unless the mother immerses herself before giving birth, the child should be circumcised immediately. Rabbenu Nissim, in his notes to Shabbat 135b, supports the Rambam's decision, explaining that the Sages did not reach a final ruling on the matter, and hence the more stringent approach should be taken.
Commentary Halacha 6
When a person purchases a slave from the gentiles and the slave does not consent - Note the difference of opinion in Yevamot 48b, whether this leniency is granted if the slave refuses outright to be circumcised.
to be circumcised, we may be patient with him for twelve months - lest he change his mind and accept his status within the Jewish people.
It is forbidden to maintain him for any longer period while he remains uncircumcised, and one must sell him to gentiles. - He must, however, agree to accept the seven universal laws mentioned below. Otherwise, he should be slain (Kessef Mishneh).
If, at the outset, while the slave was still in the possession of his gentile master, he made a stipulation that he would not be circumcised - Rav Kapach maintains that the stipulation was made by the slave's master. Since the slave is considered to be chattel, his own say is of no concern.
it is permissible to maintain him although he is not circumcised, provided he accepts the seven universal laws commanded to the descendants of Noah - The prohibitions against idol worship, cursing God, murder, theft, adultery, eating flesh taken from a living animal, and the obligation to establish a court system. (See Hilchot Melachim 9:1-2.)
and becomes a resident alien. - In Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:6, the Rambam writes that it is forbidden to allow gentiles who do not accept these seven laws to dwell in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, a gentile who does is called a resident alien - i.e., a non-Jew who may dwell among us.
If he refuses to accept these seven laws - The slave must formally accept the performance of these mitzvot in the presence of a Rabbinic court.
he should be killed immediately. - The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam's decision depends on his statement (Hilchot Melachim 8:9) that we must do everything in our power to influence the gentiles to observe these seven laws.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's statement, explaining that in the present era, we may not kill any gentiles for refusing to observe these seven laws. The commentaries differ whether the Rambam would accept the Ra'avad's decision (and his statement here is, like many of the other laws he states, reflective of the Messianic era), or whether permission is granted to kill a slave for refusing to follow these laws in the present age as well.
A resident alien may be accepted only in the era when the laws of yovel -The Jubilee year
are in effect. - The Jubilee must be observed only when the entire Jewish people are dwelling in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, when the tribes of Reuven and Gad and half the tribe of Menasheh were exiled by the kingdom of Assyria (see II Kings, Chapter 16), the observance of the Jubilee was nullified (Hilchot Shemitah V'Yovel 10:8).
Commentary Halacha 7
When a convert enters the congregation of Israel, he is obligated to undergo circumcision first. - Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 13:1-4 states:
With three acts, Israel entered into a covenant [with God]: circumcision, immersion [in the mikveh], and [the offering of] sacrifices.... Similarly, with regard to future generations, when a gentile wants to enter into the covenant, take refuge under the wings of the Divine Presence, and accept the yoke of the Torah, he must undergo circumcision, immersion, and the offering of a sacrifice.
The phrase "accept the yoke of the Torah" indicates that before performing these deeds, the prospective convert must resolve to fulfill the mitzvot.
If he had been circumcised while he was a gentile - and not by a Jew for the purpose of conversion. Note Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 13:7 which relates that even if a gentile circumcises himself for the purpose of conversion, it is insufficient.
it is necessary to extract the blood of the covenant - a superficial cut is made on the shaft of the penis, and a small amount of blood extracted.
The expression "blood of the covenant" is derived from the interpretation ofExodus 24:8, "This is the blood of the covenant which God established with you," in certain texts of Nedarim 31b and the Mechilta's interpretation ofZechariah 9:11, "Because of the blood of your covenant, I have sent forth your prisoners from the pit."
on the day that he converts. - The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 268:2) states that one should wait until the wound of the circumcision is completely healed before immersing in the mikveh and completing the process of conversion.
Similarly, a child who was born without a foreskin - Our Sages mention this as a sign of a high spiritual level, citing Moses and Shem (Noah's son) as examples of children born without a foreskin.
must have blood extracted for circumcision - Were we to be sure the child did not have a foreskin, there would be no need for the extraction of blood. The blood is extracted lest the child have a thin foreskin that is not readily noticeable (Shabbat 135a). Note the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 263:4), which requires the extraction of blood and states that we must inspect such a child carefully - but gently - to see whether he possesses a thin foreskin or not. (Perhaps the expression "thin foreskin" refers to the membrane removed by pri'ah.)
It must be noted that there are Rishonim (see Rashi,Shabbat 134a) who maintain that the extraction of the "blood of the covenant" is not a by-product of a search for a thin membrane, but rather serves an independent purpose: The Jews' covenant with God is established through their blood.
on the eighth day. - Note Chapter 3, Halachah 6, which states that a blessing is not recited for this activity.
The Ramah mentions several other instances when blood must be extracted: a child who was circumcised before the eighth day (Yoreh De'ah 262:1), circumcised at night ( loc. cit.), or circumcised by a gentile ( loc. cit., 264:1) should have blood extracted for the sake of fulfilling the mitzvah. (Note also the commentary on Chapter 2, Halachah 1.)
An androgynous, a child with both male and female sexual organs -Androgynous is a combination of the Greek words meaning "man" and "woman." (See Hilchot Ishut 2:24.) Note also Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 12:4, which states:
The status of a tumtum and an androgynous is doubtful. Therefore, the stringencies of both a man and a woman are applied to them, and they are obligated by all [the mitzvot]. If, however, they transgress, they are not [punished by] lashing.
Because of this unique status, an androgynous
must be circumcised on the eighth day - lest he be obligated to undergo circumcision.
See Tiferet Yisrael (Shabbat 19:3), who writes:
There are those who say there is no such thing as an androgynous. Their statements are false.... I beheld such a phenomenon with my own eyes. Twelve years ago, I myself circumcised a child with this condition.
Similarly, a child born by Caesarian section - Shabbat 135a explains as follows: The commandment for circumcision on the eighth day (Leviticus 12:3) is stated directly after the verse that relates that a woman who gives birth becomes ritually impure. Since a woman does not contract ritual impurity when she gives birth by Caesarian section, one might think that the child need not be circumcised on the eighth day. Therefore, the Rambam clarified the matter. (See also Halachah 11.)
and a child who has two foreskins - This refers to a birth abnormality. Rashi (Shabbat 135b) mentions two interpretations: a person with a single penis that is covered by two foreskins; alternatively, a person with two penises.
should both be circumcised on the eighth day. - Nevertheless, as explained in Halachah 11, none of the individuals mentioned in this halachah are circumcised on the eighth day if it falls on the Sabbath.
Commentary Halacha 8
Circumcision is performed only during the day - This applies to all circumcisions - those of children, servants, and converts
after the rising of the sun - This refers to הנץ החמה, the rising of the sun on the horizon.
as [Leviticus 12:3] states, "On the eighth day...," i.e., during the day -only,
and not at night. - In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Megillah 2:4), the Rambam writes that the day extends from dawn to the appearance of the stars. It is preferable, however, to perform all acts that must be carried out during the day after the rising of the sun.
Although according to the Rambam, the day extends until the appearance of the stars, circumcision should be carried out before sunset (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 266:9).
The proof-text quoted mentions the eighth day. Nevertheless, Yevamot 72b uses the rules of Biblical exegesis to demonstrate that
[This applies to both a circumcision performed] at the appropriate time, the eighth day [after birth], and [to a circumcision performed] after the appropriate time, from the ninth day and onward.
If one performed the circumcision after dawn - alot hashachar, the appearance of the first rays of the sun, approximately an hour before the sun itself actually appears on the horizon.
it is acceptable. It is acceptable [at any time] throughout the entire day. Nevertheless, it is a mitzvah to [perform the circumcision] early, in the beginning of the day, since "the eager perform mitzvot early." - Pesachim4a derives this concept from the description in Genesis 22:3 of Abraham's rising early in the morning to perform the akedah.
Commentary Halacha 9
When a circumcision [is performed] at its appropriate time - on the eighth day.
[its performance] supersedes [the prohibition against labor] - Cutting off the foreskin is otherwise forbidden because it causes bleeding (Hilchot Shabbat8:7-8).
on the Sabbath. - Shabbat 132a relates that the verse, "On the eighth day, the child's foreskin will be circumcised," is a Torah decree, requiring circumcision on the eighth day regardless of the day on which it falls.
When it [is] not [performed] at its appropriate time, [its performance] does not supersede [the prohibition against labor] on the Sabbath or the festivals. - The observance of the Sabbath and festivals involves both a positive and negative commandment. Therefore, circumcision, which is merely a positive commandment, does not supersede their observance.
Whether or not it is performed at its appropriate time - Note Rav Kapach, who asks how is it possible for a sign of tzara'at to be already definitely determined as such by the eighth day of a child's life.
[its performance] supersedes [the prohibition against removing signs of] tzara'at. - Tzara'at is a skin condition resembling leprosy. Deuteronomy 24:8forbids removing such a mark, and Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 308) considers this to be one of the 365 prohibitions of the Torah. (See alsoHilchot Tum'at Tzara'at, Chapter 10.)
What is implied? If there was a sign of tzara'at on the foreskin, it may be cut off with the foreskin. Although there is a prohibition against cutting off the signs of tzara'at, the performance of a positive commandment supersedes the observance of a negative commandment. - In contrast to the permission granted to circumcise on the Sabbath, this is not an exception made with regard to circumcision, but rather a general rule that applies throughout Torah law (see Hilchot Tzitzit 3:6).
Commentary Halacha 10
Just as the circumcision of sons supersedes [the prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath, so too, the circumcision of those slaves who are circumcised on the eighth day [of their lives] - The "home-born" slaves mentioned in Halachot 3-4. In contrast, slaves who were purchased, and therefore should be circumcised on the day they were purchased (or born), should not be circumcised on the Sabbath.
supersedes [the prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath when the eighth day [of their life] falls on the Sabbath. -Kiryat Melech cites Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 29, which relates that Abraham circumcised all his servants on Yom Kippur.
