Omer: Day 13 - Yesod sheb'Gevurah
Today's Laws & Customs:
• Count "Fourteen Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the fourteenth day of the Omer Count. Since, on the Jewish calendar, the day begins at nightfall of the previous evening, we count the omer fortomorrow's date tonight, after nightfall: "Today is fourteen days, which are two weeks, to the Omer." (If you miss the count tonight, you can count the omer all day tomorrow, but without the preceding blessing).
The 49-day "Counting of the Omer" retraces our ancestors' seven-week spiritual journey from the Exodus to Sinai. Each evening we recite a special blessing and count the days and weeks that have passed since the Omer; the 50th day isShavuot, the festival celebrating the Giving of the Torah at Sinai.
Tonight's Sefirah: Malchut sheb'Gevurah -- "Receptiveness in Restraint"
The teachings of Kabbalah explain that there are seven "Divine Attributes" --Sefirot -- that G-d assumes through which to relate to our existence: Chessed,Gevurah, Tifferet, Netzach, Hod, Yesod and Malchut ("Love", "Strength", "Beauty", "Victory", "Splendor", "Foundation" and "Sovereignty"). In the human being, created in the "image of G-d," the seven sefirot are mirrored in the seven "emotional attributes" of the human soul: Kindness, Restraint, Harmony, Ambition, Humility, Connection and Receptiveness. Each of the seven attributes contain elements of all seven--i.e., "Kindness in Kindness", "Restraint in Kindness", "Harmony in Kindness", etc.--making for a total of forty-nine traits. The 49-day Omer Count is thus a 49-step process of self-refinement, with each day devoted to the "rectification" and perfection of one the forty-nine "sefirot."
Links:
How to count the Omer
The deeper significance of the Omer Count
Today in Jewish History:
• Jericho's Wall Collapses (1273 BCE)
On the seventh day of the encirclement of Jericho (see Jewish History for the 22nd of Nissan), the Jews, accompanied by the Holy Ark, circled the city seven times. After the blowing of the shofar, the walls miraculously crashed and sank, leaving the city open and unprotected. Jericho was easily conquered, becoming the first fortified Canaanite city to fall to the Children of Israel in their conquest of the Promised Land.
Links:
Joshua chapter six with commentary
Crossing the Jordan
• Buchenwald Liberated by American Forces (1945)
The Buchenwald concentration camp was founded in 1937 near the town of Weimar, Germany. Approximately 250,000 prisoners were incarcerated in this camp until its liberation in 1945.
Weimar is a German city known for its highly cultured citizenry. It was the home of many of the upper class intellectual members of Europe’s society. Among others, Goethe, Schiller, Franz Liszt, and Bach lived in Weimar.
Though technically not an extermination camp, approximately 56,000 prisoners were murdered in Buchenwald (not including many others who died after being transferred to other extermination camps). They died from vicious medical experiments, summary executions, torture, beatings, starvation, and inhuman work conditions. The camp was also known for its brutality. German officers would force inmates to eat their meager soup ration off the mud on the ground; would keep them standing in the cold until they froze to death; and they would even use skin of dead inmates to make lamp shades.
On the 29th of Nissan 1945 the Sixth Armored Division of the United States Third Army liberated the camp.
Among the more famous inmates who spent time in Buchenwald are Rabbi Israel Meir Lau, former Chief Rabbi of Israel, and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel.
Links:
The Holocaust
Ethics Based on Torah
• Rebbe's Call (1991)
On the eve of Nissan 28, 5751 (April 11, 1991), the Lubavitcher Rebbe issued an emotional call to his followers, and to the world Jewish community, to increase their efforts to bring Moshiach and the ultimate redemption. Spoken in an anguished voice and couched in uncharacteristically personal terms, the Rebbe's words deeply shocked the Chassidim present in the Rebbe's synagogue and reverberated worldwide. "How is it that the Redemption has not yet been attained?" the Rebbe cried. "That despite all that has transpired and all that has been done, Moshiach has still not come? What more can I do? I have done all I can to bring the world to truly demand and clamor for the Redemption...The only thing that remains for me to do is to give over the matter to you. Do all that is in your power to achieve this thing--a most sublime and transcendent light that needs to be brought down into our world with pragmatic tools... I have done all I can. I give it over to you. Do all that you can to bring the righteous redeemer, immediately! I have done my part. From this point on, all is in your hands..."
Links:
Transmission
Moshiach: an Anthology
Moshiach and the Future Redemption
Daily Quote:
Moses was afflicted with a speech impairment so that no one should think that his success in transmitting the Torah to the world was due to his oratory skills.[Derashot HaRan]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Shemini, 6th Portion Leviticus 11:1-11:32 with Rashi
• Chapter 11
1And the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, to say to them: אוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר אֲלֵהֶם:
[And the Lord spoke] to Moses and to Aaron: He told Moses that he should [in turn] tell Aaron. — [Torath Kohanim 1:4] אל משה ואל אהרן: למשה אמר שיאמר לאהרן:
to say to them: [Whom does “to them” refer to?] The Lord said that [Aaron] should tell Eleazar and Ithamar. Or perhaps it means only to tell the Israelites? However, when [Scripture] says (verse 2),“Speak to the children of Israel,” speaking to Israel is already mentioned. So how do I understand “to say to them”? [That Aaron was to say] to his sons, to Eleazar and to Ithamar [who, in turn, were to tell the children of Israel the laws that follow]. — [Torath Kohanim 11:61] לאמר אליהם: אמר שיאמר לאלעזר ולאיתמר, או אינו אלא לאמר לישראל, כשהוא אומר דברו אל בני ישראל, הרי דבור אמור לישראל, הא מה אני מקיים לאמר אליהם, לבניו לאלעזר ולאיתמר:
2Speak to the children of Israel, saying: These are the creatures that you may eat among all the animals on earth: בדַּבְּרוּ אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר זֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ מִכָּל הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר עַל הָאָרֶץ:
Speak to the children of Israel: God made them all [namely Moses, Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar] equal messengers for [relaying] the following speech. [And why did Aaron and his sons deserve this special honor?] Because they all equally remained silent, accepting the Omnipresent’s decree [to put Nadab and Abihu to death] with love. דברו אל בני ישראל: את כולם השוה להיות שלוחים בדבור זה, לפי שהושוו בדמימה וקבלו עליהם גזירת המקום באהבה:
These are the creatures: [The word חַיָּה, “living creature”] denotes חַיִּים, “life.” [In the context of this passage, which sets out the clean and unclean creatures, the meaning is expounded as follows:] Since the Israelites cleave to the Omnipresent and are therefore worthy of being alive, accordingly, God separated them from uncleanness and decreed commandments upon them [so that through these commandments Israel would live]. For the other nations, however, He prohibited nothing. This is comparable to a physician who went to visit a patient [who was incurable, and allowed him to eat anything he wished, whereas when he went to his patient who was to recover, the physician imposed restrictions on his diet that would ensure that the recoverable patient would live. So too, the nations and Israel…], etc. as is found in the Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma (6). זאת החיה: לשון חיים, לפי שישראל דבוקים במקום וראויין להיות חיים, לפיכך הבדילם מן הטומאה וגזר עליהם מצות, ולאומות העולם לא אסר כלום. משל לרופא שנכנס לבקר את החולה וכו', כדאיתא במדרש רבי תנחומא:
These are the creatures: [When the verse says “These are…,” the word זֹאת] teaches us that Moses would hold up an animal and show it to the Israelites, saying, “This one you may eat,” and “This one you may not eat.” “You may eat the following!” (verse 9) even with the creatures of the water-he held up [one] of every species and showed it to them. And likewise with birds [as stated in verse 13], “you shall hold these in abomination….” Similarly with creeping creatures, (שְׁרָצִים) [as stated in verse 29], “these are unclean….” - [Torath Kohanim 11:62] זאת החיה: מלמד שהיה משה אוחז בחיה ומראה אותה לישראל, זאת תאכלו וזאת לא תאכלו:
These are the creatures…among all the animals: [The word חַיָּה, although usually denoting an undomesticated animal, such as a deer, also has the meaning of “living (חַי) creatures” in general; the word בְּהֵמָה, usually denoting domesticated animals like cattle, also has the meaning of large land animals, or mammals. We see this in our verse, for it says here, "These are the creatures (חַיָּה) that you may eat among all the animals (בְּהֵמָה) on earth, thus,] teaching that [the term] בְּהֵמָה is included in [the more general term] חַיָּה. - [Torath Kohanim 11:66; and see Rashi Chul. 70b] את זה תאכלו וגו': אף בשרצי המים אחז מכל מין ומין והראה להם. וכן בעוף ואת אלה תשקצו מן העוף. וכן בשרצים וזה לכם הטמא:
3Any animal that has a cloven hoof that is completely split into double hooves, and which brings up its cud that one you may eat. גכֹּל | מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה וְשֹׁסַעַת שֶׁסַע פְּרָסֹת מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה בַּבְּהֵמָה אֹתָהּ תֹּאכֵלוּ:
which has a cloven: Heb. מַפְרֶסֶת. [Although resembling the following word, פַּרְסָה, the word, מַפְרֶסֶת, is to be understood] as the Targum [Onkelos] renders it: סְדִיקָא, “split.” מפרסת: כתרגומו סדיקא:
hoof: Heb. פַּרְסָה, plante in French [meaning “ sole” or “hoof.” Thus, מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה means: “split or cloven hoof”]. פרסה: פלאנט"ה בלע"ז [כף רגל]:
that is completely separated into double hooves: Heb. וְשֹׁסַעַת שֶׁסַע [meaning that the hoof] is completely separated [i.e., split] from top to bottom, into two nails, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders it: וּמְטַלְפָא טִילְפִין, meaning “split into hooves” [i.e., split into two hoof sections,] because there are animals whose hooves are split at the top, but are not completely split and separated [into two hoof sections], since the bottom [sections of the hoof] are connected. ושסעת שסע: שמובדלת מלמעלה ומלמטה בשתי צפרנין, כתרגומו ומטלפא טלפין, שיש שפרסותיו סדוקות מלמעלה ואינן שסועות ומובדלות לגמרי, שמלמטה מחוברות:
which brings up its cud: It brings up and regurgitates the [ingested] food from its stomach, returning the food to its mouth, in order to thoroughly crush it and grind it thoroughly. מעלת גרה: מעלה ומקיאה האוכל ממעיה ומחזרת אותו לתוך פיה לכתשו ולטחנו הדק:
cud: Heb. גֵּרָה. This is its name. [I.e., the name of the food that an animal regurgitates.] It possibly stems from the root [נגר, “to drag” or “flow,” as in the verse] “and as water which has flowed (הַנִּגָּרִים) ” (II Sam. 14:14), for the regurgitated food “flows back” to the mouth. Targum [Onkelos] renders the word גֵּרָה as פִּישְׁרָא, dissolved, since, through its being regurgitated, the food is dissolved and melted. גרה: כך שמו. ויתכן להיות מגזרת מים הנגרים (ש"ב יד יד), שהוא נגרר אחר הפה. ותרגומו פשרא שעל ידי הגרה האוכל נפשר ונמוח:
among the animals: Heb. בַּבְּהֵמָה, lit. in the animal. This is an extra word from which to derive that [if a pregnant animal is slaughtered properly,] the fetus inside its mother’s innards is permitted [to be eaten]. — [Torath Kohanim 11:67] בבהמה: תיבה זו יתירה היא לדרשה, להתיר את השליל הנמצא במעי אמו:
that one you may eat: but not an unclean animal. However, is this [negative inference] not already included in the [explicit] prohibition [stated in verse 4, “…you must not eat…”]? Notwithstanding, [this positive statement is included here] so that [one who eats an unclean animal] transgresses a positive and a negative commandment [i.e., a negative inference of a positive commandment]. — [Torath Kohanim 11:69] אתה תאכלו: ולא בהמה טמאה. והלא באזהרה היא, אלא לעבור עליה בעשה ולא תעשה:
4But these you shall not eat among those that bring up the cud and those that have a cloven hoof: the camel, because it brings up its cud, but does not have a [completely] cloven hoof; it is unclean for you. דאַךְ אֶת זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה וּמִמַּפְרִסֵי הַפַּרְסָה אֶת הַגָּמָל כִּי מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא וּפַרְסָה אֵינֶנּוּ מַפְרִיס טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם:
5And the hyrax, because it brings up its cud, but will not have a [completely] cloven hoof; it is unclean for you; הוְאֶת הַשָּׁפָן כִּי מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא וּפַרְסָה לֹא יַפְרִיס טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם:
6And the hare, because it brings up its cud, but does not have a [completely] cloven hoof; it is unclean for you; ווְאֶת הָאַרְנֶבֶת כִּי מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה הִוא וּפַרְסָה לֹא הִפְרִיסָה טְמֵאָה הִוא לָכֶם:
7And the pig, because it has a cloven hoof that is completely split, but will not regurgitate its cud; it is unclean for you. זוְאֶת הַחֲזִיר כִּי מַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה הוּא וְשֹׁסַע שֶׁסַע פַּרְסָה וְהוּא גֵּרָה לֹא יִגָּר טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם:
8You shall not eat of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you. חמִבְּשָׂרָם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ וּבְנִבְלָתָם לֹא תִגָּעוּ טְמֵאִים הֵם לָכֶם:
You shall not eat of their flesh: I know only [that] these [animals possessing one sign of cleanness are prohibited to be eaten]. How do we know that any other unclean animal, which has no sign of cleanness altogether [may also not be eaten]? Here, we can infer from a kal vachomer [i.e., an inference from minor to major]: If those animals that have part of the signs of cleanness are prohibited, [how much more so are those animals that lack both signs of cleanness!]- [Torath Kohanim 11:69] מבשרם לא תאכלו: אין לי אלא אלו, שאר בהמה טמאה שאין לה שום סימן טהרה מנין, אמרת קל וחומר ומה אלו שיש בהן קצת סימני טהרה אסורות וכו':
of their flesh: The [Scriptural] prohibition applies [only] to the “flesh” [of an unclean animal], but not its bones, sinews, horns, or hooves. — [Torath Kohanim 11:74] מבשרם: על בשרם באזהרה, ולא על עצמות וגידין וקרנים וטלפים:
and you shall not touch their carcasses: One might think that Israelites are prohibited to touch a carcass. Scripture, however, says, “Say to the kohanim …[(a kohen) shall not defile himself for a (dead) person among his people]” (Lev. 21:1); thus, kohanim are prohibited [from defiling themselves by human corpses], but ordinary Israelites are not prohibited. Now a kal vachomer can be made: Since in the more stringent case of defilement by a human corpse, only kohanim are prohibited, then in the more lenient case of defilement by animal carcasses, how much more so [should only kohanim be prohibited! If so,] what does Scripture mean by, “you shall not touch their carcasses”? [It means that Israelites may not touch animal carcasses] on the Festivals [since at those times they deal with holy sacrifices and enter the Temple]. This is what [the Sages] said: A person is obligated to cleanse himself on Festivals. - [R.H. 16b, Torath Kohanim 11:74] ובנבלתם לא תגעו: יכול יהו ישראל מוזהרים על מגע נבלה, תלמוד לומר אמור אל הכהנים וגו' (ויקרא כא א), כהנים מוזהרין ואין ישראל מוזהרין. קל וחומר מעתה ומה טומאת מת חמורה, לא הזהיר בה אלא כהנים, טומאת נבלה קלה לא כל שכן. ומה תלמוד לומר לא תגעו, ברגל. זהו שאמרו חייב אדם לטהר עצמו ברגל:
9Among all [creatures] that are in the water, you may eat these: Any [of the creatures] in the water that has fins and scales, those you may eat, whether [it lives] in the waters, in the seas or in the rivers. טאֶת זֶה תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם כֹּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת בַּמַּיִם בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים אֹתָם תֹּאכֵלוּ:
fins: Heb. סְנַפִּיר. These are [the wing-like appendages] with which it swims [namely, fins]. סנפיר: אלו ששט בהם:
scales: Heb. קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת. These are the scales that are affixed to it, as it is said: “And he was wearing a coat of mail (קַשְׂקַשִּׂים) ” (I Sam. 17:5), [lit. armor of scales]. — [Chul. 66b] קשקשת: אלו קליפים הקבועים בו, כמו שנאמר (ש"א יז ה) ושריון קשקשים הוא לבוש:
10But any [creatures]that do not have fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, among all the creeping creatures in the water and among all living creatures that [live] in the water, are an abomination for you. יוְכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֵין לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים מִכֹּל שֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם וּמִכֹּל נֶפֶשׁ הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם שֶׁקֶץ הֵם לָכֶם:
creeping creatures: שֶׁרֶץ. Anywhere this [term] appears [in Scripture], it denotes a low creature that slithers and moves on the ground. שרץ: בכל מקום משמעו דבר נמוך שרוחש ונע ונד על הארץ:
11And they shall be an abomination for you. You shall not eat of their flesh, and their dead bodies you shall hold in abomination. יאוְשֶׁקֶץ יִהְיוּ לָכֶם מִבְּשָׂרָם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ וְאֶת נִבְלָתָם תְּשַׁקֵּצוּ:
And they shall be an abomination: [The statement is repeated] to prohibit their mixtures [i.e., if the flesh of an unclean water creature was mixed with food of another type,] if there is enough [unclean flesh] to impart its taste [to the mixture]. — [See Torath Kohanim 11:82] ושקץ יהיו: לאסור את עירוביהן, אם יש בו בנותן טעם:
[You shall not eat] of their flesh: [Only their flesh is prohibited,] but one is not prohibited [to eat] the fins or the bones. — [Torath Kohanim 11:82] מבשרם: אינו מוזהר על הסנפירים ועל העצמות:
and their dead bodies you shall hold in abomination: [This clause comes] to include midges (יַבְחוּשִׁין) that he has filtered out [of water or other liquids. One may ingest these creatures together with water, but once they have been separated from their original source, they are prohibited]. יַבְחוּשִׁין are moucherons in French, midges. — [Torath Kohanim 11:83] ואת נבלתם תשקצו: לרבות יבחושין שסיננן. יבחושין מושקירונ"ש בלע"ז [יבחושין]:
12Any [creature] that does not have fins and scales in the water is an abomination for you. יבכֹּל אֲשֶׁר אֵין לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת בַּמָּיִם שֶׁקֶץ הוּא לָכֶם:
Any [(creature)] that does not have [fins and scales in the water is an abomination for you]: What does Scripture come to teach us here? [In verse 10, Scripture has already stated, “any (creatures) that do not have fins and scales…are an abomination for you.” However, without this verse] I might think that [a water creature] is permitted only if it brings up its signs [of cleanness, namely fins and scales,] onto dry land; but if [it sheds them in the water, how do we know [that the creature is still permitted]? Scripture therefore, says here, “Any [creature] that does not have fins and scales in the water….,” but if it had them while in the water, even if it shed them in its emergence [onto dry land], it is permitted. — [Torath Kohanim 11:84] כל אשר אין לו וגו': מה תלמוד לומר, שיכול אין לי שיהא מותר אלא המעלה סימנין שלו ליבשה, השירן במים מנין, תלמוד לומר כל אשר אין לו סנפיר וקשקשת במים, הא אם היו לו במים אף על פי שהשירן בעלייתו מותר:
13And among birds, you shall hold these in abomination; they shall not be eaten; they are an abomination: The eagle [or the griffin vulture], the kite, the osprey, יגוְאֶת אֵלֶּה תְּשַׁקְּצוּ מִן הָעוֹף לֹא יֵאָכְלוּ שֶׁקֶץ הֵם אֶת הַנֶּשֶׁר וְאֶת הַפֶּרֶס וְאֵת הָעָזְנִיָּה:
They shall not be eaten: Heb. לֹא יֵאָכְלוּ. [Scripture is telling us that] one may not feed them to minors. [We derive this from the passive voice, “be eaten,”] meaning that these birds may not “be eaten” through you. Or perhaps it is not so, but [it is telling us that in addition to not eating them,] one may not derive any benefit from them? Scripture, therefore, states: “you shall not eat (לֹא תֹּאכְלוּ),” (Deut. 14:12) [in the active voice to teach us that] one is prohibited to eat them but permitted to derive benefit from them. Now, in every [mention of] birds where Scripture says לְמִינָהּ, לְמִינוֹ, לְמִינֵהוּ [“ to its…species,” it does so because] within that species, there are some that resemble each other neither in appearance nor in name, but they are [nevertheless] all one species. לא יאכלו: לחייב את המאכילן לקטנים. שכך משמעו לא יהיו נאכלים על ידך. או אינו אלא לאסרן בהנאה, תלמוד לומר (דברים יד יב) לא תאכלו, באכילה אסורין בהנאה מותרין. כל עוף שנאמר בו למינה, למינו, למינהו, יש באותו המין שאין דומין זה לזה, לא במראיהם ולא בשמותם, וכולן מין אחד:
14the kestrel, and the vulture after its species, ידוְאֶת הַדָּאָה וְאֶת הָאַיָּה לְמִינָהּ:
15and the raven after its species, טואֵת כָּל עֹרֵב לְמִינוֹ:
16the ostrich, the jay, and the sparrow hawk, and the goshawk after its species; טזוְאֵת בַּת הַיַּעֲנָה וְאֶת הַתַּחְמָס וְאֶת הַשָּׁחַף וְאֶת הַנֵּץ לְמִינֵהוּ:
the sparrow hawk: הַנֵּץ, esprevier in Old French, [epervier in modern French]. [Note that, according to some editions of Rashi , the reading is ostor, which is translated by Greenberg as goshawk, autour in modern French. This is corroborated by other editions that render הַשָּׁחַף in verse 16 as esprevier..] הנץ: אישפרויי"ר [נץ]:
17The owl, the gull, the little owl; יזוְאֶת הַכּוֹס וְאֶת הַשָּׁלָךְ וְאֶת הַיַּנְשׁוּף:
the gull: Heb. הַשָּׁלָ Our Rabbis explained: “The שָׁלָ is a bird that draws up (שׁוֹלָה) fish out of the sea” (Chul. 63a). And this is the meaning of Onkelos’ translation [of שָׁלָ]: וְשַׁלֵינוּנָא, “fish catcher.” השלך: פירשו רבותינו זה השולה דגים מן הים. וזהו שתרגם אונקלוס ושלינונא:
The owl… and the little owl: Heb. כּוֹס וְיַנְשׁוּף. These are chouettes [in French, i.e., “birds”] that shriek at night, which have cheeks like those of a human. There is another [bird] similar to it called hibou [in French]. כוס וינשוף: הם צואיטי"ש [כוס] הצועקים בלילה ויש להם לסתות כאדם. ועוד אחר דומה לו שקורין יב"ן [לילית]:
18The bat, the starling, the magpie; יחוְאֶת הַתִּנְשֶׁמֶת וְאֶת הַקָּאָת וְאֶת הָרָחָם:
The bat: Heb. הַתִּנְשֶׁמֶת. That is calve soriz [in Old French, chauve-souris in modern French]. It resembles a mouse and flies about at night. The תִּנְשֶׁמֶת mentioned among the creeping animals (verse 30), resembles this one, insofar as it has no eyes. That [one] is called talpe [in Old French, taupe in modern French, mole in English]. התנשמת: היא קלב"א שורי"ץ [עטלף] ודומה לעכבר ופורחת בלילה. ותנשמת האמורה בשרצים היא דומה לה, ואין לה עינים וקורין לה טלפ"א [חפרפרת]:
19the stork, the heron after its species; the hoopoe and the atalef [bat?]; יטוְאֵת הַחֲסִידָה הָאֲנָפָה לְמִינָהּ וְאֶת הַדּוּכִיפַת וְאֶת הָעֲטַלֵּף:
The stork: Heb. הַחֲסִידָה. This is a white dayah, [called] zigoyne [in Old French, cigogne in modern French]. And why is it called חֲסִידָה ? Because it does kindness (חִסִידוּת) with its fellow birds [by sharing] its food (Chul. 63a). החסידה: זו דיה לבנה ציגוני"ה [חסידה]. ולמה נקרא שמה חסידה, שעושה חסידות עם חברותיה במזונות:
the heron: Heb. הָאֲנָפָה. This is the hot-tempered dayah (Chul.. 63a), and it appears to me that this is the bird called h\'e0yron [in Old French, heron in modern French, heron in English]. האנפה: היא דיה רגזנית. ונראה לי שזו היא שקורין לה היירו"ן [אנפה]:
the hoopoe: Heb. הַדּוּכִיפַת, the wild-rooster, which has a doubled crest. [It is called] herupe [in Old French]. And why is it called דּוּכִיפַת ? Because its glory (הוֹדוֹ), namely its crest, is bound up (כָּפוּת). [I.e., its comb is double and appears to be folded into the head and bound up there (Rashi, Chul. 63a) [Onkelos renders it:] נַגַּר טוּרָא, “mountain carpenter,” named so for what it does, as explained by our rabbis in Tractate Gittin, chapter 7, entitled מִי שֶׁאֲחָזוֹ (68b). הדוכיפת: תרנגול הבר וכרבלתו כפולה ובלע"ז הירופ"א [דוכיפת], ולמה נקרא שמו דוכיפת, שהודו כפות, וזו היא כרבלתו. ונגר טורא נקרא על שם מעשיו, כמו שפירשו רבותינו במסכת גיטין בפרק מי שאחזו (דף סח ב):
20Any flying insect that walks on four, is an abomination for you. ככֹּל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף הַהֹלֵךְ עַל אַרְבַּע שֶׁקֶץ הוּא לָכֶם:
among all the flying insects: These are the delicate and small creatures that crawl on the ground, like flies, hornets, mosquitoes, and locusts. שרץ העוף: הם הדקים הנמוכים הרוחשין על הארץ, כגון זבובים וצרעין ויתושין וחגבים:
21However, among all the flying insects that walk on four [legs], you may eat [from] those that have jointed [leg like] extensions above its [regular] legs, with which they hop on the ground. כאאַךְ אֶת זֶה תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף הַהֹלֵךְ עַל אַרְבַּע אֲשֶׁר לוֹ (כתיב אשׁר לא) כְרָעַיִם מִמַּעַל לְרַגְלָיו לְנַתֵּר בָּהֵן עַל הָאָרֶץ:
on four: on four legs. על ארבע: על ארבע רגלים:
above its [regular] legs: [“Above,” meaning high up on the creature’s body, namely] near its neck, it has two leg-like extensions besides its [regular] four legs. When it wishes to fly or hop from the ground, it bolsters itself firmly with these appendages and flies. [In our regions,] we have many of this sort [of flying creature] called langouste [in Old French] (sea-locusts), but we are no [longer] proficient [in identifying] which ones [are clean and which are unclean. And what is the specific problem we have with this identification?] There are four signs of cleanness enumerated regarding these creatures: a) four legs, b) four wings, c) קַרְסוּלִים, which are the jointed leg-like extensions described above, and d) wings that cover the majority of its body (Chul. 59a; Torath Kohanim 11:91). All of these signs are indeed found in the creatures among us today, but some [creatures] have long heads and some do not have tails, [according to Maharsha (Chul. 66a), the reading is, “and some have tails”] and they must bear the name חָגָב (Chul. 65b). Concerning this [requirement namely, which type is officially called חָגָב and which is not], we no longer know how to distinguish between them. ממעל לרגליו: סמוך לצוארו יש לו כמין שתי רגלים לבד ארבע רגליו, וכשרוצה לעוף ולקפוץ מן הארץ מתחזק באותן שתי כרעים ופורח, ויש הרבה מהם במקומינו בינותינו, כאותן שקורין לנגושט"א [ארבה], אבל אין אנו בקיאין בהן, שארבעה סימני טהרה נאמרו בהם ארבע רגלים, וארבע כנפים, וקרסולין אלו כרעים הכתובים כאן, וכנפיו חופין את רובו. וכל סימנים הללו מצויין באותן שבינותינו, אבל יש שראשן ארוך ויש שאין להם זנב וצריך שיהא שמו חגב, ובזה אין אנו יודעים להבדיל ביניהם:
22From this [locust] category, you may eat the following: The red locust after its species, the yellow locust after its species, the spotted gray locust after its species and the white locust after its species. כבאֶת אֵלֶּה מֵהֶם תֹּאכֵלוּ אֶת הָאַרְבֶּה לְמִינוֹ וְאֶת הַסָּלְעָם לְמִינֵהוּ וְאֶת הַחַרְגֹּל לְמִינֵהוּ וְאֶת הֶחָגָב לְמִינֵהוּ:
23But any [other] flying insect that has four legs, is an abomination for you. כגוְכֹל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף אֲשֶׁר לוֹ אַרְבַּע רַגְלָיִם שֶׁקֶץ הוּא לָכֶם:
But any [other] flying insect [that has four legs is an abomination for you]: [In verse 20, it already says, “Any flying insect that walks on four is an abomination for you.” Why is this repeated here?] It comes to teach us that if it has five [legs], it is clean. וכל שרץ העוף וגו': בא ללמד שאם יש לו חמש טהור:
24And through these you will become unclean; anyone who touches their dead bodies will be unclean until evening; כדוּלְאֵלֶּה תִּטַּמָּאוּ כָּל הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּנִבְלָתָם יִטְמָא עַד הָעָרֶב:
through these: [I.e., you will become unclean] through those animals that are to be enumerated below. — [Torath Kohanim 11:95] ולאלה: העתידין להאמר למטה בענין:
you will become unclean: I.e., in touching them, there is uncleanness [not that you are commanded to become unclean]. תטמאו: כלומר בנגיעתם יש טומאה:
25And anyone who carries their carcass shall immerse his garments, and he shall be unclean until evening: כהוְכָל הַנֹּשֵׂא מִנִּבְלָתָם יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָמֵא עַד הָעָרֶב:
And anyone who carries their carcass: Any place in Scripture that mentions טֻמְאַת מַשָּׂא [uncleanness acquired by carrying (נוֹשֵׂא) an unclean item], it is more stringent than טֻמְאַת מַגָּע [uncleanness acquired by touching (נֹגֵע) an unclean item], insofar as it requires immersion of the garments [in a mikvah, in addition to the immersion of the person]. וכל הנשא מנבלתם: כל מקום שנאמרה טומאת משא, חמורה מטומאת מגע, שהיא טעונה כבוס בגדים:
26Any animal that has a cloven hoof that is not completely split, and which does not bring up its cud, is unclean for you. Anyone who touches them shall become unclean. כולְכָל הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר הִוא מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה וְשֶׁסַע | אֵינֶנָּה שֹׁסַעַת וְגֵרָה אֵינֶנָּה מַעֲלָה טְמֵאִים הֵם לָכֶם כָּל הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּהֶם יִטְמָא:
[Any animal that has] a cloven hoof that is not completely split: for instance, a camel, whose hoof is split on the top, but on the bottom it is connected. Here [Scripture] teaches you that the carcass of an unclean animal defiles, while in the section at the end of this parashah (verse 39), [Scripture] explains [that a carcass of] a clean animal [defiles as well. However, Scripture deals with these separately since there is a difference between the two: in the case of a clean animal, its carcass defiles only if it dies, but if it was slaughtered properly, even if it was a טְרֵפָה, i.e., it had a fatal disease or injury, its carcass does not defile. This is derived from verse 39, which reads, “If an animal that you (normally) eat dies…” i.e., only when it dies, its carcass defiles]. מפרסת פרסה ושסע איננה שוסעת: כגון גמל שפרסתו סדוקה למעלה, אבל למטה היא מחוברת. כאן למדך שנבלת בהמה טמאה מטמאה, ובענין שבסוף הפרשה פירש על בהמה טהורה:
27And among all the animals that walk on four legs, any [animal] that walks on its paws is unclean for you. Anyone who touches their carcass will be unclean until evening. כזוְכֹל | הוֹלֵךְ עַל כַּפָּיו בְּכָל הַחַיָּה הַהֹלֶכֶת עַל אַרְבַּע טְמֵאִים הֵם לָכֶם כָּל הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּנִבְלָתָם יִטְמָא עַד הָעָרֶב:
on its paws: such as a dog, a bear, or a cat. על כפיו: כגון כלב ודוב וחתול:
are unclean for you: i.e., to touch. טמאים הם לכם: למגע:
28And one who carries their carcass shall immerse his garments, and he will be unclean until evening. They are unclean for you. כחוְהַנֹּשֵׂא אֶת נִבְלָתָם יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָמֵא עַד הָעָרֶב טְמֵאִים הֵמָּה לָכֶם:
29And this is unclean for you among creeping creatures that creep on the ground: The weasel, the mouse, and the toad after its species; כטוְזֶה לָכֶם הַטָּמֵא בַּשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ הַחֹלֶד וְהָעַכְבָּר וְהַצָּב לְמִינֵהוּ:
And this is unclean for you: All these statements of uncleanness are not referring to the prohibition of eating, but rather, to actual uncleanness, i.e., that [the person] will become unclean by touching them, and he will [consequently] be prohibited from eating terumah [the portion of one’s produce given to the kohen] and holy [sacrifices], and from entering the sanctuary. וזה לכם הטמא: כל טומאות הללו אינן לאיסור אכילה אלא לטומאה ממש, להיות טמא במגען ונאסר לאכול תרומה וקדשים וליכנס במקדש:
The weasel: Heb. הַחֹלֶד, moustele [in Old French], weasel, beach-marten. החלד: מושטיל"ה [נמיה]:
and the toad: Heb. וְהַצָּב, bot [in Old French], which resembles a frog. [Rashi in Mikraoth Gedoloth reads: froit, which, according to Rashi on Niddah 56a, is the same as bot. According to Berliner and Greenberg, this is a ferret. According to Gukevitzky and Catane, it is a toad. In view of Rashi 's comment that it resembles a frog, this appears to be the correct translation.] והצב: פרוי"ט [קרפדה] שדומה לצפרדע:
30The hedgehog, the chameleon, the lizard, the snail, and the mole. לוְהָאֲנָקָה וְהַכֹּחַ וְהַלְּטָאָה וְהַחֹמֶט וְהַתִּנְשָׁמֶת:
the hedgehog: Heb. הָאֲנָקָה, herisson [in French]. אנקה: היריצו"ן [קיפוד]:
and the lizard: Heb. וְהַלְּטָאָה, lezard [in French]. הלטאה: לישרד"ה [לטאה]:
and the snail: Heb. וְהַחֹמֶט, limace [in French]. החמט: לימצ"ה [חילזון]:
and the mole: וְהַתִּנְשֶׁמֶת, talpe [in Old French, taupe in modern French]. והתנשמת: טלפ"א [חפרפרת]:
31These are the ones that are unclean for you, among all creeping creatures; anyone who touches them when they are dead will be unclean until evening. לאאֵלֶּה הַטְּמֵאִים לָכֶם בְּכָל הַשָּׁרֶץ כָּל הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּהֶם בְּמֹתָם יִטְמָא עַד הָעָרֶב:
32And if any of these dead [creatures] falls upon anything, it will become unclean, whether it is any wooden vessel, garment, hide or sack, any vessel with which work is done; it shall be immersed in water, but will remain unclean until evening, and it will become clean. לבוְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִפֹּל עָלָיו מֵהֶם | בְּמֹתָם יִטְמָא מִכָּל כְּלִי עֵץ אוֹ בֶגֶד אוֹ עוֹר אוֹ שָׂק כָּל כְּלִי אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בָּהֶם בַּמַּיִם יוּבָא וְטָמֵא עַד הָעֶרֶב וְטָהֵר:
it shall be immersed in water: Even after its immersion, the item remains unclean for [coming into contact with] terumah. במים יובא: ואף לאחר טבילתו טמא הוא לתרומה עד הערב, ואחר כך וטהר בהערב השמש:
until evening: And afterwards, :
it will become clean: when the sun sets. — [Yev. 75a] :Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 135 - 139
• Chapter 135
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Name of the Lord; offer praise, you servants of the Lord-
2. who stand in the House of the Lord, in the courtyards of the House of our God.
3. Praise the Lord, for the Lord is good; sing to His Name, for He is pleasant.
4. For God has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel as His beloved treasure.
5. For I know that the Lord is great, our Master is greater than all supernal beings.
6. All that the Lord desired He has done, in the heavens and on earth, in the seas and the depths.
7. He causes mists to rise from the ends of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain; He brings forth the wind from His vaults.
8. It was He who struck down the firstborn of Egypt, of man and beast.
9. He sent signs and wonders into the midst of Egypt, on Pharaoh and on all his servants.
10. It was He who struck down many nations, and slew mighty kings:
11. Sichon, king of the Amorites; Og, king of Bashan; and all the kingdoms of Canaan.
12. And He gave their lands as a heritage, a heritage to His people Israel.
13. Lord, Your Name is forever; Lord, Your remembrance is throughout all generations.
14. Indeed, the Lord will judge on behalf of His people, and have compassion on His servants.
15. The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the product of human hands.
16. They have a mouth, but cannot speak; they have eyes, but cannot see;
17. they have ears, but cannot hear; nor is there breath in their mouth.
18. Like them will their makers become-all who trust in them.
19. House of Israel, bless the Lord; House of Aaron, bless the Lord;
20. House of Levi, bless the Lord; you who fear the Lord, bless the Lord.
21. Blessed is the Lord from Zion, who dwells in Jerusalem. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 136
This psalm contains twenty-six verses, corresponding to the twenty-six generations between the creation of the world and the giving of the Torah.
1. Praise the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is forever.
2. Praise the God of the supernal beings, for His kindness is forever.
3. Praise the Master of the heavenly hosts, for His kindness is forever.
4. Who alone performs great wonders, for His kindness is forever.
5. Who makes the heavens with understanding, for His kindness is forever.
6. Who spreads forth the earth above the waters, for His kindness is forever.
7. Who makes the great lights, for His kindness is forever.
8. The sun to rule by day, for His kindness is forever.
9. The moon and stars to rule by night, for His kindness is forever.
10. Who struck Egypt through its firstborn, for His kindness is forever.
11. And brought Israel out of their midst, for His kindness is forever.
12. With a strong hand and with an outstretched arm, for His kindness is forever.
13. Who split the Sea of Reeds into sections, for His kindness is forever.
14. And brought Israel across it, for His kindness is forever.
15. And cast Pharaoh and his army into the Sea of Reeds, for His kindness is forever.
16. Who led His people through the desert, for His kindness is forever;
17. Who struck down great kings, for His kindness is forever.
18. And slew mighty kings, for His kindness is forever.
19. Sichon, king of the Amorites, for His kindness is forever.
20. And Og, king of Bashan, for His kindness is forever.
21. And gave their land as a heritage, for His kindness is forever.
22. A heritage to Israel His servant, for His kindness is forever.
23. Who remembered us in our humiliation, for His kindness is forever.
24. And redeemed us from our oppressors, for His kindness is forever.
25. Who gives food to all flesh, for His kindness is forever.
26. Praise the God of heaven, for His kindness is forever.
Chapter 137
Referring to the time of the destruction of the Temple, this psalm tells of when Nebuchadnezzar would ask the Levites to sing in captivity as they had in the Temple, to which they would reply, "How can we sing the song of God upon alien soil?" They were then comforted by Divine inspiration.
1. By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat and wept as we remembered Zion.
2. There, upon the willows, we hung our harps.
3. For there our captors demanded of us songs, and those who scorned us-rejoicing, [saying,] "Sing to us of the songs of Zion.”
4. How can we sing the song of the Lord on alien soil?
5. If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget [its dexterity].
6. Let my tongue cleave to my palate if I will not remember you, if I will not bring to mind Jerusalem during my greatest joy!
7. Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites the day of [the destruction of] Jerusalem, when they said, "Raze it, raze it to its very foundation!”
8. O Babylon, who is destined to be laid waste, happy is he who will repay you in retribution for what you have inflicted on us.
9. Happy is he who will seize and crush your infants against the rock!
Chapter 138
David offers awesome praises to God for His kindness to him, and for fulfilling His promise to grant him kingship.
1. By David. I will thank You with all my heart, in the presence of princes I shall praise You.
2. I will bow toward Your Holy Sanctuary, and praise Your Name for Your kindness and for Your truth; for You have exalted Your word above all Your Names.
3. On the day that I called out You answered me, You emboldened me, [You put] strength in my soul.
4. Lord, all the kings of the land will give thanks to You when they hear the words of Your mouth.
5. And they will sing of the Lord's ways, for the glory of the Lord is great.
6. For though the Lord is exalted, He sees the lowly; the High One castigates from afar.
7. If I walk in the midst of distress, keep me alive; against the wrath of my enemies stretch out Your hand, and let Your right hand deliver me.
8. Lord, complete [Your kindness] on my behalf. Lord, Your kindness is forever, do not forsake the work of Your hands.
Chapter 139
A most prominent psalm that guides man in the ways of God as no other in all of the five books of Tehillim. Fortunate is he who recites it daily.
1. For the Conductor, by David, a psalm. O Lord, You have probed me, and You know.
2. You know my sitting down and my standing up; You perceive my thought from afar.
3. You encircle my going about and my lying down; You are familiar with all my paths.
4. For there was not yet a word on my tongue-and behold, Lord, You knew it all.
5. You have besieged me front and back, You have laid Your hand upon me.
6. Knowledge [to escape You] is beyond me; it is exalted, I cannot know it.
7. Where can I go [to escape] Your spirit? And where can I flee from Your presence?
8. If I ascend to the heavens, You are there; if I make my bed in the grave, behold, You are there.
9. Were I to take up wings as the dawn and dwell in the furthest part of the sea,
10. there, too, Your hand would guide me; Your right hand would hold me.
11. Were I to say, "Surely the darkness will shadow me," then the night would be as light around me.
12. Even the darkness obscures nothing from You; and the night shines like the day-the darkness is as light.
13. For You created my mind; You covered me in my mother's womb.
14. I will thank You, for I was formed in an awesome and wondrous way; unfathomable are Your works, though my soul perceives much.
15. My essence was not hidden from You even while I was born in concealment, formed in the depths of the earth.
16. Your eyes beheld my raw form; all [happenings] are inscribed in Your book, even those to be formed in future days-to Him they are the same.
17. How precious are Your thoughts to me, O God! How overwhelming, [even] their beginnings!
18. Were I to count them, they would outnumber the sand, even if I were to remain awake and always with You.
19. O that You would slay the wicked, O God, and men of blood [to whom I say], "Depart from me!”
20. They exalt You for wicked schemes, Your enemies raise [You] for falsehood.
21. Indeed, I hate those who hate You, Lord; I contend with those who rise up against You.
22. I hate them with the utmost hatred; I regard them as my own enemies.
23. Search me, Lord, and know my heart; test me and know my thoughts.
24. See if there is a vexing way in me, then lead me in the way of the world.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 42• Lessons in Tanya
• Daily Tanya
• Friday, Nissan 28, 5775 · 17 April 2015
• Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 42
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
• Friday, Nissan 28, 5775 · 17 April 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 124
Fallen Grapes
"You shall not harvest the single grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger"—Leviticus 19:10.
We are commanded to leave for the poor the grapes that fall to the ground in the course of harvesting.
This biblical precept only applies in the Land of Israel.
• 1 Chapter: Shabbos Shabbos - Chapter Sixteen
• Friday, Nissan 28, 5775 · 17 April 2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: K'doshim, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 135-139.
Tanya: Ch. 44. Each of (p. 231)...until the morning... (p. 233).
Chassidim asked the Alter Rebbe: "Which is the superior avoda, love of G-d or love of Israel?" He replied: "Both love of G-d and love of Israel are equally engraved in every Jew's neshama, ruach, and nefesh.1 Scripture is explicit: 'I have loved you, says the L-rd.'2 It follows that love of Israel is superior - for you love whom your beloved loves."
FOOTNOTES
1. Different levels or aspects of the soul. The two loves thoroughly permeate the soul on every level.
2. Malachi 1:2.
• Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 42
In describing earlier the fear a Jew should possess for G‑d, the Alter Rebbe said that it should be similar to the fear felt “when one stands before a king,” for G‑d is omnipresent and observes all man’s actions.
A question arises: When one stands before a king, he is not only being seen by the king, but he is also looking at him, and this helps him to stand in fear of him. In the analogue, however, this is not the case: though G‑d, the King, sees him, he fails to see G‑d.
The Alter Rebbe will now respond to this question by saying that there is yet another means by which an individual may awaken within himself the fear of G‑d — by being able to “see” the King. For by observing heaven and earth and all the created beings that people them, and realizing that they all derive their life from G‑d, he will have fear of Him.
ועוד זאת יזכור כי כמו שבמלך בשר ודם, עיקר היראה היא מפנימיותו וחיותו ולא מגופו, שהרי כשישן אין שום יראה ממנו
In addition to this, one should remember that, as in the case of a mortal king, the fear of him relates mainly to his inner essence and vitality and not to his body — for when he is asleep, though his body does not change, there is no fear of him,
This is because while he sleeps his inner essence and vitality are in a state of concealment. Clearly, then, they are the main reason for fearing a king while he is awake.
והנה פנימיותו וחיותו אין נראה לעיני בשר, רק בעיני השכל
and, surely, his inner essence and vitality are not perceived by physical eyes, but only by the mind’s eye,
על ידי ראיית עיני בשר בגופו ולבושיו, שיודע שחיותו מלובש בתוכם
through the physical eyes‘ beholding his body and garments, and knowing that his vitality is clothed in them.