Significantly, Rabbenu Yerucham differs, and writes that only the circumcisions of Jews, and not of their servants, supersedes the Sabbath prohibitions. TheShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 267:2) quotes the Rambam's view.
There is [one] exception - a slave whose mother did not immerse herself until after she gave birth. - See Halachah 5 and commentary.
Although such a slave is circumcised on the eighth day, his circumcision does not supersede [the prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath. -When the eighth day of such a person's life falls on the Sabbath, he is circumcised on Sunday, the ninth day of his life.
Commentary Halacha 11
[The circumcision of the following individuals] does not supersede [the prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath: a child who was born without a foreskin; - Since, as stated in Halachah 7, the blood is extracted from him only because of a suspicion that he has a hidden foreskin, this activity does not supersede the Sabbath prohibitions.
a child who was born in the eighth month of pregancy before his development was completed; he is considered to be a stillborn, for he will not live; - As explained in Halachah 13, the circumcision is not carried out on the eighth day because of the probability that the child will not live.
a child born by Caesarian section; - See Halachah 7.
an androgynous; and a person with two foreskins. - because we are unsure of the nature of the obligation of circumcision in these instances.
These individuals are circumcised on [the following] Sunday, the ninth day of their lives. - They should not be circumcised before the eighth day.
Commentary Halacha 12
When a child is born beyn hash'mashot - the period between sunset and the appearance of three stars. (See Hilchot Shabbat 5:4.)
which is a period of doubt whether it is considered day or night, we count from the night - Were we to count from the day, it is possible that the circumcision would be carried out before the proper time.
and he is circumcised on the ninth day [following the day he was born,] which could be the eighth day. - The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 262:7) states that night depends on the appearance of three stars, and not on when the evening service is recited.
When a child is born beyn hash'mashot on Friday - he should not be circumcised on the following Friday, as explained above. Nor should he be circumcised on the following Sabbath (although it is the ninth day of his life), since
his circumcision does not supersede the Sabbath prohibitions, because the Sabbath prohibitions are never superseded because of a doubtful situation. Rather, he should be circumcised on [the following] Sunday. -Thus, he is circumcised on the 10th day of his life. (See Shabbat 19:5.)
Commentary Halacha 16
A sick person - This applies not only to children who are circumcised on the eighth day of their lives, but also to those (e.g., converts or slaves) who are circumcised when they are older.
should not be circumcised until he regains his health. - lest the child's life be endangered. (See Halachah 18.)
Seven full days should be counted from the time he regains his health until he is circumcised. - In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 19:5), the Rambam writes:
Until he fully recovers from his illness and the weakness from his sickness passes. He should wait seven days from the time the weakness passes.... Only afterwards, should he be circumcised.
Thus, we see that the Rambam intends that the person to be circumcised fully regain his health, and then wait an additional seven days.
When does the above apply? When he recovers from high fever - Our translation is based on the Kessef Mishneh.
or from a similar illness. - i.e., an illness that affects a person's entire body (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 262:2)
If, however, a person's eyes hurt, as soon as his eyes heal he may be circumcised immediately - i.e., on the same day of his recovery. Note theTurei Zahav 262:3, which explains that since the circumcision has been postponed, it may be further delayed and should not be carried out on Thursday or Friday, so that the child will not have pain on the Sabbath.
The same applies in all similar circumstances - i.e., sicknesses in which the person's entire body is not affected.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
The comprehension of this and the following halachah are dependent on the following two Talmudic passages:
[The prohibitions against labor on] the Sabbath are superseded for [the circumcision of a child] born in the seventh month, but not for a child born in the eighth month (Shabbat 135a).
A child born in the eighth month is like a stone and may not be carried [on the Sabbath]. His mother may, however, lean over him and nurse him.... Rabbi states: [This is when] his physical features reflect his [lack of development]; i.e., when his hair and nails are not completely formed. [Rabbi's statements imply that] if [his hair and nails] are completely formed, he is a baby that should have been born in the seventh month, but whose birth was delayed (Yevamot 80b).
From these passages, it appears that the Sages considered that there were two periods of gestation that could produce healthy babies, a seven-month period and a nine-month period. Therefore, a baby who was born in the seventh month was considered to be healthy, and circumcision could be performed on the Sabbath.
In contrast, a baby born in the eighth month was generally considered to be unhealthy. Not only was the baby not to be circumcised on the Sabbath, but moving it at all was forbidden. Since it was likely to die, it was considered to be muktzeh. If, however, a baby born in the eighth month looks healthy, we assume that it should have been born in the seventh month, but its birth was delayed. Therefore, it is considered a healthy baby and it may be circumcised on the Sabbath.
We have used the past tense in the above explanation, because these laws are no longer practiced, and all babies are allowed to be moved on the Sabbath. Tosafot, Shabbat, loc. cit., state that at present, it is no longer possible to determine exactly when a child was conceived, and we therefore do not know the month of pregnancy the mother was in. Furthermore, the advances in medical technology have enabled the lives of many premature babies to be saved despite the fact that, without these new developments, these babies would surely not have survived. At present, it is considered a mitzvah to try to save the lives of any premature babies, even if doing so involves carrying out forbidden labors on the Sabbath.
Also, it must be emphasized that, as stated in Halachot 16-18, a child is circumcised only when it is healthy and there is no danger involved. This is surely relevant with regard to premature infants. Rarely, if ever, would a doctor grant permission for such a baby to be circumcised on the eighth day of his life.
|
| 2. |
Among the ramifications of this decision are that the child's mother is free of the obligations ofyibbum and chalitzah. (See Hilchot Yibbum 1:5.)
|
| 3. |
Our translation is based on the commentary of the Maggid Mishneh, Hilchot Yibbum 1:5. According to this interpretation, the child's hair and nails need not be completely formed. TheKessef Mishneh offers a different interpretation. Significantly, however, in his Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 266:11), Rav Yosef Karo accepts the Maggid Mishneh's interpretation.
|
| 4. |
According to the Maggid Mishneh's interpretation mentioned above, this refers to an instance when the child's limbs are completely formed, but his hair and nails are not. The date of his birth, however, creates a problem, because he appears to have been born in the eighth month.
[With regard to this law, the Shulchan Aruch ( loc. cit.) does not accept the Maggid Mishneh'sinterpretation. It is, however, quoted by the Ramah.]
|
| 5. |
This rationale is not used to allow the circumcision of a child who was definitely born in the eighth month, because the Rabbinic prohibition of muktzeh is in effect. Although the Sages did not enforce that prohibition in a case of doubt (the present halachah), they did apply it when no doubt about the period of gestation exists (the previous halachah).
|
| 6. |
Niddah 42b relates that the time when a child's head emerges is considered the hour of birth.
|
| 7. |
See Halachah 9, which equates circumcision on festivals to circumcision on the Sabbath. In this halachah, the Rambam is adding that the prohibition against circumcision on the eighth day when it falls on the Sabbath in the various instances mentioned in Halachot 11-13 also applies on festivals.
|
| 8. |
Since the celebration of the second day of a festival is only Rabbinic in origin, the fulfillment of the mitzvah of circumcision takes priority.
This represents the Rambam's view. Rabbenu Asher differs and maintains that only a circumcision that would be performed on the eighth day, were it to fall on the Sabbath, should be performed on the second day of a festival. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 266:8) quotes Rabbenu Asher's view, while the Siftei Cohen 266:8 follows the Rambam's position. [Significantly, the Noda biYhudah (Orach Chayim, Responsum 30) and the Chatam Sofer (Yoreh De'ah, Responsum 250) interpret the difference of opinion between the Rambam and Rabbenu Asher as applying only when the circumcision is definitely not being performed on the eighth day. (See notes 10 and 11.) According to their view, even Rabbenu Asher agrees that when a child is born during beyn hash'mashot eight days before the second day of a festival, he may be circumcised on that second day of the festival.
|
| 9. |
As explained in Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 1:21-24, the rules governing the celebration of the second day of Rosh HaShanah differ from those governing the celebration of the second days of other festivals. The two days of Rosh HaShanah share the same level of holiness, and all the prohibitions that apply on the first day apply on the second, with the exception of the laws of burial. (See also Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 5:7-8.)Thus, if a child was born during beyn hash'mashot a week before Rosh HaShanah in a year when the two days of Rosh HaShanah are followed by the Sabbath, the child is not circumcised until the twelfth day of his life (Shabbat 19:5).
|
| 10. |
This refers to instances when a child was sick and the circumcision was delayed, and the like.
|
| 11. |
From the Rambam's phraseology, it appears that he allows such circumcisions to be carried out on the second day of other festivals. See note 8.
|
| 12. |
The Rambam is referring to infantile jaundice, which is common in many newborns.
|
| 13. |
The Bayit Chadash (Yoreh De'ah 263) and the Binyan Shlomo interpret the Rambam's phraseology as indicating that, in contrast to the sicknesses mentioned in the previous halachah, it is not necessary to wait seven days after the child's recovery in these instances. This is the common practice today.
|
| 14. |
At present, if the child's skin color is not normal (regardless of the tinge), it is customary to delay the circumcision.
|
| 15. |
Shabbat 134a relates that once, a woman approached Rabbi Natan HaBavli while he was visiting a distant community. She explained that her first two children had died after being circumcised, and was concerned whether she should circumcise her third son or not. Rabbi Natan inspected the baby and saw that he was extremely red. He advised that the circumcision be delayed until the child's complexion returned to the norm. His advice was followed and the child survived. In appreciation, the family named him Natan.
|
Shechitah - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
What is meant by nekuvah?1 There are eleven organs that if there is a perforation of the slightest size that reaches their inner cavity, [the animal] istrefe. They are:2 the entrance to the gullet,3 the membrane of the brain in the skull, the heart and its large arteries, the gall-bladder, the arteries leading to the liver, the maw,4 the stomach, the abdomen, the gut, the intestines, and the lung and the bronchia.