This in turn leads the beholder to fear him.
ואם כן
And if this is so, then surely in the analogue as well, not only is the king seeing him, but he is seeing the king as well, and this causes him to fear G‑d. Moreover,
ככה ממש יש לו לירא את ה׳ על ידי ראיית עיני בשר בשמים וארץ וכל צבאם, אשר אור אין סוף ברוך הוא מלובש בהם להחיותם
he must truly likewise fear G‑d when gazing with his physical eyes at the heavens and earth and all their hosts, wherein is clothed the [infinite] light of the blessed Ein Sof that animates them.*
הגהה
*NOTE
The Alter Rebbe will now say that by looking at heaven and earth one not only becomes aware of their G‑dly vitalizing force, but also perceives how the world and all its inhabitants are truly nullified to the divine life-force. This can be perceived by observing the stars and planets, all of which travel in a westerly direction. In doing so they express their nullification to the Shechinah, the Divine Presence, which is in the west.
וגם נראה בראיית העין שהם בטלים לאורו יתברך בהשתחוואתם כל יום כלפי מערב בשקיעתם, כמאמר רז״ל על פסוק: וצבא השמים לך משתחוים, שהשכינה במערב
And it is also seen with a glance of the eye that they are nullified to His blessed light, by the fact that they “prostrate” themselves every day towards the west at the time of their setting. As the Rabbis, of blessed memory, commented on the verse:1 “...and the hosts of the heavens bow before You,” that the Shechinahabides in the west,
ונמצא הילוכם כל היום כלפי מערב הוא דרך השתחוואה וביטול
Hence, not only do the heavenly hosts show their self-abnegation when they set in the west, but their daily orbit westwards is a kind of prostration and self-nullification.
We find it written that if the sun, moon and planets were to follow their natural characteristics they would travel in an easterly, rather than in a westerly direction. That they do not do so testifies to their constant self-nullification to the Divine Presence which is found in the west. For the four points of the compass are rooted in the Supernal Sefirot, and Malchut — the level of the Shechinah — is in the west. Thus, even man’s eye observes the self-nullification of creation to the divine life-force.
והנה גם מי שלא ראה את המלך מעולם ואינו מכירו כלל, אף על פי כן, כשנכנס לחצר המלך
Even he who has never seen the king and does not recognize him at all, nevertheless, when he enters the royal court,
“There the king is not revealed at all: it is not the place of his royal throne and the like. (In the analogue this refers to the physical world, in which various proofs are necessary in order to bring about self-nullification to the King.)” — Note of the Rebbe.
ורואה שרים רבים ונכבדים משתחוים לאיש אחד
and sees many honorable princes prostrating themselves before one man,
“The person who enters and looks superficially is unable to detect a difference between him and the other men present.” — Note of the Rebbe.
תפול עליו אימה ופחד
there falls on him a dread and awe.
So, too, the self-nullification before G‑d shown by the awesome creatures, such as the heavenly bodies, enables one to be in fear and awe of Him.
END OF NOTE
However, the question may be asked: When one gazes at the body of a physical king, he sees before him beyond a shadow of a doubt the king himself. He therefore can extrapolate intellectually about the inner essence and vitality of the king and come to fear him. This is not so, however, with regard to physical creatures. The divine life-force is so concealed within them through so many garbs of concealment, that it is quite possible for one to gaze at them and fail to be aware that their bodies are but garments to the divine life-force they contain.
The Alter Rebbe now goes on to say, that it is therefore important for a person who observes physical created beings to cultivate the habit of immediately recalling that within the concealment of their external trappings and garments, there is to be found the G‑dliness that animates them. By doing so, one is then able to perceive the divine life-force found within the world.
ואף שהוא על ידי התלבשות בלבושים רבים
And although many garments are involved in this vestiture, so that when one gazes at created beings, one does not perceive that they are but garments to their divine life-force,
הרי אין הבדל והפרש כלל ביראת מלך בשר ודם, בין שהוא ערום, ובין שהוא לבוש לבוש אחד, ובין שהוא לבוש בלבושים רבים
there is no difference or distinction at all in the fear of a mortal king, whether he be naked,2 or clothed in one or many garments.
It is the realization that the king is found within the garments that creates the fear of him. And the same, the Alter Rebbe will conclude, is true here. When a person becomes accustomed to remember that when he gazes upon created beings he is in reality gazing upon the King’s garments, he will then come to fear Him.
אלא העיקר הוא ההרגל, להרגיל דעתו ומחשבתו תמיד, להיות קבוע בלבו ומוחו תמיד, אשר כל מה שרואה בעיניו, השמים והארץ ומלואה, הכל הם לבושים החיצונים של המלך הקב״ה
The essential thing, however, is the training to habituate one’s mind and thought continuously, so that it always remain imprinted in his heart and mind, that everything one sees with his eyes — the heavens and earth and all they contain — constitutes the outer garments of the king, the Holy One, blessed be He.
ועל ידי זה יזכור תמיד על פנימיותם וחיותם
In this way he will constantly remember their inwardness and vitality, which is G‑dliness. This will create within him a fear of G‑d.
The Rebbe explains that what now follows answers a question: How can we possibly say here that the nullification of the world to G‑d is a concept that can be perceived intellectually, when in ch. 33 the Alter Rebbe explained that this was a matter of faith? In this chapter too, we have learned that it is a matter of faith — “that all Jews are believers, descendants of believers,” and so on. Faith and intellect are not only distinct entities, they are antithetical; for example, when something is understood, faith is not necessary.
The Alter Rebbe therefore now goes on to explain that this intellectual perception is also implicit in the word emunah (“faith”). For this word is etymologically rooted in the word uman (“artisan”). In order for an artisan with a talent for painting, creating vessels, or whatever, to be successful, he must habituate and train his hands; only then will they reveal the latent talents of the artistry found in his soul.
The same is true here: The soul of every Jew possesses the abovementioned faith. However, in order for this faith to be actualized, so that one’s actions will be in consonance with it, one must habituate and train himself to realize that all he sees — heaven and earth and all of creation — are but G‑d’s external garments. By constantly remembering that their inwardness is G‑dliness, the soul’s essential faith will be revealed and will affect one’s actions. His bodily organs will then follow the dictates of his faith.
וזה נכלל גם כן בלשון אמונה, שהוא לשון רגילות, שמרגיל האדם את עצמו, כמו אומן שמאמן ידיו וכו׳
This is also implicit in the word emunah (“faith”), which is a term indicating “training” to which a person habituates himself, like a craftsman who trains hishands, and so forth.
The Rebbe notes that “who trains his hands” means: “He is cognizant of the craft in his soul; he has a natural talent for it, but needs only to train his hands, so that it will find tangible expression in his actions (be it through art, or fashioning vessels, or the like).”
Thus, the analogue contains both aspects: The king sees the individual, and he sees the king, as it were, by looking at created beings and perceiving through them the divine life-force that vitalizes them.
* * *
The Rebbe notes that the reason the Alter Rebbe now goes on to say “There should also be etc.” is that until now it has been explained how a Jew generates the fear of heaven through intellectual contemplation. The degree of fear he arouses will correspond exactly to the extent of his contemplation; the deeper the contemplation, the greater his fear. It also depends on how much each individual is governed by his intellect. Furthermore, it is too much to expect that all people constantly achieve a state of intellectual awareness — yetall people are obliged to stand in constant fear of heaven. The Alter Rebbe therefore now goes on to elaborate on a frame of mind which can and must exist constantly — “acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven.” This is not attained through contemplation. Rather it comes as a result of faith alone — and this state can exist constantly in all individuals.
וגם להיות לזכרון תמיד לשון חז״ל: קבלת עול מלכות שמים, שהוא כענין: שום תשים עליך מלך
There should also be a constant remembrance (it is constant because it does not depend on prior contemplation, but rather on pure faith) of the dictum of the Sages, of blessed memory, “acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven,” which parallels the injunction,3 “You shall appoint a king (i.e., G‑d) over you,”
כמו שכתוב במקום אחר וכו׳
as has been explained elsewhere, and so on.
This is also what the Alter Rebbe says earlier in Tanya (beginning of ch. 41): “Even though after all this [meditation] no fear or dread descends upon him in a manifest manner in his heart,” still he should accept upon himself G‑d as his king, and accept upon himself the yoke of the heavenly Kingdom. As the Alter Rebbe explains there, this attribute is found within every Jew in a sincere manner, because of the nature of Jewish souls not to rebel against G‑d, the King of kings. This level of fear can therefore always be present.
כי הקב״ה מניח את העליונים והתחתונים ומייחד מלכותו עלינו וכו׳, ואנחנו מקבלים וכו׳
For G‑d, blessed be He, forgoes the creatures of the higher and lower worlds, i.e., they are not the ultimate intent of creation, and uniquely bestows His kingdom upon us, ...and we accept [the heavenly yoke].
וזהו ענין ההשתחוואות שבתפלת שמונה עשרה, אחר קבלת עול מלכות שמים בדבור בקריאת שמע
And this is the significance of the obeisances in the prayer of the Eighteen Benedictions, following the verbal acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven in the Reading of Shema, when we say, “...the L‑rd is our G‑d, the L‑rd is one,” and so on,
לחזור ולקבל בפועל ממש במעשה וכו׳, כמו שכתוב במקום אחר
whereby one accepts it once again in actual deed, and so on (for by bowing in the course of the prayer of Shemoneh Esreh one shows one’s acceptance in actual deed of one’s self-nullification to G‑d), as is explained elsewhere.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Bava Batra 25a. |
| 2. | The Rebbe notes: “Cf. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, end of ch. 2.” |
| 3. | Devarim 17:15. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
• Friday, Nissan 28, 5775 · 17 April 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 124
Fallen Grapes
"You shall not harvest the single grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger"—Leviticus 19:10.
We are commanded to leave for the poor the grapes that fall to the ground in the course of harvesting.
This biblical precept only applies in the Land of Israel.
Fallen Grapes
Positive Commandment 124
Translated by Berel Bell
The 124th mitzvah is that we are commanded to leave over for the poor those grapes that have become detached and fall during the harvesting process.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not pick up peret (individual2 fallen grapes) in your vineyard. You must leave them for the poor and the stranger."
The details of this mitzvah are also explained in tractate Pe'ah.3
The Biblical prohibition applies only in Eretz Yisroel.4
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 19:10.
2.I.e. a single grape or two grapes attached together. If a cluster of three grapes falls, it is not considered to be peret.
3.Ch. 6.
4.See note to P120 above.
|
Shabbos - Chapter Sixteen
Halacha 1
[The following rules pertain to] a place that is enclosed for purposes other than habitation, and is used as an open space - e.g., gardens and orchards, an open area that is enclosed to protect it, or the like: If the walls surrounding it are ten handbreadths or more high, it is considered to be a private domain with regard to a person's being liable for transferring, throwing, or passing an object from it to the public domain, or from the public domain to it.1
Halacha 2
Similarly, if a surface is elevated more than ten handbreadths high4 and whose area is equivalent to the space necessary to sow two seah or less, we may carry on the entire surface. If its area exceeds the space necessary to sow twoseah, we may carry only within a space of four cubits upon it.5
When a rock in the sea is less than ten handbreadths high, we may carry from it to the sea, and from the sea to it, for the entire area is a carmelit.6 If [the rock] is ten handbreadths high, [different rules apply]. If the size of its area is between7four handbreadths [by four handbreadths]8 and the space necessary to sow two seah, [our Sages forbade] carrying from [the rock] to the sea or from the sea to the rock. [This restriction is a safeguard, instituted,] because we are permitted to carry on the entire [rock].
If its area exceeds the space necessary to sow two seah, although it is a private domain and yet it is forbidden to carry more than four cubits upon it as in acarmelit, it is permitted to carry from it to the sea and from the sea to it. This is an atypical situation. Hence, the Sages did not [include] it [in their] decree.9
Halacha 3
How large is an area in which a seah [of grain can be sown]? Fifty cubits by fifty cubits. Thus, the area in which two seah [of grain can be sown] is 5000 square cubits.10
Halacha 4
[The following rules apply when] an area that is enclosed for purposes other than habitation and is large enough for two seah [of grain to be sown within is rectangular in shape]: If its length is twice its width - for example, it is 100 by 50, as was the courtyard of the Sanctuary - carrying is permitted within it.
If, however, [it is more elongated] and its length exceeds twice its width by even one handbreadth,14 we are permitted to carry only four cubits within it.15 [This restriction is imposed because the permission to carry as one may carry] in other courtyards [within] an open space large enough for two seah [of grain to be sown within], is derived from the courtyard of the Sanctuary.16
Halacha 5
[The status of] a place that was originally enclosed for purposes other than habitation [may be changed in the following manner]. A person tears down [a portion of the wall, creating] an open space that is more than ten cubits long and ten handbreadths high17 and then re-encloses that space for the purpose of habitation.18 [After this has been done,] one may carry within the entire enclosure.
Moreover, even if one [did not complete the entire process at once, but rather] tore down a single cubit and re-enclosed that space for the purpose of habitation, tore down another single cubit and re-enclosed that space for the purpose of habitation19 - [when one continues this process until] one re-encloses a space greater than ten cubits one may carry within the entire enclosure, even though it is several millim20 in size.
Halacha 6
When [produce] is sown in the majority of an area that is larger than the space [necessary to sow] two seah [of grain] that was enclosed for the sake of habitation, the area is considered to be a garden,21 and it is forbidden to carry within it in its totality.22
[The following rules apply when produce] is sown merely within a minor portion [of the enclosure]: If the portion [where the produce] was sown is equal23 to the space [necessary to sow] two seah [of grain], one may carry within the entire [enclosure].24 If the portion [where the produce] was sown is larger than the space [necessary to sow] two seah [of grain],25one may not carry within the entire [enclosure].26
When trees are planted in the majority [of the enclosure],27 it is considered to be a courtyard, and one may carry within the entire [enclosure].28
Should [the enclosure] become filled with water,29 [the following rules apply]: If [the water] is fit to be used [by humans],30 [the water] is considered to be like trees,31 and it is permitted to carry within the entire enclosure. If [the water] is not fit to be used [by humans], we may carry only [within a square of] four cubits in [the enclosure].32
Halacha 7
[The following rule applies when a roof is constructed33over a portion of] an area large enough for three seah [of grain to be sown within] which originally had been enclosed for purposes other than habitation: If the roof34 covers [a portion of this area] large enough for a seah [of grain to be sown], we are permitted [to carry throughout the entire enclosure] because of the roof. [The rationale is:] The edge of the roof is considered to descend and close off [the covered portion from the enclosure as a whole].35
[The following rule applies when the wall surrounding an area that was enclosed for purposes other than habitation] was torn down,36 opening the enclosure up to an adjoining courtyard, and [a portion of the wall of the courtyard] opposite [the enclosure] was also torn down: 
37 [We are] permitted [to carry] within the courtyard as [we] previously [were], and [we are] forbidden [to carry] within the enclosure as [we] previously [were].38 [The rationale is:] The open space of the courtyard does not cause [carrying] to be permitted [within the enclosure].39
37 [We are] permitted [to carry] within the courtyard as [we] previously [were], and [we are] forbidden [to carry] within the enclosure as [we] previously [were].38 [The rationale is:] The open space of the courtyard does not cause [carrying] to be permitted [within the enclosure].39
Halacha 8
When [the area of an enclosure] is greater than the space necessary [to sow] two seah [of grain], and one attempts to reduce its size40 by planting trees, its [size is not considered to have been] reduced.41
If one builds a pillar ten [handbreadths] high and three or more [handbreadths] wide at the side of the wall,42 [the size of the enclosure is considered to have been] reduced.43 If, however, [the pillar] is less than three [handbreadths] wide, [the size of the enclosure is not considered to have been] reduced, for an entity that is within three handbreadths of an existing entity is considered to be an extension of the latter entity.44
Halacha 9
If one applies cement to the wall, one reduces [the size of the enclosure],47although [the cement] is not substantial enough to stand as a separate entity.48
[The following rule applies when an area which is larger than the space required to sow two seah of grain is located on a mound:] If one builds a wall [with the intent of enclosing the area for habitation] at the edge of the mound, it is not of consequence,49 for a partition that is built on top of another partition is of no consequence.50
[The following rule applies when] a wall [that was constructed for the purpose of habitation was built] on top of a wall [that was not constructed for the purpose of habitation,]51 the lower wall sunk within the ground,52 and the upper wall remained: Since the upper wall was constructed for the purpose of dwelling, and it is the only [wall] visible at present, it is [now] considered of consequence and one may carry within the entire [enclosure].