Halacha 2
We have already mentioned the definition of the entrance to the gullet.5 It refers to a portion of the esophagus above the gullet which is not fit for ritual slaughter. If there is a perforation of the slightest size that reaches its inner cavity, [the animal] is trefe.
Halacha 3
The brain in the skull has two membranes. If the outer one near the skull bone alone is perforated, [the animal] is permitted.6 If the lower one near the brain is perforated, it is trefe.7 With regard to the portion where the brain extends to the spinal cord, i.e., the portion below the glands where the neck begins, the laws governing [the perforation of] its membranes change.8 If they are perforated beyond the glands, [the animal] is permitted.
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
When there is a perforation of the heart to its inner cavity - whether to the larger cavity on the left or the smaller cavity to the right - [the animal] is trefe. If, however, the flesh of the heart is perforated, but the perforation does not reach the inner cavity, [the animal] is permitted.12 The arteries leading from the heart to the lung is considered as the heart itself. If there is a perforation of the slightest size that reaches its inner cavity, [the animal] is trefe.
Halacha 6
When the gall-bladder is perforated and the liver seals it, [the animal] is permitted.13 If, however, the perforation is not sealed, it is trefe even if the perforation is located close to the liver.
Halacha 7
[The following rules apply when] a kernel14 is found in the gall-bladder. If it was shaped like a date seed, i.e., its head is not pointed, [the animal] is permitted.15If, however, its head is pointed like an olive seed, it is forbidden, for we can assume that it perforated [the gall bladder] when it entered. [The reason that] the perforation cannot be seen is that a scab developed over the opening of the wound.16
Halacha 8
When there is a perforation of the slightest size in one of the arteries of the liver where the blood develops, [the animal] is trefe.17 Accordingly, [the following rules apply] if a needle is found in the lobes of the liver. If it was a large needle and its pointed edge was facing inward, it can be assumed that it perforated [the liver] when it entered. If its rounded edge was facing inward, we say that it entered through the blood vessels and [the animal] is permitted.18
Halacha 9
If it was a small needle, [the animal] is trefe, because both of its heads are sharp and it certainly perforated [the liver].19 If it is found in the large blood vessel, the wide artery through which food enters the liver,20 it is permitted.21 If the flesh of the liver became wormridden, [the animal] is permitted.22
Halacha 10
When the maw is perforated and kosher fat23 seals [the perforation], [the animal] is permitted. Similarly, whenever a perforation is sealed by flesh or fat that is permitted to be eaten, [the animal] is permitted. The [only] exceptions are the fat of the heart,24 the membrane that is above the entire heart, the diaphragm in the midst of the belly that separates between the digestive organs and the respiratory organs, i.e., the one that when it is cut open, the lungs could be seen and which is called the membrane [above] the liver, the white place in the center [of the liver], and the fat of the colon. In these organs, we do not say that they shield [the perforation] because they are firm.25 A perforation that is sealed with one of these is not considered as sealed.
A portion of fat from a beast that corresponds to a portion of forbidden fat in a domesticated animal does not seal [a perforation] even though it is permitted to be eaten.26
Halacha 11
When the stomach is perforated, [the animal] is trefe. There is nothing that can seal it for the fat upon it is forbidden.27 Similarly, when there is a perforation of the abdomen or gut that extends to its outer periphery, [the animal] is trefe. If one of them was perforated and the perforation leads to the cavity of the other,28 [the animal] is permitted.29
Halacha 12
[The following rules apply when] a needle is found in the folds of the gut: If it was from one side,30 [the animal] is permitted.31 If it caused a complete perforation extending [from the outer side] to the cavity of the gut and a drop of blood was found at the place of the perforation, [the animal] is trefe. For we are certain that the perforation occurred before the slaughter. If there is no blood at the place of the perforation,32 [the animal] is permitted. For we are certain that after the slaughter, under pressure the needle caused the perforation.33
Halacha 13
When an animal swallowed a substance that will perforate the intestines, e.g., the root of the asafetida34 plant or the like, it is trefe, for we can be certain that it perforated them. If there is a question whether or not a perforation was made,35 [the animal] must be inspected.36
When one of the organs of the digestive system through which the food waste passes, i.e., the intestines, are perforated, [the animal] is trefe. Among them are those which are curved and surrounded by each other like a snake that is coiled, they are referred to as the small intestines. If one of them was perforated [on the side where] another [is located], the animal is permitted, for the other [intestine] will shield [the perforation].
Halacha 14
When the digestive organs were perforated and viscous body fluids seal them, [the animal] is trefe for this seal will not endure.37
When a wolf, a dog, or the like, snatched [an animal's] intestines38 and they were perforated after they were abandoned, we surmise that [the predator caused the perforation and the slaughtered animal] is permitted. We do not say that perhaps [the predator] made a perforation in a place where one already existed.39
If [an intestine] was discovered to be perforated40 and it was not known whether it was perforated before [the animal's] slaughter41 or afterwards, we perforate it again and compare the two. If the first perforation resembles this one, [the animal] is kosher.42 If there was a difference between them, [we presume that the first] occurred before the slaughter and [the animal] is trefe. If the perforation in doubt was handled, the perforation to which it is being compared must also be handled before the comparison is made.
Halacha 15
When [an animal's] digestive organs protrude outside [its body] without having been perforated,43 [the animal] is permitted. If they were turned upside down,44[the animal] is trefe even if they were not perforated. [The rationale is that] once [the digestive organs] have been turned upside down,45they will never return to their ordinary functioning and [the animal] will not live.
Halacha 16
The final digestive organ that is straight and not curved from which feces are excreted in the genital area and is joined [to the body] between the thighs is called the colon. If it is perforated even slightly, [the animal] is trefe,46 as applies with regard to the other digestive organs.
When does the above apply? When the perforation faced the cavity of the belly. When, however, it was perforated at the point where it is joined between the thighs, [the animal] is permitted.47 [Indeed,] even if the entire place where it is joined between the thighs is removed, [the animal] is permitted, provided a length of at least four fingerbreadths48 remains in an ox.49
Halacha 17
A fowl does not have a stomach, an abdomen, or a gut. Instead of them, it has a crop and a craw.50
All the factors that render an animal trefe apply equally to a domesticated animal, a wild beast, and a fowl.51
When the roof of the crop receives even the slightest perforation, [the animal] istrefe. What is meant by the roof of the crop? That which becomes extended with the gullet when the fowl extends its neck.52 If, however, the remainder of the crop becomes perforated, [the fowl] is permitted.
Halacha 18
The craw has two [membranes] covering it. The outer one is red like meat; the inner one is white like skin. If one was perforated and not the other, [the fowl] is permitted unless they are both perforated, even slightly. If they are both perforated, but in places that do not correspond, [the fowl] is permitted.53
Halacha 19
The spleen is not one of the limbs which is disqualified because of a perforation of even the slightest size. Therefore our Sages did not include it in that category. Instead, a perforation that disqualifies it has a measure which is not uniform throughout it.
What is implied? One of the ends of the spleen is thick and the other thin, like the shape of the tongue. If the thick end was perforated by a hole that extends from side to side, [the animal] is trefe. If the hole does not extend from side to side, [more lenient rules apply]: If a portion the thickness of a golden dinarremains,54 [the animal] is permitted. If less than that remains, [the perforation] is considered as if it extends from side to side and [the animal] is trefe. If the thin side is perforated, [the animal] is acceptable.55
Halacha 20
[The following principle applies with regard to] all of the organs concerning which our Sages said that even the slightest perforation [causes the animal to be considered] trefe. If [that organ] was removed entirely, [the animal] is trefe.56This applies whether it was eliminated through sickness, removed by hand, or [the animal] was created lacking the organ.
The same laws also apply if it was created with two of that organ, for any extra limb or organ is considered as if it was lacking.57
What is implied? If one of an animal's or fowl's digestive organs, its gall-bladder,58 or the like was removed, it is trefe. Similarly if it was discovered to have two gall-bladders or two of a [particular digestive] organ, it is trefe. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. If, however, the spleen was removed or two spleens were found, [the animal] is permitted, for [that organ] is not among those listed [by our Sages in this category].
Halacha 21
[The statement that] an extra digestive organ causes an animal to be considered trefe applies only when there is an entire extra organ from its beginning to its end and thus two digestive organs are found next to each other as is [sometimes found in] the digestive organs of a fowl59 or the extra organ projects outward like a branch from a bough and it is a separate entity.60 [The latter applies] whether in a fowl or in an animal. If, however, the extra organ returns and becomes combined with the main organ and they are fused at the two ends61 even though they are separate in the middle, [the animal] is permitted and the organ is not considered as extra.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
The term literally means "perforated."
|
| 2. |
The Rambam explains the particular laws regarding the perforation of these organs in this chapter with the exception of those concerning the lung. The latter, because they are many and are of more common application, are given greater focus and an entire chapter, Chapter 7, is devoted to them.
|
| 3. |
If the gullet itself is perforated, the animal is considered a nevelah as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 13.
|
| 4. |
A kosher domesticated animal has four stomachs. If any one of them is perforated, the animal istrefe. This and the following three terms refer to those stomachs.
|
| 5. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 6.
|
| 6. |
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 31:1) quotes authorities who maintain that even if the upper membrane alone is perforated, the animal is trefe. He states that unless a significant loss is involved, this perspective should be followed. The Turei Zahav 31:1 and the Siftei Cohen 31:1 quote views that advocate stringency even if a significant loss is involved.
|
| 7. |
There is a question among the commentaries with regard to the law if only the bottom membrane is perforated. Many Rishonim - and this is the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 31:10) - rule that the animal is considered trefe in such a situation, for that membrane is the primary protection for the brain.
There are those who maintain that this is alluded to in the Rambam's wording: "If the lower one near the brain is perforated, it is trefe," i.e., its perforation alone causes the animal to be considered trefe. Others maintain that this is not the Rambam's intent and some even maintain that the proper version of the text is "If also the lower one...," which would imply that both membranes must be perforated.
[The more stringent ruling is also stated in the popular translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 3:1). However, Rav Kappach - while not disputing the ruling - maintains that the translation there is in error.]
|
| 8. |
Instead, it is governed by the laws pertaining to the breach of the spinal cord, as described in Chapter 9, Law 1.
|
| 9. |
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes a different version substituting nirkav ("decayed") for nikeiv ("perforated"). He also quotes this version in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 31:2).
|
| 10. |
For the animal will still be able to function.
|
| 11. |
In Chapter 10, the Kessef Mishneh includes this - as the implication from the Rambam's order here - in the category of nekuvah. For in such a situation, ultimately, the brain's membrane will become perforated.
|
| 12. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 40:2) follows the opinion of the Tur who accepts the Rambam's ruling with regard to a perforation stemming from sickness, but rules more stringently with regard to a perforation caused by a thorn or a needle. In such an instance, even if the perforation does not extend to the cavity of the heart, the animal is trefe.
|
| 13. |
For flesh will cling to flesh .
|
| 14. |
Needless to say, these laws apply when a needle or a thorn is found in the gall-bladder [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 42:9)].
|
| 15. |
We assume that instead of perforating the gall bladder from the outside, it entered through the blood vessels and became lodged there.
|
| 16. |
And as indicated by Chapter 3, Halachah 21, the sealing of a perforation by a scab is not significant in these contexts.
|
| 17. |
The Ra'avad and other Rishonim take issue with the Rambam, maintaining that this ruling applies only with regard to the arteries leading to the liver, but not with regard to those within the liver itself. The Rivosh (Responsum 189) supports the challenge to the Rambam by citing the ruling (Chapter 8, Halachah 21) that if the liver is removed entirely except for a small portion, the animal is nottrefe.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro explains the Rambam's position as follows: Even when the liver is removed, its blood vessels must remain intact. A parallel to that concept exists with regard to the lungs (see Chapter 7, Halachah 9). Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch, he follows the position of the other Rishonim and does not mention a perforation in the liver as a factor that disqualifies an animal.
|
| 18. |
Here also the Ra'avad and other Rishonim take issue with the Rambam, maintaining that his understanding of Chullin 45b, the source for this halachah, is in error. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 41:6) follow their understanding.
|
| 19. |
I.e., regardless of the direction it entered.
|
| 20. |
I.e., blood from the stomach; for food does not enter the liver.
|
| 21. |
Since this blood vessel is large, it cannot be taken for granted that the needle perforated the blood vessel.
|
| 22. |
We do not suspect that the blood vessels of the liver were perforated.
|
| 23. |
See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, ch. 7, for an explanation which fat is kosher and which is forbidden. Halachah 6, of that chapter speaks explicitly of the fat on the maw.
|
| 24. |
Concerning this point, there is a difference of opinion among the Rishonim. The Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 40:1) follows the lenient view and permits the animal in such a situation, while the Rama follows the more stringent perspective.
|
| 25. |
And thus they will not bend in a manner that will seal the perforation. Kosher fat and flesh, by contrast, are pliable and will seal any perforation over which they are located.
|
| 26. |
All fat in a wild beast is permitted to be eaten. Hence, in this instance, the general principle stated above is not followed and we determine which fat can seal a perforation by comparing it to the corresponding situation in a domesticated animal.
With regard to a fowl, all its kosher fat will seal a perforation beneath it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 46:1)].
|
| 27. |
The Turei Zahav 48:2 questions: Seemingly, the spleen should be able to seal it, for the spleen may be eaten and lies on the stomach. He explains that since the membrane covering the spleen is forbidden, it is not an effective seal.
|
| 28. |
This is possible for some of these stomachs are located within each other.
|
| 29. |
For the perforation will not reach beyond the digestive system.
|
| 30. |
From the following clause, it appears that according to the Rambam, this refers to a needle lodged in the outer side of the gut. See the following note.
|
| 31. |
There are other authorities (their perspective is reflected in the objections of the Ra'avad) who maintain that even in this instance, an examination is required. Moreover, they explain that we are speaking about a needle lodged in the inner side of the gut. If a needle is lodged in the outer side of the gut, according to this view, the animal is trefe.
According to the Rambam, as mentioned above, we are speaking about a needle that comes from the outside. As the Rambam states in Chapter 11, Halachah 4, in such an instance, all of the inner organs of the body must be checked (Kessef Mishneh). Thus this halachah is speaking only with regard to the gut. Since the perforation does not breach the digestive system, the animal is not considered trefe.
Both perspectives are based on a comparison of two Talmudic passages (Chullin 50b and 51a) that are difficult to reconcile. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 48:8,10) follows the perspective of the other authorities. The Rama cites the Rambam's perspective with regard to a hole made on the inside that does not pass from one side to the other and states we may rely on it in a situation where a severe financial loss is involved.
|
| 32. |
The Ra'avad and the other authorities state that the drop of blood must be found on the outer side of the gut.
|
| 33. |
Since the animal was slaughtered, it blood was not flowing and it is unlikely that there will be sufficient pressure to force it outside the gut.
|
| 34. |
A yellow-brown, bitter, offensive-smelling resinous material used for medicinal purposes in the ancient Middle East.
|
| 35. |
The Maggid Mishneh, the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 51), and others quote a different version of theMishneh Torah concerning which questions are raised. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the version translated here and the Frankel edition of the Mishneh Torah states that it is followed by most of the authoritative manuscripts.
|
| 36. |
The Ra'avad states that the inspection of the intestines is difficult. That position is reflected in the ruling of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 51:4) who rules that in such a situation, because of its questionable status, the animal is considered as trefe.
|
| 37. |
When the digestive system is under pressure, the vicious fluids will not seal effectively. The Siftei Cohen 46:1 states that the same ruling applies even if a scab has developed over the wound.
|
| 38. |
I.e., after the animal was slaughtered.
|
| 39. |
Chullin 9a explains that, unless there is a known factor that certainly indicates otherwise, we assume that an animal that has been slaughtered is acceptable. In this instance, the perforation would lead us to rule stringently. Nevertheless, since the fact that it was snatched by a predator can serve as an explanation, we rely on the original assumption. Accordingly, for this ruling to apply, we must know that the animal was slaughtered properly [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 25:3)].
|
| 40. |
As indicated by the Rambam's explanation, in this instance, we do not know how it was perforated.
|
| 41. |
In which instance, the animal would be considered as trefe.
|
| 42. |
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 50:1) rules that in the present generation, we are not knowledgeable regarding the making of such a comparison and hence, forbid the animal because of the doubt.
|
| 43. |
I.e., the animal's belly was cut open while it was alive. It could no longer support the digestive organs and they protruded beyond the skin. Nevertheless, the digestive organs themselves were not blemished.
|
| 44. |
As might happen if a person was trying to reinsert them into the animal's belly.
|
| 45. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 46:2) rules that if an animal's digestive organs are discovered to have turned upside down, the animal is trefe, even if the organs did not fall out of its belly.
|
| 46. |
Even though the fat upon it is kosher, it does not seal it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 46:1); see also Halachah 10].
|
| 47. |
For the thighs will support it (Chullin 50a).
|
| 48. |
The Rambam (based on Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi) considers this the meaning of the term "in order to grasp it" used by Chullin, loc. cit. Although there are more lenient views, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 46:5) follows the Rambam's ruling.
According to Shiurei Torah , a fingerbreadth is 2 cm, according to Chazon Ish 2.48 cm.
|
| 49. |
For other animals, the minimum measure is calculated proportionately (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).
|
| 50. |
Unlike a domesticated animal that has four stomachs, a kosher fowl has two.
|
| 51. |
I.e., though the laws above were stated with regard to a domesticated animal, they apply equally to a beast and to a fowl if they possess the same organs.
|
| 52. |
Hence just as the perforation of the gullet disqualifies a fowl; so, too, the perforation of this portion of the crop (see Chullin 58b).
|
| 53. |
Compare this entire halachah to Chapter 3, Halachah 20, concerning the gullet, noting the similarities and differences.
|
| 54. |
This is less than half the thickness of the spleen (Rashba as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 55. |
This applies with regard to an animal and a beast. More lenient rules apply with regard to a fowl and the perforation of its spleen never causes it to be considered as trefe, as stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 10.
|
| 56. |
Since the perforation of an organ impairs its functioning to the point that the animal is trefe, the implication is that the organ must function excellently for the body to be maintained. Hence, we can certainly assume that an animal will be considered trefe when the organ does not exist at all.
|
| 57. |
The commentaries explain that since the organ is duplicated, neither one of the two organs will be able to function satisfactorily. Thus it is as the animal is lacking that organ entirely.
|
| 58. |
The Radbaz states that if we do not see a gall-bladder, we have the liver tasted. If its taste is bitter, we assume that the gall-bladder was absorbed by the liver. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 52:3).
|
| 59. |
Thus this phenomenon does not render a fowl trefe, only an animal (Chullin 58b).
|
| 60. |
The Siftei Cohen 47:1 rules that this applies only when the extra organ branches off from the stomach. If it branches off from the intestines, it is acceptable.
|
| 61. |
If, however, each of the organs branches of from a different place in the animal's digestive system, the animal is trefe even if the organs merge at their end (Maggid Mishneh).
|
Shechitah - Chapter 7
Halacha 1
The lungs have two membranes. If only one of them is perforated, [the animal] is permitted.1 If they are both perforated, [the animal] is trefe.2 Even if the entire upper membrane3 is peeled off and dissolves, [the animal] is permitted. If there was even a slight perforation in the portion of windpipe in the chest4 or lower, [the animal] is trefe. For this is a place in the lower potion of the windpipe that is not fit for ritual slaughter.5
Halacha 2
If a person began slaughtering the animal and slit the windpipe entirely, then perforated the lung, and afterwards, completed the slaughter, [the animal] istrefe, for [the lung] was perforated before the completion of the slaughter.6Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
When the body of the lung is found adhering to the ribs, we suspect that it was perforated. [This applies] whether or not growths14 appeared on it.