Halacha 10
We may carry only within [a square of] four cubits in a yard53 that is located behind [a group of] houses larger than the space necessary [to sow] two seah[of grain], even when there is an opening from [one of] the homes to [the yard].54
If one opens an entrance [from one of the homes] to [the yard] and then encloses it, [the yard] is considered as enclosed for the purpose of habitation, and we are permitted to carry throughout its total [area].55
Halacha 11
[Permission is granted to carry within] a yard56 that opens to a city at one side and a path that leads to a river on the other [in the following manner]:57 If one erects a post58 at the side near the city, it is permitted to carry within [the yard], from [the yard] to the city,59 and from the city to [the yard].
Halacha 12
[The following rules apply when] an individual spends the Sabbath in an open valley and constructs a partition60 around his [immediate area]: If [the enclosed area] is the size of the area in which twoseah [of grain can be sown] or less, he may carry within the entire [enclosed area]. If [the enclosed area] is larger, he may carry only within [a square of] four cubits.61
The same [rules apply when] two individuals [spend the Sabbath in an open valley]. When, however, three or more Jews62 spend the Sabbath in an open valley [and erect a partition enclosing their immediate area], they are considered a caravan and they are allowed to carry as far as necessary,63 even several millim, provided there is not a space larger than the area [necessary to sow] two seah left vacant without utensils. If, however, [the enclosed area] includes a space larger than the area [necessary to sow] two seah that is left vacant without utensils, and that is of no use to them,64 they are allowed to carry only within [a square of] four cubits within the enclosure.65
A minor66 is not included in [the reckoning of the minimum number of people necessary to compose] a caravan.
Halacha 13
When three people enclose an area large enough for their needs67 and establish this as their place for the Sabbath, [those who remain] are allowed to [continue] carrying within the entire [enclosure]68despite the fact that one of them dies [on the Sabbath].
When [by contrast] two individuals establish [an enclosed area] larger than the space [necessary to sow] two seah [of grain] as their place for the Sabbath, they may carry only within four cubits despite the fact that a third person joins them [on the Sabbath]. [The rationale for both decisions is that the ruling] is determined by the manner in which the individuals establish [a site as] their place for the Sabbath [at the commencement of the Sabbath], and not on the number of people who are actually present [on the Sabbath day].69
Halacha 14
[Our Sages did not establish restrictions against carrying in the following instance:] Three areas that are enclosed for purposes other than habitation are located adjacent to each other, and lead70 to each other. The two outer enclosures are wide, while the middle enclosure is narrow. Thus, there are barriers around the outer enclosures on either side. If [three people spend the Sabbath in this place,] one in each of these enclosures, [the three] are considered as a caravan,71 and they are allowed to carry [wherever] necessary.72
If the middle enclosure is wide, while the two outer enclosures are narrow, there are barriers around the middle enclosure on either side. [Thus,] it is considered separate. Therefore, [if three people spend the Sabbath in this place,] one in each of these enclosures, they are not allowed to carry without restriction.73Instead, each one is allowed to carry within his own enclosure [provided it is smaller74than the space necessary to sow] two seah [of grain].
If a single individual [spends the Sabbath] in each [of the outer enclosures], while two people are in the middle enclosure, or two people [spend the Sabbath] in each [of the outer enclosures], while one person is in the middle enclosure, they are allowed to carry [wherever] necessary.75
Halacha 15
Any partition76 that cannot stand in the face of an ordinary wind is not considered a significant partition.77 [Similarly,] any partition which is not constructed in a lasting manner78 is not considered a significant partition. [Likewise,] a partition constructed only for the purpose of modesty79 is not considered a significant partition.
Halacha 16
Any partition whose open portion exceeds its closed portion is not considered to be a partition.82 If, however, the open portion is equivalent to its closed portion, it is permitted [to carry within the enclosure], provided none of the open portions is larger than ten cubits wide.83 [The rationale for this leniency is that an open space] ten cubits [or less] is considered to be an entrance.84
Halacha 17
When does the above apply? When the open spaces are three handbreadths or wider. If, however, the open spaces are each less than three handbreadths,88 the partition is acceptable although the total open space exceeds the space which is enclosed. For whenever there is an opening of less than three handbreadths, the portions separated in this manner are considered as parts of a solid partition.
Halacha 18
What does the above imply? For example, a person makes an enclosure with reeds - as long as there is less than three handbreadths between one reed and the next, the partition is fully acceptable. Similarly, if one makes a partition with ropes, as long as there is less than three handbreadths between one rope and the next [the partition is fully acceptable]. [The above applies] even when the [reeds or ropes] run vertically but not horizontally,89 or horizontally but not vertically.90
The height of the reeds must be at least ten [handbreadths], or there must be ten handbreadths from the earth to the top of the highest rope if one makes an enclosure with rope. For a partition cannot be less than ten handbreadths high. All these measures are part of the oral tradition transmitted to Moses on Mount Sinai.91
Halacha 19
Whenever the term "frame of an entrance" is mentioned, it refers to a structure that has at the very least one reed at either side and another reed above them.92 [There is a further leniency:] The height of the posts at the sides must be at least ten handbreadths, but it is not necessary for the reed or other material placed above them to touch them. Even if it is several cubits above them,93 since the posts at the side are ten [handbreadths] high, [the structure] is considered to be a frame of an entrance.
Halacha 20
When the upright portions of the sides of an entrance that is structured in the form of an arch are ten [handbreadths] high,96it is considered to be a "frame of an entrance."
Halacha 21
Halacha 22
A partition that arises on its own accord103 is acceptable. Similarly, a partition that is erected on the Sabbath is considered to be a partition.104 If it is constructed unintentionally, carrying within [the enclosed area] is permitted on that Sabbath,105 provided it is not constructed with the knowledge of those who carry within.
If, however, a person intends that a partition be erected on the Sabbath, he is forbidden to carry within [the enclosure] on that Sabbath, even though the person who actually constructed the partition did not do so with the intent of violating [the Sabbath laws].106 Similarly, if [a partition] is erected with a conscious intent to violate [the Sabbath laws], it is forbidden to carry within [the enclosure]107 even if [the person who erected the structure] did not intend to carry within it.
Halacha 23
It is permitted to erect a human partition on the Sabbath - i.e., people standing next to each other108 - provided that the people whose bodies form the partition do not know that they are standing there for that purpose.109 Nor may the person who desires to use this enclosure be the one who has them stand there.110 Instead, another person should have them stand there without the knowledge of [the person who will benefit from the enclosure].111
Halacha 24
The branches of a tree which hang downward and which reach within three handbreadths of the earth [may serve as an enclosure].112 One should place straw, stubble, and the like between the branches and the leaves, and should tie them to the earth so that they will stand firmly and not flutter in the face of an ordinary wind.113 [When this is done,] one may carry under the entire [tree].
[The above applies] when there is less than the space [necessary to sow] twoseah [of grain beneath the tree]. If, however, the area [below the tree] is larger than that, we are allowed to carry only within four cubits [in this space], since the space beneath [the tree] was enclosed for purposes other than dwelling.114
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
The majority of this chapter is devoted to an explanation of the laws pertaining to a karpef, a large area that is enclosed by four walls, but these walls were not constructed for the purpose of habitation.
Since this area is enclosed by four walls, it is considered a private domain according to Torah law. Therefore, one is liable for transferring articles to and from it. Nevertheless, as the Rambam c ontinues, the Rabbis imposed certain restrictions on carrying within this space for the reasons mentioned below. We are, however, allowed to carry within an area enclosed for the purpose of habitation regardless of how large it is (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin 2:5).
|
| 2. |
The size of this space is defined in Halachah 3.
|
| 3. |
Since this is a large space in which there are no inhabitants, it appears to resemble a public domain or a carmelit. Accordingly, the Sages placed certain restrictions on carrying within it, lest one err and carry in the public domain as well (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 358:1).
|
| 4. |
A surface four handbreadths by four handbreadths that is elevated ten handbreadths above the ground is considered to be a private domain.
|
| 5. |
I.e., although it is a private domain according to Torah law, our Sages forbade carrying upon it for the reasons explained in the previous halachah.
|
| 6. |
Although one is allowed to carry from one carmelit to another, one may not carry more than a total of four cubits.
|
| 7. |
If it is less than four handbreadths by four handbreadths, it is a makom patur, and there is no difficulty in carrying from it to the sea or from the sea to it.
|
| 8. |
A rock that is this high above the sea and this size is considered to be a private domain.
|
| 9. |
Although our Sages generally forbade transferring an article from a private domain to a carmelit, since this is a very unusual circumstance they did not include it in their decree.
|
| 10. |
Eruvin 23b identifies the area in which two seah of grain can be sown with the courtyard of the Sanctuary in the desert, which was 100 cubits by 50 cubits.
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav explains the significance of this concept. All of the prohibitions against labor on the Sabbath are derived from the Sanctuary. The courtyard of the Sanctuary was a large area which was enclosed for purposes other than habitation. Nevertheless, it was permitted to carry within it. Therefore, when the Sages prohibited carrying in large areas that were enclosed for purposes other than habitation, they used the size of the courtyard of the Sanctuary as the lower limit.
|
| 11. |
Here we see a contrast to the measures of four handbreadths by four handbreadths or four cubits by four cubits, where the intent is a square or a larger area in which such a square could be inscribed.
|
| 12. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 2:5), the Rambam states that the square is approximately 70 cubits and five sevenths of a cubit by 70 cubits and five sevenths of a cubit, but that there is no perfect square root for the number 5000.
|
| 13. |
This is obvious from the connection to the courtyard of the Sanctuary, which, as mentioned, was a rectangle and not a square.
|
| 14. |
Note the Rambam's explanation of the difference in opinion between Rabbi Yosse and Rabbi Eliezer, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 2:5). On the basis of this explanation, it would appear that his conception of the Mishnah is closer to that of Tosafot, Eruvin 23b than to that of Rashi (loc. cit.).
|
| 15. |
As in a carmelit.
|
| 16. |
Hence, when such an open area does not resemble the courtyard of the Sanctuary, the leniency does not apply.
|
| 17. |
Once this extent of a wall has been broken down, it is considered as if the entire wall is no longer of significance as indicated in Halachah 16.
|
| 18. |
When one re-encloses the wall, it is considered as if the entire enclosure has been made for the purpose of habitation. Therefore, the area is considered to be an ordinary private domain, and one is allowed to carry within without restriction.
The Maggid Mishneh questions the Rambam's statements on the basis of those of Rashi, Eruvin24a, which state that the intent to use the enclosure for habitation is not sufficient. There must be a house that opens up to the enclosure.
The Merkevet HaMishneh states that, according to the Rambam, "habitation" does not necessarily mean "human habitation." Therefore, the intent could be to use the enclosure as a corral for animals or the like. Rav Kapach cites the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 2:5), from which it appears that as long as there is a storage vat in the enclosure, it is considered as "enclosed for the purpose of habitation," although it does not contain a house or lead to a house.
Thus according to the Rambam, "everything depends on the person's intention." If he encloses the area for the sake of habitation, he is allowed to carry freely within it. Why is this leniency granted? Because the prohibition against carrying within such an area is Rabbinic in origin, and the Sages enforced this stringency only when a person's intent was not for the sake of habitation, for then the enclosure resembles a public domain. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 358:2), however, follows Rashi's view, that a house is required within the enclosure or the enclosure must lead to a home.
|
| 19. |
Since the entire enclosure was never opened up for ten cubits at one time, one might assume that the original enclosure was never nullified. Nevertheless, since ultimately a span of ten cubits was constructed, the enclosure is considered as פנים חדשות, "a new entity" (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 358:8). Note a parallel ruling in Hilchot Kellim 6:2.
|
| 20. |
A mil is approximately a kilometer in contemporary measure.
|
| 21. |
Although the area was enclosed for the purpose of habitation originally, since it is large and the person sowed produce within the majority of its space, it is clear that he considers it to be a commercial field or garden. It is not common for people to dwell in such a place (Rashi, Eruvin23b).
|
| 22. |
I.e., one may carry only within a square of four cubits even in the portion of the enclosure where the produce was not sown, because there is no barrier enclosing the area on the side that faces the portion where the produce has been sown (Maggid Mishneh). Alternatively, the portion in which the produce was not sown is considered to be a secondary part of the entire field in which it is forbidden to carry (Rashi, Eruvin 24a).
|
| 23. |
Obviously, if produce was sown in a smaller portion of the enclosure, the same leniency applies. The portion of a field necessary to sow two seah of grain is the upper limit.
|
| 24. |
In such an instance, the portion of the enclosure in which produce was sown is considered like a private garden a person has in his yard.
It must be noted that in this instance, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 358:10, following the opinion of Rabbenu Asher) is more stringent than the Rambam and forbids carrying an article from the garden to the house.
|
| 25. |
Since the produce was planted in such a large area, it is considered like a commercial garden or field.
|
| 26. |
In this instance, the commentaries quote the opinion of the Maggid Mishneh mentioned above: that the portion of the enclosure facing the side where the produce has been sown is not considered to be enclosed.