What do we [to check it]? We separate it from the rib while taking care not to perforate it. If it is discovered to be perforated and a bruise is discovered on the rib in the place where it was perforated, we assume that the perforation was caused by the bruise.15 If there was no bruise on the rib, it is clear that this perforation existed within the lung before the animal was slaughtered and it istrefe.16
Halacha 6
When it is discovered that there is a closed place in the lung which air does not enter and it does not inflate, it is as if it had been perforated and [the animal] istrefe.17
How do we inspect it? We cut off the portion [of the lung]18 that would not inflate when [air was] blown [into the lung]. If fluid was discovered within it,19 it is permitted, because it was due to the fluid that the air did not enter. If no fluid is found within, we put some saliva, a straw, a feather or the like over [the separated portion] and blow air into it. If they move, [the animal] is kosher.20If not, it is trefe, because air does not enter [that portion of the lung].
Halacha 7
[The following rules apply when] a sound is heard when a lung is inflated. If the place from which the sound emanates can be detected, saliva, a straw, or the like should be placed over it. If they flutter, it is apparent that the lung is perforated and [the animal] is trefe.
If the place [from which the sound emanates] cannot be detected, the lung should be placed in lukewarm21 water and blown. If the water bubbles, [the animal] is trefe.22 If not, it is apparent that only the lower membrane has been perforated, the air is moving between the two membranes. For this reason, it will be possible to hear a hushed sound when it is inflated.
Halacha 8
Keep this encompassing general principle in mind: Whenever air was blown into a lung that was placed in lukewarm water and the water did not bubble, [the lung] is intact, without a perforation.23
Halacha 9
[The following laws apply when the insides of] a lung24 can be poured out like [water from] a pitcher, but the outer membrane is intact, without a perforation. If the bronchioles remain in their place and have not degenerated, it is acceptable. If even one of the bronchioles have degenerated, it is trefe.25
What should be done? We perforate [the membrane of the lung] and pour it out into a container glazed with lead26 or the like. If white strands can be seen, it is apparent that the bronchioles have degenerated27 and it is trefe. If not, it is only the flesh of the lung that has degenerated and [the animal] is acceptable.28
Halacha 10
[The following rules apply when] boils29 are discovered on a lung. If they are filled with air, clear water, fluid that is viscous like honey or the like, dried fluid that is firm like a stone, [the animal] is permitted. If putrid fluid or putrid or murky liquid is found within it, it is trefe.30 When one removes the fluid and checks it, one should check the bronchiole below it. If it is discovered to be perforated, it is trefe.31
Halacha 11
When one discovers two boils on a lung close to each other, [the animal] istrefe,32 for it is very likely that there is a perforation between them33 and there is no way of checking the matter. If there is one which appears like two, one should perforate one, if the other flows into it, it is only one and [the animal] is permitted.34 If not, [the animal] is trefe.
Halacha 12
If the lung degenerated, [the animal] is trefe. What is implied? For example, it was discovered intact and when it is hung up, it will break apart and fall into separate pieces.
When a lung was discovered to be perforated in the place where it was handled by the butcher's hand, the animal is permitted. We assume that [it was blemished by his] hand and say: "It was perforated by the butcher's hand after slaughter."35
If the perforation was discovered in another place and it is not known whether it took place before ritual slaughter or afterwards, we make another perforation and compare the two as is done with regard to the digestive organs.36
Halacha 13
We do not compare the lung of a small domesticated animal to the lung of a large domesticated animal. Instead, [the lung of] a small animal [must be compared to that] of a small animal and that of a large animal to that of a large animal.37
Halacha 14
When a needle is found in the lung, we blow up the lung. If no air is released from it, it is apparent that this needle entered via the bronchioles and did not perforate [them].40 If the lung was cut open before it was blown up and a needle was found in it,41 [the animal] is forbidden. For there is a high probability that it perforated [the lung] when it entered.
Halacha 15
When there is a worm in the lung and it perforated the lung and emerged and we see the lung perforated by the worm, [the animal] is permitted. We rely on the prevailing assumption that it perforated [the lung] after ritual slaughter42 and emerged [then].
There are ways that certain organs appear [that can disqualify the organ].43For if the appearance of the organ is changed to that undesirable appearance, it is considered as if it was perforated.44 For since the appearance of this flesh changed to the [undesirable] appearance, it is considered as if it was dead. It is as if the flesh whose appearance changed does not exist. Similarly, [Leviticus 13:10] states: "And there is a spot of living45 flesh in the blemish...," and [ibid.13:10] states: "On the day when he will present living flesh...." Implied is that flesh whose appearance has changed is not "alive."
Halacha 16
[The following principles apply if] the color46 of a lung changes, whether part of its color changes or its entire color changes. If it changes to a permitted color, even if its entire color changes, it is permitted. If, however, even the slightest portion of it changes to a forbidden color, [the animal] is trefe. [The rationale is that] the forbidden color is considered equivalent to a perforation as explained [above].47
Halacha 17
Halacha 18
If the lung is discovered to be the color of the branches of a date palm, we forbid it because of the doubt involved, because this is very close to a forbidden color. We do not forbid any of these colors until the lung is inflated and massaged by hand. If it changes to a permitted color, [the animal] is permitted.51 If it retains the [forbidden] color, it is forbidden.
Halacha 19
There are four permitted hues [for the lung]. They are: blackish blue, green like a leek, red, or the color of the liver. Even if the lung was entirely colored in these four hues patch by patch, spot by spot, [the animal] is permitted.
Halacha 20
When a fowl52 fell into a fire and its heart, its liver,53 or its craw turned green or its digestive organs turned red, [the fowl] is trefe.54 [This applies if] even the slightest portion of the organs [changed color]. For whenever a fire causes organs that were green to turn red or those which were red to turn green, it is considered as if the organ was removed and [the animal] is trefe. [This applies] provided they retain this color after they were cooked slightly and massaged.55
Halacha 21
Whenever the liver of a fowl appears like the digestive organs or [the appearance of] the other digestive organs change and the change remains after they were cooked slightly and massaged as explained [above], we can assume that the fowl fell into a fire,56 its digestive organs were burnt, and it istrefe.
Moreover, when there was no change detected in the digestive organs of a fowl, but when they were cooked slightly they changed color, those that were green turned -red or those that were red turned green, we can assume that the fowl fell into a fire, its digestive organs were burnt, and it is trefe.57
Similarly, if [the color of] the gullet [has changed] - the outer skin appears white and the inner red - it is considered as if the organ is not present, and it - either an animal or a fowl - is trefe.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
For the other will protect the lung (Chullin 46a).
|
| 2. |
If both membranes are perforated, but the perforations do not correspond, the Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 36:1) rules that the animal is kosher, but the Rama considers it trefe.
|
| 3. |
The Radbaz states that if, by contrast, the lower membrane alone is peeled off, the animal is trefe, for certainly, part of the lung will be lacking.
|
| 4. |
I.e., from the beginning of the ribcage.
|
| 5. |
Chapter 1, Halachah 7 defines the portion of the windpipe acceptable for ritual slaughter. If, however, the windpipe is perforated in a such a place, the animal is kosher.
|
| 6. |
Although the functioning of the lung is dependent on the windpipe, since a perforation in the lung causes an animal to be considered trefe, it is given that status (Chullin 32b).
|
| 7. |
The small extensions of the windpipe that convey air within the lungs itself.
|
| 8. |
Because the walls of the bronchioles are firm and not pliant. Hence, they will not serve as effective seals (Rashi, Chullin 48b).
In his Kessef Mishneh and his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:6), Rav Yosef Caro rules that if a perforation in a bronchiole is sealed by flesh, the animal is acceptable. See also the comments ofSiftei Cohen 36:20. As the Rama states (Yoreh De'ah 39:18), the custom in the Ashkenazic community is to rule that an animal is trefe if its lungs are perforated even if they are sealed closed by other inner organs.
|
| 9. |
For ultimately it will open (Rashi, Chullin 47b).
|
| 10. |
Since this portion of the lung is located below the ribs, the perforation will never be sealed thoroughly.
|
| 11. |
For the lobes lie on the ribs themselves and the seal will be maintained.
One of the issues related to the question of whether a lung is perforated or not is sirchaot, adhesions, where the lung becomes attached to the ribs and/or other portions of the body. For a discussion of that matter, see the latter half of Chapter 11.
|
| 12. |
It is not necessary to inspect the lung to see if air escapes (Tur, as quoted by Siftei Cohen 39:44).
|
| 13. |
For the bone is firm and will not move when the lung expands and contracts. Even if one inspects the lung and no air escapes, the animal is still considered trefe (ibid.).
|
| 14. |
Boils or carbuncles filled with pus. This heightens the probability that it could have been perforated.
|
| 15. |
And we postulate that the animal was bruised after its slaughter. Hence it is acceptable. TheMaggid Mishneh emphasizes that we are talking about a situation where the perforation is opposite the bruise. If they do not correspond, the animal is trefe.
|
| 16. |
Here, also, even if one inspects the lung and no air escapes, the animal is still considered trefe[Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:22)]. The Ra'avad states there is an apparent contradiction to the Rambam's ruling here and that in Chapter 11, Halachah 6. See the notes to that halachah for a discussion of this issue.
|
| 17. |
I.e., unless it is checked as the Rambam continues to explain.
|
| 18. |
According to the Rambam, the portion of the lung itself is cut off and we inspect it. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 36:9) offers a different interpretation. PAGE 239
|
| 19. |
I.e., the feather is placed on the portion of the lung that was cut off. One blows throw the brochia. If the air passes through the bronchioles, the feather should flutter.
|
| 20. |
The movement indicates that air flows through it.
|
| 21. |
Chullin 47b states that hot water will cause the lung to contract and cold water will cause it to become firmer. If it was put in either hot or cold water first, it may not be checked in lukewarm water afterwards [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 36:4)].
|
| 22. |
For obviously the lung has been perforated and the air is flowing out from it.
|
| 23. |
This principle is significant with regard to the discussion concerning sirchaot, adhesions, in Chapter 11. The Ra'avad (whose interpretation is paralleled by that of Rashi and other Rishonim) maintain that blowing the lung represents a stringency: If air escapes, an animal is consideredtrefe even though there is reason to permit it. The same principle cannot be applied as a leniency. The Rambam - and his approach is shared by Rabbenu Tam, Rashba, Rabbenu Nissim, and others - maintains that this principle was instituted as a leniency.
|
| 24. |
The Siftei Cohen 36:21 states that this leniency applies even if the entire lung has degenerated and can be poured out like water.
|
| 25. |
As stated in Halachah 3, if one of the bronchioles is perforated, the animal is trefe. Certainly, that ruling applies if it has degenerated.
|
| 26. |
Because it is glazed, one will be able to see the white strands clearly if they exist [Beit Yosef(Yoreh De'ah 36)].
|
| 27. |
And the white strands are the remnants of the bronchioles.
|
| 28. |
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:7) adds a concept stated in the following halachah: that the fluid poured out may not be putrid. (The commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch maintain that the Rambam would follow this stringency.) The Rama, however, rules leniently, maintaining that as long as the bronchioles are not visible, the animal is acceptable.
|
| 29. |
Based on Chullin 48a, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 37:1) states that even if boils are very large, the animal may still be kosher.
|
| 30. |
The Rambam's ruling is cited by the Shulchan Aruch. The Tur and the Rama follow the opinion of many other Rishonim who permit the animal even if the fluid in the boils is putrid.
|
| 31. |
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam's ruling is based on his decision in the previous halachah. The Rambam maintains that the fluid indicates that there is a strong possibilility that a perforation exists. Other opinions maintain that the animal is permitted, for the fluid is not necessarily a sign that a perforation exists. According to those views (and they are accpeted by the Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.), there is no need for the inspection the Rambam requires.
|
| 32. |
The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 37:3) state that even if the boils are filled with clear fluid, the animal is trefe. If, however, they are hard, it is acceptable.
|
| 33. |
Rashi (Chullin 47a) explains that most likely the membrane was perforated and therefore the boils developed. Rabbenu Nissim explains that since the two boils are next to each other, it is likely that one perforated the other.
|
| 34. |
The Maharil requires a further check: to see whether they share the same pocket (Turei Zahav37:5; Siftei Cohen 37:7).
|
| 35. |
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 36:5) suggests that the shape of the perforations must indicate that they were made by the butcher.
|
| 36. |
See Chapter 6, Halachah 14.
|
| 37. |
This represents the Rambam's understanding of Chullin 50a. Rashi interprets the passage slightly differently. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 36:5) follows Rashi's understanding and states that we do not compare a lung from one animal to that of another one at all. And even within one animal, we do not compare a perforation in a large lobe to one in a small lobe.
|
| 38. |
With the intent of seeing whether the perforation was made before or after the slaughter.
|
| 39. |
I.e., in this instance, it is not easy to differentiate based on the comparison.
|
| 40. |
In contrast to the liver where some authorities make a distinction in the ruling depending on the direction it is facing (see Chapter 6, Halachah 8), no such contrast is made with regard to a needle found in the lung. See also Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:16-17) which states that if a drop of blood is found on the exterior of the lung, the animal is considered trefe. the Rama rules that unles a significant los is involved, whenever a needle is found in the lungs, the animal is considered trefe.
|
| 41. |
And thus it is impossible to check it by blowing air into it, for the air will be released through the portion cut off.
|
| 42. |
For while the animal was alive, the lung was continually expanding and contracting and it would be very hard for the worm to perforate it (Turei Zahav 36:8).
|
| 43. |
The remaining halachot in this chapter are expressions of this principle. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah48:5) rules that we are not knowledgeable with regard to the correct appearance of the lung. Hence, if its appearance changes and one might think it became unacceptable, we rule stringently.
|
| 44. |
And as stated above, the perforation of a lung disqualifies it.
|
| 45. |
We have translated the verses literally to convey the meaning mentioned by the Rambam. In its ordinary context, the terms would be translated as "healthy flesh."
|
| 46. |
Our translation is dependent on the following halachah.
|
| 47. |
And even the slightest perforation of the lung disqualifies the animal.
|
| 48. |
This represents the translation the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 38:1) offers for the Talmudic term yerok quoted by the Rambam.
|
| 49. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 3:2). Rashi (Chullin 47b) renders the term as saffron. There is little difference between the two colors.
|
| 50. |
Which is reddish [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.)].
|
| 51. |
For during the animal's lifetime, the lung is repeatedly inflated.
|
| 52. |
These laws do not apply with regard to an animal because its skin is tough and its ribs protect it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 52:7]. The Rama, however, does not accept this leniency. The Ra'avad (Chapter 10, Halachah 11) also accepts the Rama's view.
|
| 53. |
In his Kessef Mishneh and in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 52:1), Rav Yosef Caro qualifies the ruling with regard to the liver, stating that to disqualify a fowl, it must change color at its thin end, the portion next to the gall-bladder, or it the place where it derives its nurture.
|
| 54. |
Significantly, if the lungs change color, the fowl is not disqualified, because its ribs protect it [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)].
|
| 55. |
For it is possible that the cooking and/or the massage will restore the organ's natural color.
|
| 56. |
I.e., even though we do not know that the fowl fell into a fire, the fact that these organs changed color serves as evidence of such [Kessef Mishneh; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah 3:3)]. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 52:6) quotes this ruling, but the Rama rules leniently and states that we must see that the fowl actually fell into a fire.
|
| 57. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 52:3) does not accept this stringency, following the opinion of the Rashba who maintains that we do not disqualify an animal unless we definitely know that it fell into a fire.
|
Shechitah - Chapter 8
Halacha 1
What is meant by the term chasairah?1 There are two organs that render [an animal] trefe if it is lacking the proper number. They are the lungs and the feet.2
The lungs have five lobes. When a person will drape them over his hand with the inner portion of the lung facing his face,3 there will be three [lobes] on the right and two on the left. In addition, at the right of [the lung], there is a small ear-like attachment. It is not in the row of the lobes. It has a pocket of its own and it is located in the pocket. This [attachment] is called a rose, because that is what it looks like.4 It is not counted as one of the number of lobes.
Halacha 2
If the number of lobes was lacking and one was discovered on the left side or two on the right side, [the animal] is trefe. If, however, there were two on the right side and this "rose," [the animal] is permitted.7
Halacha 3
If the position of the lobes was switched and three were found on the left and two on the right without a "rose" or the "rose" was found together with three on the left side, it is trefe, for it is lacking on the right side.8
Halacha 4
[The following rules apply if] the number of lobes was increased. If the extra lobe was on the side of the [other] lobes9 or in front of the lungs10on the side of the heart, [the animal] is permitted. If [the extra lobe] is on its back, near the ribs, [the animal] is trefe for an extra [organ] is considered equivalent to one that is lacking. [This applies] provided it is [at least] the size of a myrtle leaf.11 If it is smaller than this, it is not considered as a lobe and [the animal] is permitted.
Halacha 5
When one lobe is found clinging to the one next to it, [the animal] is permitted. If, however, [the lobes] became attached out of the ordinary order, e.g., the first lobe became attached to the third, [the animal] is trefe.12
Halacha 6
[The following laws apply if] there are two lobes [that appear] as one lobe and do not appear as two lobes joined together.13 If there was a space about the size of a myrtle leaf14 between them - whether at their root, in their center, or at their end - so that it is clear that they are two which are attached, [the animal] is permitted. If not, it is lacking [one of the lobes] and is trefe.
Halacha 7
If the entire lung appears like two rows and it is not divided into lobes, it is trefe. Similarly, if the body of the lung itself15 was lacking, even if it was not perforated, it is considered as if the required number of lobes were missing and [the animal] is trefe.16 Therefore if a dried portion that could be chipped away with one's nail of even the slightest size was discovered within it, it is considered as lacking17 and [the animal] is trefe.
Halacha 8
When a lung was discovered to be inflated like the leaves of a palm tree, we rule that it is forbidden because of the doubt involved. For this is an abnormal addition to its body and perhaps an addition to its body is considered as equivalent to a lack in its body, as stated with regard to the number of lobes.18
Halacha 9
[The following rules apply when] an animal became frightened and was terrified to the extent that her lung19 shriveled and came closer to becoming dried out: If it became frightened through the hand of heaven, e.g., it heard a thunderclap, saw lightening, or the like, it is permitted.20 If it became frightened through human activity, e.g., another animal was slaughtered in its presence or the like, it is considered as if it were lacking and it is trefe.