The Turei Zahav 358:6 is more lenient and explains that since according to the Torah, one could carry within the entire enclosure, even according to Rabbinic law one should be allowed to carry within the portion where produce was not sown. His opinion is not, however, accepted by the later authorities.
|
| 27. |
The Mishnah Berurah 358:63 states that this ruling applies even when one planted trees throughout the entire enclosure.
|
| 28. |
It is a common practice to plant trees in one's yard for shade. Hence, planting them is not considered to be a sign that one no longer considers the enclosure to be intended for the purpose of habitation.
|
| 29. |
The Rashba states that this applies when the water is ten handbreadths or more deep. If it is shallower than that, there are no restrictions on carrying within the enclosure. Although Sefer HaBatim differs with this interpretation, the Rashba's ruling is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 358:11).
|
| 30. |
Rashi (Eruvin, loc. cit.) states that the water must be fit to drink. The Rashba and other Sephardic authorities state that it is sufficient that the water be fit for laundry and the like. This appears to be the Rambam's view. Although the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) quotes Rashi's view,Sha'ar HaTziyun 358:81 states that one may rely on the Rashba's ruling.
|
| 31. |
For, indeed, it is an advantage to have a source of water near one's home. Hence, the water does not nullify the enclosure (Rashi, loc. cit.).
|
| 32. |
From the gloss of the Magen Avraham 358:15, it appears that if the area in which the water is collected is set off from the enclosure as a whole because its height descends abruptly, we may carry within the remainder of the enclosure.
|
| 33. |
The Maggid Mishneh explains that according to the Rambam's interpretation of Eruvin 25a, this refers to a roof that is open on all sides, which the watchmen in a garden construct for shade. The Rashba interprets that passage as referring to a roof with two proper walls that are joined at one corner. Rabbenu Chanan'el's interpretation of that passage also indicates that the sides of the covered area are entirely open.
|
| 34. |
Note the Kessef Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 358:12), where Rabbi Yosef Karo states that this principle applies even when the roof is sloped. Generally, the principle, "The edge of the roof is considered to descend and close off," does not apply with regard to a sloped roof. Nevertheless, since according to the Torah itself, it is permitted to carry within this enclosure, leniency is allowed. (Compare also to Chapter 17, Halachah 35.)
It must be emphasized that according to the Maggid Mishneh's understanding of the Rambam's rulings (see note 33), this entire matter is extraneous.
|
| 35. |
Thus, the remainder of the enclosure is not larger than the space necessary to sow two seah of grain. Hence, there are no restrictions against carrying within it.
|
| 36. |
This represents the Rambam's interpretation of a passage in Eruvin 25b. Although Rabbenu Chanan'el and Rav Zerachiah HaLevi interpret the passage in this manner, the Ra'avad, Rashi, the Rashba and others follow a slightly different version of the text, and therefore interpret the passage differently. Their interpretation is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 358:13).
|
| 37. |
According to the Maggid Mishneh (and seemingly, also according to Rabbenu Chanan'el), both openings are no more than ten cubits wide. Otherwise, it would be forbidden to carry within the courtyard.
|
| 38. |
The Maggid Mishneh and others explain that the Rambam is referring to a T-shaped area in which the enclosure opens up to the courtyard, which extends on either side. The enclosure is not considered part of the courtyard, nor is the courtyard considered part of the enclosure, and the laws that originally applied to both areas continue to apply.
According to the Maggid Mishneh, this clause is not a continuation of the first clause of this halachah, but rather a separate concept in its own right. Rav Kapach, however, notes that both the Talmud (Eruvin, loc. cit.) and the Rambam link this and the previous clause together. On this basis, he follows the interpretation of Rabbenu Chanan'el, which states that the unroofed area of the enclosure was originally not larger than the space for two seah of grain to be sown within it. Therefore, we were permitted to carry within it. When, however, the wall connecting it to the courtyard was torn down, the open space was increased and became larger than the space for two seah of grain to be sown within it. Hence, it became forbidden to carry within it.
|
| 39. |
I.e., we do not say that the enclosure becomes considered as an extension of the courtyard.
|
| 40. |
So that one will be able to carry within it.
|
| 41. |
Since it is common to plant trees in such enclosures, even when the trees are ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths by four handbreadths in area (at which point they are considered to be a separate domain in certain contexts), they do not reduce the size of the enclosure (Maggid Mishneh in the name of the Rashba).
|
| 42. |
Rashi interprets Eruvin 25a, the source for this halachah, as referring to a pillar of this size, whether it is in the middle of the enclosure or next to the wall. Rashi's interpretation is followed by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 358:5).
|
| 43. |
Thus, if the area of the enclosure minus the area of the pillar is less than 5000 square cubits, one is allowed to carry within it.
|
| 44. |
Based on the principle of l'vud, the pillar is not considered to be an independent entity, but rather an extension of the wall. Therefore, although in practice, the open space within the enclosure has been reduced in size, this reduction is not considered as halachically significant.
|
| 45. |
I.e., the size of the enclosure is calculated from the new partitions. If it is less than 5000 square cubits, one may carry within. It must be noted that, with regard to this clause as well, Rashi interprets the Talmudic passage differently, explaining that the new partition is erected to enclose the area for the purpose of habitation. His interpretation is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:6).
|
| 46. |
Because of the principle of l'vud.
The Maggid Mishneh questions this ruling on the basis of the first clause of the following halachah, which states, "If one applies cement to the wall, one reduces [the size of the enclosure]." Since the cement reduces the size of the enclosure, even though it actually becomes part of the wall, one could surely assume that a new partition would reduce the size of the wall although it is considered part of the wall because of the principle of l'vud.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that since the partition is halachically insignificant, it cannot take the place of the previous wall. Hence, it is not considered to reduce the size of the enclosure. In contrast, the cement adds on to the size of the previous wall, and the space it takes up is subtracted from the open space of the enclosure.
|
| 47. |
I.e., if the entire space taken up by the cement that is added to the wall is sufficient to reduce the size of the enclosure to less than 5000 square cubits, one may carry within the enclosure.
|
| 48. |
In this instance as well, the Ra'avad differs with the Rambam. Based on his interpretation ofEruvin 25a, the cement is counted only when it is substantial enough to stand on it is own if the original wall was removed. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 358:7) follows the Ra'avad's view, the Mishnah Berurah 358:55 states that the Rambam's opinion may be relied upon in time of need.
|
| 49. |
We are speaking about a mound ten handbreadths high which is considered as set apart as a separate domain. Since the area is being surrounded by a partition that is constructed for the purpose of dwelling, one might think that it would be permissible to carry within the enclosure. Nevertheless, this is forbidden for the reason stated by the Rambam.
|
| 50. |
Since the mound, the original dividing point for the enclosure, is still standing, the new walls built are not considered significant.
|
| 51. |
As mentioned in the previous clause, as long as the original wall is visible, the new wall is of no consequence.
|
| 52. |
And less than ten handbreadths of the original wall extends above the ground (Mishneh Berurah358:57).
|
| 53. |
Our translation is based on the Mishnah Berurah 359:1, which states that in Talmudic times there would be yards both in front and behind the homes. A yard in front of a home was referred to as a חצר. These were frequently used by the people of that era and mentioned often in the Talmud. A yard behind a home was referred to as a רחבה, a term used comparatively rarely in the Talmud. These yards were used infrequently by people of that era.
|
| 54. |
As apparent from the following clause, this applies when the yard was enclosed before an entrance leading to one of the homes was opened.
The Ramah (Orach Chayim 359:1) rules that the restriction mentioned in this law does not apply at present, since it has become customary to use our back yards. Hence, we assume that they were enclosed for the purpose of habitation.
|
| 55. |
Eruvin 24a states that this leniency applies even when a portion of the yard is used as a threshing floor. Since the person enclosed the area after opening an entrance to his home, we assume that the yard's primary purpose is to serve the home.
|
| 56. |
The yard is larger than 5000 square meters and was enclosed for purposes other than habitation (Rashi, Eruvin 24b).
|
| 57. |
The Rambam's decision is based on the description of such a yard in Eruvin 24b.
|
| 58. |
Using a post, a lechi, as a divider is discussed in Chapter 17, Halachot 2 and 9.
As the Rambam mentions there, the post is considered as a fourth wall. In this instance, by erecting the post, one will be considered as erecting a new wall to enclose the yard for the sake of habitation (Rashi, loc. cit.).
|
| 59. |
This refers to a city surrounded by a wall, which is considered to be a private domain.
|
| 60. |
This refers even to an inferior partition, such as those mentioned in Halachah 18. Rashi (Eruvin16b, the source for this halachah) states that the restrictions of this law apply only when the enclosure uses such an inferior partition. If a proper partition is erected, one may carry within the entire enclosure, since the enclosure was erected for the purpose of habitation. Note theMerkevet HaMishneh, who emphasizes that the Rambam does not accept this leniency.
The wording of the Shulchan Aruch and the Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 360:1) appears to concur with Rashi's view. The later authorities also accept his ruling.
|
| 61. |
Since the area is so large and it is enclosed only for a temporary period, the Sages placed restrictions on carrying within it.
It must, however, be emphasized that according to Torah law, the enclosure is considered a private domain. Accordingly, a person who carries from it to a public domain or from a public domain to it is liable (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 360:1; Mishnah Berurah 360:5).
|
| 62. |
With this term, the Rambam excludes a gentile. The Ramah (loc. cit.) also rules that a gentile may not be included in a caravan.
|
| 63. |
According to Torah law, such an area is a private domain. The Rabbis did not place any restrictions upon it, because it has - albeit temporarily - been enclosed for the purpose of habitation.
|
| 64. |
See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 360:2, which mentions that it is acceptable if the land is used for pasture.
|
| 65. |
Since the enclosure includes such a large empty space, our Sages forbade carrying within it.
Based on the Mordechai, the Shulchan Aruch mentions a further leniency: If three people spend the Sabbath in an enclosure whose area is less than 18,000 square cubits, they are allowed to carry without restriction. The rationale is: Each individual is granted 5000 square cubits. Thus, there are less than 5000 square cubits that are not accounted for. This leniency is not, however, accepted by the other authorities.
|
| 66. |
The Jerusalem Talmud (Eruvin 1:10) does not resolve the question whether or not to count a child as a member of the caravan. In his Beit Yosef (loc. cit.), Rav Yosef Karo questions the Rambam's decision, for generally we follow the rule that when a doubt exists pertaining to a question of Rabbinic law, the more lenient view should be followed. Accordingly, he does not mention the matter in his Shulchan Aruch. The Ramah cites the Rambam's view, but prefaces it with the phrase "There are those who maintain," which implies that the opinion cited is not accepted universally.
|
| 67. |
I.e., greater than 5000 square cubits.
|
| 68. |
This leniency applies only on the Sabbath on which the person dies. On the following Sabbath, they are forbidden to carry unless they are joined by a third individual.
|
| 69. |
See a further expression of this principle in Hilchot Eruvin 3:25.
|
| 70. |
I.e., the middle enclosure does not have a wall, but is totally open on either side (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 360:3). The Shulchan Aruch, however, follows the interpretation of the Ritba, who requires the walls of the narrow courtyard to enter into the space of the wider courtyard. The Rambam, however, does not appear to make such a requirement.
|
| 71. |
Since the individuals in each of the outer courtyards are considered as sharing the space of the middle courtyard.
|
| 72. |
I.e., they may carry freely from one enclosure to another. Note the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), which states that they must make an eruv to join their respective enclosures together. Similarly, the Shulchan Aruch mentions a more restrictive opinion, which allows the individuals to carry freely only when the outer enclosures are less than 5000 square cubits in size.
|
| 73. |
I.e., the outer enclosures are considered to be distinct entities without any connection to each other. Thus it is not considered as if three people are spending the Sabbath in the same place.
|
| 74. |
The bracketed additions are based on the commentary of Rashi (Eruvin 93a, the source for this halachah) and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.).
|
| 75. |
In both of these instances, three individuals share a single portion of space. Therefore, they are allowed to carry freely from one enclosure to another.
|
| 76. |
In this halachah, the Rambam begins to describe the rules that govern the walls that enclose a private domain. The concepts he mentions are also relevant to the laws of sukkah and other contexts within Jewish law.
|
| 77. |
I.e., it is as if the partition were not there. See notes below.
Rashi, Sukkah 24b, states that this applies not only when the wall will fall because of the wind, but also to a cloth wall that will blow back and forth. From Halachah 24, it appears that this ruling is also accepted by the Rambam. It is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 362:1 and 630:10).
|
| 78. |
Our translation follows Rabbenu Chanan'el's text of Eruvin 26a. According to this interpretation, our Sages are teaching us that a partition must be constructed in a firm and sturdy fashion. (See also the interpretation of the term in the Aruch.) See also Halachah 12 and notes.
The Ra'avad, Rashi, and others follow a different text of the Talmud, which reads כל מחיצה העשויה לנח ת. According to this interpretation, this refers to a partition erected for storage purposes and not for people to dwell within. This latter view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 362:1).
|
| 79. |
The commentaries on Eruvin (loc. cit.) interpret this as a temporary partition that builders construct for shade. (Rav Kapach, however, cites interpretations of the Geonim that interpret the term "for the sake of modesty" literally, to change one's clothes behind.)
Thus, all three partitions mentioned in this halachah share the same drawback; they are not constructed in a lasting or sturdy manner.
In his gloss on this halachah, the Maggid Mishneh quotes the Rashba, who mentions that since all these partitions are valid according to Torah law, the expression "they are not partitions" must be interpreted as follows: They are not partitions constructed for the purpose of habitation. Therefore, if an area larger than 5000 square cubits is enclosed with such a partition, it is forbidden to carry within. If, however, an area less than 5000 square cubits is enclosed by such a partition, one may carry within. This opinion is quoted by the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.).
The Lechem Mishneh, the Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 362) and others maintain that the Rambam does not accept the Rashba's view. Kinat Eliyahu, however, notes that the fact that the Rambam mentions these laws directly after the laws concerning a karpef may have been intended to allude to the Rashba's concept.
|
| 80. |
The Maggid Mishneh interprets the phrase "it is not a complete partition" to mean: It is not a partition significant enough to cause an enclosure to be considered to be a private domain. It may, however, cause an enclosure to be considered to be a carmelit.
|
| 81. |
Our translation is based on the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh, which is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 362:2).
See also the interpretation of Rabbenu Chanan'el to Eruvin 93b, which interprets it as a "rock." From a halachic perspective, these interpretations are not mutually exclusive. See Chapter 15, Halachah 9.
|
| 82. |
I.e., if a wall includes open spaces, the area that is open may not exceed the area that is enclosed. As mentioned in the following halachah, this refers to open spaces that are larger than three handbreadths wide. As the Rambam states in Halachah 18, this refers to spaces in the horizontal as well as the vertical portion of the wall.
|
| 83. |
I.e., when there is an open space larger than ten cubits wide, the entire partition is nullified.
|
| 84. |
As long as the opening is ten cubits wide or less, there is no need to enclose it with a frame of an entrance. It is commonplace for a wall to have an entrance that is less than ten cubits wide without a frame.
|
| 85. |
The Rambam explains the structure of a frame of an entrance (tzurat hapetach) in Halachah 19.
|
| 86. |
I.e., by erecting the frame of an entrance, one enables a partition to be considered acceptable despite the fact that it has an opening that is larger than ten cubits.
|
| 87. |
This ruling represents a point of difference between the Rambam and most other authorities. According to the Rambam, although the frame of an entrance enables an opening larger than ten cubits to be accepted, the opening is still considered an open space. Accordingly, if the total amount of open space on any one side of a partition exceeds the closed space, the partition is unacceptable, even though portions of the open space possess a frame of an entrance.
Many authorities (e.g., the Rashba and Tosafot, Eruvin 11a) differ and maintain that once a frame of an entrance is constructed, the space below it is deemed closed and should be considered as such when calculating whether the enclosed portion of a partition exceeds its open area. The opinion of these authorities is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim362:10). Nevertheless, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 362:19 and the Mishnah Berurah 362:59 state that it is proper to be stringent and follow the Rambam's ruling.