Halacha 10
How do we inspect it? We place the lung in water for an entire day. In the winter, we place it in lukewarm water, in a container which will not cause the water to condense on its back21 and flow so that they will not become cold rapidly. If the season was hot, we place it in cold water in a container on which the water will condense on its back so that the water will remain cold. If [the lung] returns to its natural state, [we assume that the animal was frightened] by the hand of heaven and it is permitted.22 If it does not return, we [we assume that] it happened due to mortal causes and [the animal] is trefe.
Halacha 11
An animal that was lacking a foot23 from the time it came into being is trefe. The same ruling applies if it possesses an extra foot, for an extra limb or organ is considered as if it was lacking. If, however, it has three forefeet or only one forefoot, [the animal] is permitted. Accordingly, if [an animal's] forefoot is cut off, [the animal] is permitted.24
Halacha 12
When the bone27 is broken above the joint, if it emerges outward entirely or in its majority, it is considered as if it were cut and fell off,28 and [the animal] istrefe. If the flesh or the skin29 was covering both the majority of the thickness and the majority of the circumference of the broken bone, [the animal] is permitted.30 This applies even if part of the broken bone fell off and no longer is present. Soft sinews are not considered as flesh.
Halacha 13
The juncture of the sinews is a place in an animal and in a beast which is above the heel, at the place where the butchers hang the animal.31 There are three white sinews there, one thick and two thin. From the place where they begin and are firm and white until [the place] where the whiteness is removed from them and they begin to become red and soften is considered the juncture of the sinews. It is approximately sixteen fingerbreadths32 [long] in an ox.
Halacha 14
In a fowl, there are sixteen such sinews. They begin on the lowest bone, from the extra talon and [continue] until the conclusion of the foot which is [covered by a series of] crusted scales.33
Halacha 15
When an animal's feet are cut off at the juncture of the sinews, it is trefe. Do not be amazed and say: "How is it possible that [an animal] will be permitted if its [legs] are cut off above the juncture of the sinews - indeed, it is permitted unless its [legs] are cut off above the highest joint as we explained34- but forbidden if they are cut off at a lower point, at the juncture of the sinews?
[The resolution is as follows: With regard to the designation of an animal] astrefe, [there are times when] one will cut from this point and it will live, but if [one would cut] from this point, it would die. We have not forbidden this animal, because its feet were cut off at a particular point,35 but rather because its sinews were severed36 and this renders it trefe, as will be explained.37
Halacha 16
What is meant by the term Netulah?38 There are three limbs and organs which even though they do not [cause an animal to be deemed trefe] when they are perforated or if they are lacking [when the animal is born],39 cause the animal to be deemed trefe. They are: the juncture of the sinews,40 the liver, and the upper jaw-bone.
Halacha 17
We already explained41 that when an animal or a fowl has had its legs cut off at the place of the juncture of the sinews, it is deemed trefe only because the sinews were cut.42 Therefore if the sinews alone were severed even though the foot remains intact, the animal is trefe, because the juncture of the sinews has been removed.
Halacha 18
In an animal, if the thick sinew alone was severed, [the animal] is permitted, for the two [thin] ones remained. If both thin ones were severed, [the animal] is permitted, for the one thick one is larger than both of them. [In both cases,] the entire juncture was not removed, only its smaller portion.43 If the majority of each of them was severed, [the animal] is trefe. Needless to say, this applies if they were all severed or removed.
Halacha 19
With regard to a fowl, even if the majority of one of the sixteen were severed, [the animal] is trefe.44
Halacha 20
When a fowl's wings are broken, it is permitted like an animal whose forelegs have been cut off.45
Halacha 21
Halacha 22
If there remained an olive-sized portion at the place of the gall-bladder and an olive-sized portion at the place from which it was suspended, [the animal] is kosher. If, however, the portions of the liver which remain intact were scattered, some here and some there, flattened, or elongated like a strap, there is a doubt concerning its status. It appears to me that it is forbidden.50
Halacha 23
Halacha 24
Whenever it is said that an animal is trefe if a limb or organ is lacking,53 so, too, it is trefe if that organ is removed.54 If, however, it is said that an animal is trefeif an organ is removed, [the animal] is not forbidden unless that organ was cut off. If, however, the animal was created lacking that organ, it is permitted. For if not, the categories of chasairah and netulah would be identical.55 Whenever it is said that [an animal] is permitted if a limb is removed, it is certainly permitted56 if this organ was lacking from the beginning of the animal's existence and was never created.
Halacha 25
Halacha 26
Although [an animal] is permitted despite the fact that a kidney was removed or it was created without it, if its kidney is extremely undersized, it is trefe.60 For a small animal, this means the size of a bean, for a large one, the size of a grape.61 Similarly, if a kidney became afflicted, i.e., its flesh became like the flesh of a dead [animal] that decayed after several days. Thus if one would take hold of a portion of it, it will decompose and fall apart. If this condition reached the white portion62 in the kidney, the animal is trefe. Similarly, if moisture - even if it is not putrid - is found in the kidney or murky or putrid fluid is found there, it is trefe. If, however, clear water is found there,63 [the animal] is permitted.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Chasairah means "lacking." This category disqualifies an animal if it lacks one of its fundamental organs.
|
| 2. |
It is true that there are more organs that render an animal trefe if they are lacking. Nevertheless, the lack of these organs is not placed in this category. Instead, the organ is considered asnekuvah, "perforated." As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 20, if the perforation of these organs will disqualify an animal, surely, it will be disqualified when the organs are lacking entirely.
|
| 3. |
I.e., he will be holding the animal from behind. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 35:2).
|
| 4. |
I.e., it is small and red.
|
| 5. |
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 35:2 states that it is customary within the Ashkenazic community to declare an animal trefe, if it lacks this "rose" or if there is an extra "rose."
|
| 6. |
For it does not seal it thoroughly.
|
| 7. |
For the "rose" functions in place of the missing lobe. If, however, the "rose" is found on the left and there is only one lobe, the animal is not acceptable. Since it is not in its proper place, it cannot replace a lobe (Kessef Mishneh). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 35:7) quotes the Rambam's ruling, but the Rama differs.
|
| 8. |
In this instance, the "rose" does not compensate for the lack of the lobe, because it is not on the right side.
|
| 9. |
"In the row of the lungs" to borrow the expression used by Chullin 47b. Generally, we follow the principle that every addition is considered as if it was lacking. In this instance, however, since the extra lobe is found in the row of the lobes, it will not disturb the lungs' ordinary functioning.
|
| 10. |
In this instance as well, the Rambam maintains that the position of the extra lobe prevents it from disturbing the lungs' ordinary functioning. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 35:3) accepts the Rambam's ruling.The Rama quotes more stringent views that state that any extra lobe that is not found in the row of the lungs is trefe. Nevertheless, the custom is to rule leniently.
|
| 11. |
I.e., even when inflated.
|
| 12. |
If the portions of the lungs that follow their natural pattern become attached to each other, all authorities agree that the animal is acceptable, for this attachment will not create any difficulties. And if the third lobe becomes attached to the first, all agree that it is unacceptable, because as the lungs inflate, the attached portions will separate, cause the attachment to tear, and in doing so, perforate the lobe.
The commentaries question - and the Maggid Mishneh actually maintains that the text of theMishneh Torah reads in this manner - whether if the back of one lobe is attached to the back of the lobe next to it, the animal is also trefe. For in this instance as well, since the lobes are attached in an unnatural order, the attachment will tear and perforate the lungs. In his Kessef Mishnehmaintains that the Rambam's wording implies that as long as the attached lobes are next to each other, the lung is acceptable, even if they are attached back to back. He does note, however, that there are authorities who rule stringently. He concludes in his Kessef Mishneh and also rules accordingly in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:4), that the attachments do not disqualify an animal only when the lobes are attached side to side - and not back to back - in the natural order. If they are attached in such an order, however, the lungs need not be checked. The Rama differs, requiring an examination. He also states that there are authorities who maintain that we are not knowledgable regarding how to make such an examination and therefore such an animal should be considered as trefe. Nevertheless, his ruling also leaves room for leniency if less than half of the body of the lobes are attached. See Siftei Cohen 39:11.
|
| 13. |
I.e., they appear as one flush mass, without differentiation. If they are distinct, but attached, they are governed by the laws stated in the previous halachah.
|
| 14. |
From Halachah 4, it appears that this is the size of a lobe that is significant. Hence, just as it is significant in disqualifying an animal, it is significant in causing it to be deemed kosher (Maggid Mishneh).
The Rambam's ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 35:8). The Rama cites authorities that maintain that even if a smaller portion is distinct, the lobes are considered as separate and the animal, kosher. The Rama states that we may rely on these opinions if there is a significant loss involved.
|
| 15. |
I.e., it is lacking part of its ordinary mass.
|
| 16. |
The Kessef Mishneh notes that in Chapter 7, Halachah 9, the Rambam rules that if a lung has decayed, it is kosher as long as its bronchioles and outer membrane are intact despite the fact that it has lost a large amount of its substance. He explains that this is not necessarily a contradiction to the ruling here. In that instance, since the lung has decayed significantly and yet, the brochioles have not been perforated, we assume that they will not be perforated. In this instance, by contrast, we suspect that the lack within the lung will cause it to become perforated.
Many other Rishonim, however, do not make such a distinction and maintain that a lung is acceptable if it is lacking some of its inner substance. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:8) quotes both views. The Rama states that certain circumstances call for leniency and others, for stringency.
|
| 17. |
The Kessef Mishneh explains that others explain that it is considered as if the dried portion is perforated and therefore the animal is trefe.
|
| 18. |
As stated in law 4, an extra lobe is considered as a missing lobe and disqualifies a lung. Similarly, there is reason to think that an increase in the size of a lung is equivalent to a decrease in its size and disqualifies it in a similar fashion.
|
| 19. |
When quoting this law, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:14) speaks of an "entire lung" shriveling.
|
| 20. |
For in the near future, it will regain its natural size, as indicated by the following halachah.
|
| 21. |
Chullin 55b states that earthern-ware utensils made of white clay will have water condense upon them easily.
|
| 22. |
Chullin, loc. cit., also debates what the ruling would be if one animal is frightened by another animal. The Rambam does not discuss the issue for seemingly, it would be able to be resolved by the same test mentioned here. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:14 considers being frightened by other animals as equivalent to being frightened by the hand of heaven.
The Radbaz also states that if the lung returns to normal, it is acceptable even if the animal was frightened by human activity. Other authorities differ and maintain that if we know that the animal was frightened by human activity, this examination is not acceptable (Siftei Cohen 36:30).
See also Rama (Yoreh De'ah 36:15) who rules that in the present era, we are not knowledgeable with regard to the various inspections that our Sages spoke about and hence, should not employ them. If, however, it appears that an animal's lung shrunk due to the hand of heaven, it should not be permitted without undergoing this examination.
|
| 23. |
The category of chasairah involves two organs: the lungs and the feet. Having discussed the lungs, the Rambam proceeds to discuss the feet. As the Rambam continues to explain, here the intent is the hindlegs.
|
| 24. |
The severed foot itself, however, is forbidden.
|
| 25. |
There are three segments of an animal's leg between its trunk and its hoofs. We are speaking about the joint between the highest and middle portions of the leg.
|
| 26. |
Note, however, Halachah 15.
|
| 27. |
I.e., the highest of the three bones of the animal's legs.
|
| 28. |
For it will never heal.
|
| 29. |
Even the covering of the skin alone is sufficient. This represents a revision of the Rambam's thinking. The initial text of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 8:13) stated "there was flesh and skin covering it" and he altered it to read "flesh or skin covering it."
|
| 30. |
For the leg will heal. Not only is the animal permitted, the leg itself is permitted. We do not consider it as if it had been severed and removed during the animal's lifetime.
|
| 31. |
I.e., it is customary for the butchers to make a hole in the lowest bone of the leg and hang the animal head downwards so that they can skin it and cut off its meat. The definition of "the juncture of the sinews" is important, as reflected in Halachot 15-18.
|
| 32. |
A fingerbreadth is approximately 2 cm according to Shiurei Torah and 2.4 cm according toChazon Ish.
Together with the Rambam's view, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 56:5) also quotes Rashi's view that the juncture of the sinews is four fingerbreadths long.
|
| 33. |
The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam's statements, admitting that the sinews of a fowl - as do those of an animal - begin in its actual feet. Nevertheless, he states, it is only from the joint between the second and third bone of the leg that they are considered halachically significant. For the laws of trefot that govern a fowl parallel those which govern an animal.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro cites authorities that maintain that the text of the Mishneh Torah is in error and it should be amended to parallel the Ra'avad's comments. He cites a responsum attributed to the Rambam sent to the Sages of Provence which also follows this understanding. And in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 56:8), he rules in this manner.
|
| 34. |
Halachah 11.
|
| 35. |
Thus according to the Rambam - and his position is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah55:1) - if an animal's leg is severed in the top bone, it is trefe. If it is severed in the bottom bone, it is kosher, and if it is severed in the middle bone, the ruling depends on whether it was severed above the juncture of the sinews or not.
The Shulchan Aruch also cites a more stringent view - and the Rama states that it should be followed - that if the middle bone was severed, even above the juncture of the sinews, the animal is trefe. Moreover, even if it is severed at the lower joint, above the cartiledge called the irkum, the animal is trefe.
|
| 36. |
The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam is explaining that a severed leg causes an animal to be considered trefe, because it is in the category of chasairah. When the juncture of its sinews is lacking, it is considered trefe, because it is in the category of netulah, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
|
| 37. |
See Halachot 16-17.
|
| 38. |
Netulah is one of the eight types of trefot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means "removed."
|
| 39. |
I.e., there are many organs besides these three that cause an animal to be deemed lacking if they are removed. The disqualification of these other organs, however, is not included in the category of netulah, rather that of nekuvah, perforated, or chasairah, lacking, i.e., the organ's removal is the greatest perforation or lack that could be. See Chapter 6, Halachah 20.
|
| 40. |
The Ra'avad notes that seemingly, the disqualification of an animal because the junction of its sinews was severed would cause it to be placed in the following category, pesukah (Chapter 9, Halachah 1). He and the Kessef Mishneh explan that since our Sages (Chullin 57a, 76a) uses the expression: "If the juncture of the sinews was removed," it should be placed in this category and not in the other. Note the Siftei Cohen 56:1 who interprets the Ra'avad slightly differently.
|
| 41. |
Halachah 15.
|
| 42. |
I.e., the fact that this portion of the leg is missing is not significant.
|
| 43. |
As long as a majority - either a majority in number or the larger portion - remains intact, the animal is permitted (Chullin 76b).
|
| 44. |
The Kessef Mishneh explains this ruling as follows. Since we are stringent with regard to a fowl and require that all sixteen be intact, we extend that stringency and disqualify it if the majority of one is impaired. For when the majority of a sinew is impaired, it is as if the entire sinew is impaired.
|
| 45. |
As stated in Halachah 11. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 53:2-3) which explains details about this situation.
|
| 46. |
I.e., near the kidneys. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin3:1) refers to it as the place attached to the blood vessels from which blood from the liver is dispersed throughout the body.Chullin 46a refers to this as "the place from which it derives its nurture." See the Siftei Cohen 41:1 and the Turei Zahav 41:1 which quote authorities that interpret this as meaning the place to which it is attached on the diaphragm.
|
| 47. |
For these are fundamentally necessary for its functioning.
|
| 48. |
Because it - and its two fundamentally necessary portions - are still intact.
|
| 49. |
For these two portions are of primary necessity.
|
| 50. |
Chullin 46a raises questions regarding these situations and does not resolve them. The commentaries question why the Rambam rules definitively that the animal is unacceptable. TheKessef Mishneh explains that this applies even if there is one olive-sized portion that is entirely intact.
|
| 51. |
The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 33) objects to the Rambam's ruling, stating: "I am amazed at his prohibition [of the animal] when the upper jaw is removed since this is not explicitly stated. Are we to add to the trefot?"
To explain: Chullin 54a states that if the lower jaw is removed, the animal is permitted. The Rambam deduces that the implication is that if the upper jaw is removed, the animal is trefe. TheTur claims that this deduction is not explicitly stated and hence, we have no right to make this deduction on our own. The sages of Provence wrote to the Rambam, voicing similar objections and he replied to them, explaining that the upper jaw is necessary for an animal's breathing. TheShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:2) states that it is proper to show respect for the Rambam's ruling.
Based on the gloss of the Rogatchover Gaon, it is possible to explain why this defect is not mentioned by the Sages of the Talmud. This defect is not in and of itself a direct cause for an animal's death, it is only a side factor that will lead to its death. Hence our Sages did not mention it, for they mentioned only those factors whice are direct causes (Yayin Malchut).
|
| 52. |
When quoting this ruling, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:1) adds that the animal must be able to continue to survive by being force-fed.
|
| 53. |
I.e., the lungs and the hindlegs as stated in Halachah 1.
|
| 54. |
As mentioned above (Chapter 6, Halachah 20), all the organs which render an animal trefe if they are perforated, also render it trefe when they are lacking or removed. Nevertheless, the Rambam places them in the category of nekuvah for that is the most inclusive classification.
|
| 55. |
And our Sages listed them as separate categories, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 2.
The Rashba (as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh, Chapter 6, Halachah 20) differs and maintains that an animal is also trefe if it is lacking a liver from the beginning of its existence. Why then did our Sages mention chasairah and netulah as two separate categories? Because if they were not listed so, one might argue that an animal is trefe only when an organ is removed and not when it was lacking from the beginning of the animal's existence or vice versa. The Tur follows the Rashba's view. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 50:72 quotes both opinions, but appears to favor the Rashba's view. The Rama states that we may rely on the Rambam when a significant loss is involved.
|
| 56. |
For the ruling is more lenient if at the outset, it was not created with this organ, as above.
|
| 57. |
I.e., even if both kidneys were removed. Even though according to medical knowledge, there is no way such an animal can live, our Sages did not deem this condition trefe. See Chapter 10, Halachah 12.
|
| 58. |
For we follow the principle that any extra organ is considered as if it was removed.
|
| 59. |
It is, however, considered a blemish and the animal may not be offered as a sacrifice (Hilchot Issurei HaMizbe'ach 2:11).
|
| 60. |
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro states that many Rishonim disqualify an animal only when its kidneys shrank because of illness. If, however, it was born with an undersized kidney, it is acceptable. And in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 44:5), he accepts this ruling as law.
|
| 61. |
The Turei Zahav 44:12 and the Siftei Cohen 44:13 quote authorities who explain that the grapes ofEretz Yisrael were very large during the Talmudic period. At that time, a grape was significantly larger than a bean.
|
| 62. |
The white fat from the loins enters the kidneys, because the different sinews are all interwoven there, causing a split to appear within the kidney. This is located in the midst of the kidney (Rashi, Rabenu Nissim, Chullin 55b).
|
| 63. |
Even if it reached the white portion [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 44:2)].
|
• Thursday, Nissan 6, 5775 · 26 March 2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Metzora, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 35-38.
Tanya: (Note: And there (p. 201)...this propitious moment.) (p. 203).
Experience has shown that with less speculation,* but working with orderliness and firmness, in accord with the "pleasantness"1 of Torah (with the "right hand bringing close and the left hand rejecting")2 one is certain to achieve results, especially in matters concerning the fundamentals of our religion.
FOOTNOTES
*. See supplementary footnotes, (p. 127 printed edition).
1. See Mishlei 3:17.
2. See Sota 47a. An example of this apparent contradiction: High regard for a person while rejecting his misdeeds.
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