Rabbenu Asher cites the Jerusalem Talmud (Eruvin 1:9) and Kilayim 4:2 as the source for the Rambam's ruling. (See also Hilchot Shofar V'Sukkah V'Lulav 4:12, where the Rambam accepts a more lenient view regarding the walls of a sukkah. Note also the glosses of the Kessef Mishnehand the Maggid Mishneh there.)
See also the commentary of Rav Kapach, who advances an interpretation of the Rambam's statements here and in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 1:8) that maintains that the Rambam follows the view advanced by the Rashba. Even those who reject this interpretation in most instances are forced to accept it with regard to the third side of an alley, as stated in Chapter 17, Halachah 3. (Note also Chapter 17, Halachah 27.)
The difference between the Rambam's ruling and that of the other authorities is particularly relevant in contemporary communities that permit carrying because of an eruv. Most of these communities are enclosed, not by a proper wall, but by a series of "frames of an entrance" constructed using telephone poles and the like. According to the Rambam, these enclosures are not acceptable. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why the carefully observant refrain from carrying in these communities.
|
| 88. |
More precisely, the same ruling applies if some of the spaces are wider than three handbreadths, as long as the size of the total of the open spaces wider than three handbreadths does not exceed the remainder of the partition.
|
| 89. |
As the Rambam continues, a partition of reeds will generally be constructed by implanting them upright in the ground, one near the other. As long as the reeds are not three handbreadths apart, the partition is acceptable even if there are no reeds that run horizontally.
|
| 90. |
Generally, a partition of ropes will be constructed by stretching them from one post to another. As long as the ropes are not three handbreadths apart, the partition is acceptable, even if there are no ropes that run vertically.
|
| 91. |
In the Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam defines the Hebrew termhalachah l'Mosheh miSinai as referring to laws that have no obvious source in the Written Torah, yet have been accepted throughout the centuries as an integral part of the Torah tradition.
|
| 92. |
As the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 362:11) emphasizes, the reed must be placed exactly above the two side posts. It is not acceptable for it to be attached to their sides, for then it does not resemble the lintel of a doorway.
|
| 93. |
In his gloss on this halachah, Rabbi Akiva Eiger explains that this is acceptable because of the principle gud asik - i.e., the posts at the side are considered to be extended until they reach the crossbar. Based on this rationale, it follows that the two posts need not be of the same height. Even if one is higher than the other, they may still be considered as part of the same frame of an entrance. (Note also the application of this principle in Hilchot Sukkah 4:2.)
|
| 94. |
According to the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), this refers to the posts on the side. The crossbar above need not be sturdy at all.
|
| 95. |
The Rambam's decision is based on Eruvin 11b. His ruling, however, has aroused questions. The passage cited also mentions opinions that require the post to have a hinge for the door on at least one side. Although there are authorities who also accept the latter requirement, theShulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) follows the Rambam's view.
|
| 96. |
I.e., the circular portion of the arch is not counted in the calculation of the entrance's height.
The commentaries draw attention to the Rambam's decision in Hilchot Mezuzah 6:4, where he also requires an arched doorway to have doorposts ten handbreadths high in addition to the arch, for the doorway to need a mezuzah. There is, however, a difference - and somewhat of a divergence - between the rationales the Rambam gives in both sources.
|
| 97. |
I.e., there is an opening of more than ten cubits at the corner where two walls would merge if they were continued. Even if one constructs a frame of an entrance at this opening, it is not acceptable. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin 9:3.)
It must be noted that in their commentaries on Eruvin 11b, the source for this halachah, Rashi and the Rashba interpret the passage as referring, not to an entrance constructed at the corner of a wall, but to a lintel, projecting from the side of a doorpost. As mentioned in Halachah 19, the requirement for a frame of an entrance is for the lintel to be above the door posts and not projecting from their sides (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 98. |
Note Chapter 17, Halachah 35, which mentions another law based on this same principle.
|
| 99. |
See parallels in Chapter 17, Halachah 12, and Hilchot Sukkah 4:16.
|
| 100. |
Unlike the animals that the Rambam proceeds to mention, a human being need not be bound, as is obvious from Halachah 23.
|
| 101. |
If the animal is standing and there are three handbreadths b etween the animal's body and the ground, that space must be filled with other substances (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 362:12).
|
| 102. |
Note that in Hilchot Sukkot (loc. cit.), the Rambam does not require that animals be bound when they serve as part of a wall. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 630:11) states that the animals must be bound even when used for the purpose of a sukkah's wall.
|
| 103. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 362:3) explains this as referring to a structure that was not built with the intent of enclosing an area, but accomplished that purpose nonetheless.
|
| 104. |
I.e., in all instances, the partition is considered valid, and the enclosure is considered a private domain. Therefore, a person who transfers an article into this enclosure from the public domain is liable. Our Sages, however, placed certain restrictions on carrying within such an enclosure, as the Rambam continues to explain.
|
| 105. |
I.e., the person who constructed the partition did so without knowing that it was the Sabbath or without knowing that it is forbidden to build on the Sabbath (Mishnah Berurah 362:18).
|
| 106. |
According to the Chemed Mosheh, this refers to a situation in which one person had another construct an enclosure for the former to carry within on the Sabbath. Although the person who actually constructed the enclosure did not intend to violate the Sabbath laws, the person for whom he performed the labor desired that such a violation take place. Hence, that person is prohibited from carrying within. This explanation resolves the question raised by the Rashba that is quoted by the Maggid Mishneh.
|
| 107. |
As mentioned in the notes on Chapter 6, Halachah 23, when a Jew intentionally performs a forbidden labor on the Sabbath, it is forbidden for other Jews to benefit from that labor on that Sabbath itself. The person who performed the labor, by contrast, is never permitted to benefit from it. Thus, in this instance, he would be forbidden from ever carrying within this enclosure on the Sabbath. (See Or Sameach.)
Note the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), which states that if a partition had been standing before the Sabbath, it was removed on the Sabbath and then reconstructed on the Sabbath, it is permitted to carry within the enclosure. This applies even if the partition was rebuilt intentionally on the Sabbath. The Mishnah Berurah 362:26, however, cites authorities that do not accept this leniency.
|
| 108. |
I.e., within three handbreadths of each other (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 362:5). Note theBayit Chadash (Orach Chayim 362) and the Be'ur Halachah 362, which question why the people may not be even further separated.
|
| 109. |
Although constructing a partition of this nature is not considered as building, it is still forbidden for the people who stand there to have in mind that their bodies serve as an enclosure, lest they come to treat the Sabbath prohibitions lightly (Mishnah Berurah 362:39).
|
| 110. |
The Rashba differs with this ruling and maintains that there is no difficulty if the person who desires to use the enclosure has the people stand there. According to his opinion, the only difficulty is when the people forming the partition have such an intent. The Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 362:7) prefaces the quotation of the Rambam's ruling with the words, "There is one who says," which implies that it is not accepted by all. Similarly, the later authorities do not obligate compliance with this stringency.
Significantly, when discussing the use of human beings as part of the wall of a sukkah on the holiday, the Rambam (Hilchot Sukkah 4:16) states that the people serving as the wall may not know that their bodies are being used in that capacity, but the person sitting in the sukkah may have that intent.
|
| 111. |
Note the Ramah (Orach Chayim 362:7), who states that the leniency of using human beings to form an enclosure on the Sabbath should be employed only in a very extreme situation. He maintains that it is preferable to have a child bring in an article from the public domain without making an enclosure, rather than to have an adult carry the article in within an enclosure consisting of human beings. Although the later authorities raise questions regarding employing a child for this purpose, they accept the Ramah's hesitation about using an enclosure of human bodies.
|
| 112. |
For this rule to apply, there must be a place four handbreadths by four handbreadths in area and ten handbreadths high beneath the tree. Otherwise, the space is considered as a carmelit(Shulchan Aruch HaRav 362:2; Mishnah Berurah 362:5).
|
| 113. |
See Halachah 15. (See also Hilchot Sukkah 4:5, where the Rambam mentions similar concepts with regard to using a tree as a wall for a sukkah.)
|
| 114. |
As mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, when an area was enclosed for purposes other than habitation, one may not carry within it, if it is larger than the space necessary to sow twoseah of grain - i.e., 5000 square cubits.
|
Matnot Aniyiim - Chapter 5
Halacha 1
In none [of the following situations] is a [forgotten] sheaf [of grain] considered as shichichah. It was forgotten by workers and not forgotten by the owner of the field;1 it was forgotten by the owner of the field, but not the workers; or both these individuals forgot it, but there were others passing by2 who observed them at the time they forgot it. [To be shichichah] it must be forgotten by all people. Even a sheaf that was hidden away [purposely], if it is forgotten, it isshichichah.
Halacha 2
When the owner of the field was in the city and he said: "I know that the workers forgot a sheaf in this-and-this place," [but afterwards, the owner]3 forgot it, it isshichichah. If he was in the field and made such statements, but then forgot [the sheaf], it is not shichichah. [The rationale is that,] in a field, [only a sheaf] that was forgotten at the outset4 is shichichah.5 In a city, by contrast, even if one remembered it and afterwards forgot it, it is shichichah, as [indicated byDeuteronomy 24:19]: "If you forget a sheaf in the field," [i.e., in the field,] but not in a city.6
Halacha 3
If the poor stood in front of [the sheaf]7 or covered it with straw and he remembered the straw,8 or he took hold of it to bring it to the city, but left it in the field and forgot it, it is not shichichah.9 If, however, he moved it from place to place,10 even if he left it next to a gate,11 a grainheap, cattle, or utensils,12and he forgot it, it is shichichah.
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
If a person's sheaves flew into a field belonging to a colleague because of a strong wind and he forgot a sheaf there, it is not shichichah, for [Deuteronomy 24:19] states: "[If you reap] your harvest in your field."15 If, however, the wind scattered the sheaves within his own field and he forgot them, it is shichichah.
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply when a person] takes the first, second, and third sheaves, but leaves the fourth. If there was a sixth sheaf, the fourth sheaf is notshichichah until he takes the fifth sheaf.16 If, however, there are only five sheaves, when he bends down to take the fifth sheaf,17 the fourth is shichichah.
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
Although wild onions, garlic, onions, and the like are buried in the earth, the laws of shichichah apply to them.20 When a person harvests his field at night and forgets standing grain or he binds the grain into sheaves at night and forgets a sheaf and similarly, a blind man who forgets sheaves, the laws ofshichichah apply.21If, however, the blind person or the one harvesting at night only intended to take bulky [sheaves], the laws of shichichah do not apply.22
Whenever a person says: "I am harvesting the field on the condition that I may take what I forget," [his statement is of no consequence and] the laws ofshichichah apply. [The rationale is that] whenever a person establishes a condition that contradicts the Torah, the condition is nullified.23
Halacha 9
When grain was harvested before it fully matured with the intent that it be fed to animals, the laws of shichichah do not apply.24 Similarly, if a person [binds the grain into] small bundles [as] he harvests without binding them into sheaves or he uprooted garlic or onions and made them into small bundles to sell in the marketplace instead of binding them into larger sheaves to store in a storehouse, [the laws of shichichah do not apply].25
Halacha 10
When a person began harvesting from the beginning of a row [of grain] and forgot grain both in front of him and behind him, [the grain] behind him isshichichah,26 [the grain] in front of him is not shichichah,27as [implied by Deuteronomy, loc. cit.,]: "Do not go back to take it." [Grain is] not shichichahunless [the harvester] passes it and leaves it behind him. This is the general principle: Whenever the adjuration "Do not return" applies, [the laws of]shichichah apply. Whenever the adjuration "Do not return" does not apply, [the laws of] shichichah do not apply.
Halacha 11
[The following laws apply when] two people began to harvest from the middle of the field, one facing north and the other facing south and they both forgot [sheaves] in front of them and behind them. [The sheaves] in front of them areshichichah, because what is in front of one is behind the other.28 A sheaf29 that was forgotten behind them in the place from which they began harvesting30 is not shichichah, because it is combined with the rows that run from east to west and they indicate that this is not shichichah.31
Similar [concepts apply with regard to] the rows of sheaves that were being moved to the threshing floor and two people began [collecting] them from the middle of the field and forgot a sheaf in the middle, between their backs, [the laws of] shichichah do not apply. [The rationale is that] it is in the midst of the row between the west and the east where they have not begun [collecting]. Its position indicates that it was not forgotten.
Halacha 12
[The following rules apply when a person] harvests, binds [the grain] into sheaves, and then moves these sheaves - which are called omerim - from one place to another, and then from the second place to a third,32 and then from the third to the threshing floor. Should he forget a sheaf when he is moving it from one place to another, if he forgot it when he was moving to a place where work is completed,33 [the laws of] shichichah apply. Afterwards, when he moves it from the place where the work is completed to the threshing floor, [the laws of]shichichah do not apply. If he moved the sheaves to a place where work is not completed34 and forgot [them], [the laws of] shichichah do not apply. Afterwards, when he moves it from the place where the work is not completed to the threshing floor, [the laws of] shichichah do apply.35
Halacha 13
What constitutes a place "where work is completed"? A place where one intends to collect all the sheaves and thresh them there or take them to the threshing floor. What constitutes a place "where work is not completed"? A place where sheaves are collected to bind them into larger sheaves to bring them to another place.
Halacha 14
Halacha 15
When two mounds of olives or carobs are separate from each other, [the laws of] shichichah apply. [If there are] three, [the laws of] shichichah do not apply. When two bundles of flax39 are separate from each other, [the laws of]shichichah apply. [If there are] three, [the laws of] shichichah do not apply.
Halacha 16
When there are two vines - or two of any other tree - are separate from each other, [the laws of] shichichah apply.40 [If there are] three, [the laws of]shichichah do not apply. [This is derived from Leviticus 19:10]41 "Leave them for the poor and the stranger." [Implied is that] even if there are two, one should be given to the poor and one to the stranger.
Halacha 17
If all the sheaves contain a kab42 and one contains four kabbim, and it was forgotten, [the laws of] shichichah apply.43 If it contained more than fourkabbim, [the laws of] shichichah do not apply.44 Similarly, if [the sheaves] all contain two kabbim and there is one which contains more than eight kabbim, [the laws of] shichichah do not apply.
Halacha 18
[When one] forgets a sheaf that contains two se'ah45 [of grain, the laws of]shichichah do not apply, as [implied by Deuteronomy 24:19]: "When you forget a sheaf in the field," i.e., [a sheaf], but not a grainheap.46 [This applies] even if [one collects all the grain into] sheaves containing two se'ah.
When a person forgets two sheaves, [the laws of] shichichah apply even though together they contain two se'ah since each of them individually is less than twose'ah. It thus appears to me that [the laws of] shichichah apply even though together they contain more than two se'ah.
Halacha 19
When there are more than two se'ah of standing grain [left unharvested], [the laws of] shichichah do not apply.47 If less than two se'ah [were left], we consider the thin stalks as if they were healthy and long and those with few kernels as if they were full. If were such considerations to be made, [the grain] would be sufficient to produce two se'ah48 and he forgot it, [the laws of] shichichah do not apply.
Halacha 20
When a person forgets a se'ah of grain that has been cut down and a se'ahwhich has not been cut down, they are not combined49 and [the laws of]shichichah apply to each of them. Similarly, with regard to garlic, onions, and fruit from trees. If a person forgot a portion of them in [- or attached to -] the ground and a portion of them detached, they cannot be combined [to form a single quantity]. Instead, [even though] together there are two se'ah, [the laws of] shichichah apply to each of them.
Halacha 21
When a person forgets a sheaf at the side of standing grain that was not forgotten, [the laws of] shichichah do not apply. [This is implied by Deuteronomy, loc. cit.]: "When you harvest... and you forget a sheaf...." [Implied is that when] a sheaf [is located] in an area that has been harvested, [the laws of] shichichah apply. When a sheaf [is located] in an area where there is standing grain, [the laws of] shichichah do not apply.50
Similarly, if he forgot standing grain that was located next to51 standing grain that was not forgotten, even one stem, it rescues the forgotten [grain] and [the owner] is permitted to come and take it. If, however, he forgot a sheaf or standing grain at the side of a sheaf that was not forgotten, even if the sheaf contains two se'ah,52 it does not rescue the forgotten grain and that grain belongs to the poor.
Standing grain belonging to a colleague does not rescue one's own sheaves, nor does standing barley rescue a sheaf of wheat. [Instead,] the standing grain must be of the same species as the sheaf.
Halacha 22
Halacha 23
When does the above apply? With regard to a tree55 that is not well known and distinguished by its place, e.g., it was located at the side of the olive-press or an open portion [of a fence], by its yield, e.g., it produced many olives, or its name: e.g., the flowing olive56 among the olive trees, i.e., that it produces much oil, the outpouring olive, the shameful olive.57 If, however, it was distinguished in any of these three ways, [the laws of] shichichah do not apply. [This is derived from Deuteronomy, loc. cit.]: "And you shall forget a sheaf in the field." [Implied is that this command applies to] a sheaf that could be forgotten forever which you will not bring to mind unless you return and see it. It excludes this tree that you will remember afterwards even if you do not encounter it, because it is well known and distinguished.
Halacha 24
If [a tree] is distinguished in the mind of [the owner], it is as if it is well known and distinguished.58 If an [olive tree] was located next to a palm tree, the palm causes it to be distinguished.59 If two trees are "flowing olives," each one causes the other to be distinguished. If, however, one's entire field consists of "flowing olives" and one forgets one or two trees, [the laws of] shichichahapply.60 When is [the concept that the laws of shichichah do not apply to a tree that is distinguished] relevant? When one has not begun harvesting this distinguished tree. If, however, one began harvesting it and then forgot a portion of it, [the laws of] shichichah apply,61 even though it is distinguished, provided less than two se'ah [of fruit] remain upon it. If, however, two se'ah [of fruit] remain upon it,62 [the laws of] shichichah do not apply63 unless he forgets the entire tree as we explained.64
Halacha 25
[The following law applies with regard to] an olive tree standing alone in the middle of rows [of olive trees, i.e.,] there are three rows of olive trees surrounding it on three sides, even though each of these rows contains only two olive trees. If [the owner] forgot the olive tree in the middle, [the laws of]shichichah do not [apply], because the rows [of trees] hid it.65 Why was [this law] stated only with regard to an olive tree? For they were important in Eretz Yisrael at that time.66
Halacha 26
When do the laws of shichichah apply with regard to [vines lifted on] a trellis? Whenever [the owner has passed the grapes] to the extent that he cannot extend his hand and take them.
[When do they apply] in a vineyard? When he passes the vine or the vines and forgets them.
[When do they apply] with regard to a vine draped over a high support or a palm tree? When he descends from it.67 And with regard to other trees? When he turns and walks away from it.
When does the above apply? When he did not begin [harvesting its fruit].68 If, however, he began harvesting its fruit and forgot it, [the laws of shichichah] do not apply until he harvests all [the fruit in] the surrounding area.
Halacha 27
When a person declares his vineyard ownerless and gets up early in the morning acquires it for himself and harvests it, he is bound by [the laws of]peret, ollelot, shichichah, and peah, for this can rightfully be called "your field" and "your vineyard."69 It was his and now it is his. If, however, he acquired a field that had previously belonged to another person that was declared ownerless, he is exempt from all of these obligations. In all instances, he is exempt from [the obligation of] the tithes, as will be explained.70
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Note, however, the qualification in the following halachah.
|
| 2. |
I.e., individuals who had no connection to the field.
|
| 3. |
This addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh. The Radbaz offers an alternate explanation.
|
| 4. |
I.e., the owner forgot it before the workers did.
|
| 5. |
But if one was conscious of it at the outset, it is not shichichah even if it was forgotten afterwards. The rationale is that the owner retains possession of it, because it was located in his field with his knowledge. Hence, to release it from his possession, he would have to consciously absolve himself from ownership. Forgetting it is not sufficient.
|
| 6. |
Bava Metzia 11a derives this from the exegesis of the verse cited above. The Kessef Mishnehexplains that since the owner is not near his field, his field cannot acquire it on his behalf.
|
| 7. |
I.e., they blocked him from seeing it and in that way caused him to forget it.
|
| 8. |
If, however, he also forgets the straw, it is shichichah.
|
| 9. |
Even though he did not remove it from the field, since he picked it up with the intent of taking it to the city, he acquires it.
|
| 10. |
There is a difference of opinion regarding this issue in Pe'ah 6:3. The School of Shammai maintain that as soon as the person picks it up, he acquires it and the fact that he forgets it afterwards does not cause it to become shichichah. The School of Hillel maintain that as long as he did not have the intent of removing it from the field, it is shichichah.
|
| 11. |
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah, loc. cit.).
|
| 12. |
I.e., plowing utensils (ibid.).
|
| 13. |
And thus that sheaf will never be shichichah as stated in the previous halachah.
|
| 14. |
This law is also dependent on the previous halachah. Since the bottom sheaf was covered by the top one, the owner could not see it and hence, forgot it. Therefore it is not shichichah.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's view.
|
| 15. |
I.e., this verse, which serves as the source for the command to leave shichichah, speaks only of "your field," and not a field belonging to a colleague.
|
| 16. |
For that is a clear sign that he forgot the fourth. Until he picks it up, we might think that he was planning to divide his work in half, first picking up the first three sheaves and then picking up the second three. See Kessef Mishneh.
|
| 17. |
Skipping the fourth sheaf is an obvious sign that he has forgotten it.
|
| 18. |
Our translation follows authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah and also conforms to the wording of the Tosefta, Pe'ah, ch. 3, which is the Rambam's source. The standard published text has a slightly different version. The intent is that rather than have the sheaves placed neatly at the end of the field's rows, they are placed irregularly throughout the field.
|
| 19. |
The gloss of the P'nei Moshe to the Jerusalem Talmud, Pe'ah 6:3, explains that the laws ofshichichah do not apply because the irregular pattern in which the sheaves were left caused him to forget the sheaf. It did not slip his mind without cause.
|
| 20. |
The fact that it is the earth - i.e., an outside factor - that prevents them from being seen is not significant, as in Halachah 1.
|
| 21. |
Although it can be said that these persons forgot the produce because they did not see it, the laws of shichichah are not suspended. The darkness or the person's inability to see are not considered an external cause - like those mentioned in Halachah 3 - for since he decided to harvest in this circumstance, it is his responsibility to search harder for the produce.
|
| 22. |
Since he was not planning to collect all the sheaves, the fact that he left some unintentionally is not significant (Radbaz).
|
| 23. |
This is a general principle, applicable in all contexts of Torah Law with the exception of financial matters.
|
| 24. |
The verse mentions "forget[ting] a sheaf in the field." Since this grain will not be collected as sheaves, the mitzvah of shichichah does not apply.
|
| 25. |
For these smaller bundles are also not considered as sheaves.
|
| 26. |
Because he has already passed it while harvesting and would have to go back to harvest it.
|
| 27. |
Because he has not begun harvesting in that area and would not have to go back to harvest it.
|
| 28. |
And he is forbidden to go back and take it. The rationale is that the harvesting of the field and the collection of the sheaves is incumbent on both of them together. Hence if one would collect what his colleague left, he would have to turn back and this would be forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 29. |
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's wording, noting that he begins speaking about harvesting a field and concludes by speaking about gathering sheaves. The Radbaz notes this difficulty and also mentions that if this were the case, then the Rambam's text would be redundant, because the second clause is merely a repetition of the first. Hence, he maintains that the subject of the first clause should be "standing grain" and not sheaves. We, however, have not accepted his emendation, because all the authoritative manuscripts and early printings speak of sheaves.
The Ra'avad also differs with the Rambam's interpretation of Pe'ah 6:3, the source for this halachah, and offers an alternate understanding. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishnehsubstantiate the Rambam's position.
|
| 30. |
And only in that midpoint.
|
| 31. |
Since it is in line with the sheaves that run east to west, it does not appear as a separate entity.
|
| 32. |
As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 5:8), it was common for people to store grain in several types of intermediate storing areas until it was bound into larger sheaves and taken to the threshing floor.
|
| 33. |
This term is defined in the following halachah.
|
| 34. |
Since it is in line with the sheaves that run east to west, it does not appear as a separate entity.
|
| 35. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit. 5:8), the Rambam explains that just as with regard to harvesting, the obligation of shichichah applies only when one is completing the harvest, so too, with regard to moving sheaves, the obligation of shichichah applies when one is completing the task.
|
| 36. |
I.e., smaller collections of grain than sheaves.
|
| 37. |
I.e., we consider them as separate entities and they both may be taken.
|
| 38. |
For they are considered as too substantial a quantity to be forgotten. We assume that the owner had not completed gathering the sheaves from the field and was intending to return and collect them.
The Radbaz explains that the halachah is speaking about three sheaves that are separate from each other. If, however, they are collected in one place, they are considered as a single entity and the laws of shichichah do apply. There are, however, other opinions that do not follow this understanding.
|
| 39. |
The Kessef Mishneh states that we are speaking about an instance where the flax is being grown for its seeds which are to be eaten. If it is being grown to be used for making fabrics, the laws ofshichichah do not apply.
|
| 40. |
The Radbaz explains that the Rambam is emphasizing that the laws of shichichah apply even if the two trees have a substantial amount of fruit and thus could be likened to the sheaf containing two se'ah mentioned in Halachah 18.
|
| 41. |
Although this verse mentions peret and olelot and not shichichah, our Sages understand that these mitzvot are interrelated.
|
| 42. |
A kab is approximately 1382 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 2400 cc according to Chazon Ish.
|
| 43. |
Even though it is larger than the others, it is not large enough to be considered a significant entity like the oversized sheaf mentioned in the following halachah.
|
| 44. |
For its size causes it to be considered a significant entity.
|
| 45. |
A se'ah is six kabbim.
|
| 46. |
I.e., because of its size, it is significant and it is not relevant to speak of it being forgotten.
|
| 47. |
For as above, they produce a quantity of grain to significant to be ignored.
|
| 48. |
Our translation follows the text of authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text follows a slightly different version.
|
| 49. |
To be considered as two se'ah.
|
| 50. |
Since the standing grain is not forgotten and the owner can return and collect it, he can also return and collect any forgotten standing grain or sheaves that are in its surroundings.
|
| 51. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 6:8), the Rambam explains that the two areas of standing grain must be close enough to each other that if one is bent over, it will reach the other.
|
| 52. |
And thus the laws of shichichah do not apply to it, as stated in Halachah 18. Even so, it cannot rescue the other sheaves.
|
| 53. |
In contrast to the sheaf mentioned in Halachah 18 and the standing grain mentioned in Halachah 19. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the reason for the distinction is that a sheaf of two se'ah of grain or that amount of standing grain is considered significant, but one tree - even if it contains a large quantity of fruit - is not significant in an entire orchard. In other words, the issue is relative: "When one has already begun focusing on a particular tree, two se'ah is considered a significant amount, but when one is considered one tree as part of an entire orchard, its significance pales.
The Radbaz supports this differentiation, noting that Pe'ah 7:1 (quoted in Halachah 23) speaks of an olive tree with a specific name or distinction, but not one that is set apart by the fact that it produces a specific quantity of fruit. See also Halachah 24.
|
| 54. |
As in Halachot 14-16.
|
| 55. |
The Rambam's words are based on Pe'ah 7:1. Although the mishnah speaks of olives. The same principles apply with regard to other trees as well.
|
| 56. |
Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text has a slightly different version. The Rambam follows the understanding of the mishnah cited above found in the Jerusalem Talmud. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, however, he defines Netufah as being the name of a place.
|
| 57. |
It was given this name because it did not produce much oil.
|
| 58. |
For he will remember it afterwards.
|
| 59. |
For it then has a specific location, like the tree next to the vat or next to the opening mentioned in the previous halachah.
|
| 60. |
For there is nothing that distinguishes these olive trees from the others in that grove.
|
| 61. |
When viewed in relation to the orchard as a whole, the tree is distinct and leaving it unharvested does not mean it is no longer in mind. Once, however, one has begun harvesting the produce of that tree, the laws of shichichah apply to it.
|
| 62. |
Based on his interpretation of Pe'ah 7:2, the Ra'avad maintains that this principle should apply to all trees, even those that are not distinguished by a particular quality. When one ceased harvesting their produce in the middle, if two se'ah of produce remain, it is significant and the laws of shichichah do not apply. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh, however, provide explanations that indicate that this concept applies only with regard to a distinguished tree.
|
| 63. |
As stated in Halachot 18 and 19.
|
| 64. |
In Halachah 22.
|
| 65. |
Thus it is considered as something forgotten due to an external cause.
|
| 66. |
The Roman Caesar Adrian had many of the olive trees in Eretz Yisrael destroyed and hence, all those that remained were important. For this reason, in many instances, the laws of shichichahwere suspended. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 7:1).
The Ra'avad protests, stating that the importance of olive trees was mentioned by Rabbi Yossi and the other Sages did not accept his opinion. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam is not following Rabbi Yossi's view, but merely borrowing his rationale to deal with another issue.
|
| 67. |
Or from the ladder on which he ascends.
|
| 68. |
According to this explanation, all of the above clauses have to be reinterpreted to mean that he was harvesting fruit on the surrounding vines or trees. The Kessef Mishneh mentions a view that maintains that there is a printing error and the text should read: "When does the above apply? When he began [harvesting its fruit]. If, however, he did not begin harvesting its fruit...." According to that version, the Rambam's words can be understood with more ease.
|
| 69. |
I.e., these obligations apply only with regard to a field that one owns and not one that he acquires after the crops have already grown. Nevertheless, an exception is made in this instance, for as the Rambam explains, there is no reason to free his owner of responsibility. The commentaries note that the Rambam cites a different prooftext than Rashi (Niddah 51a) and other traditional sources.
|
| 70. |
See Hilchot Terumot 2:9, 11-12.
|
Matnot Aniyiim - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
There is a sixth present1 [awarded] to the poor from the land's produce: the tithe given to the poor. It is called the tithe for the poor.
Halacha 2
This is the order of [the separation of] the terumot and the tithes. After one harvests produce from the earth or fruit from the tree and completes all the necessary work,2 he separates one fiftieth of the produce.3 This is called the great terumah4 and should be given to the priest. Concerning this the Torah states [Deuteronomy 18:4]: "The first of your grain, your wine, and your oil." Afterwards, he separates one tenth from the remainder.5 This is called the first tithe and must be given to the Levite.6 Concerning this, the Torah states [Numbers 18:24]: "For the tithes of the children of Israel..." and [ibid.:24] states: "To the descendants of Levi have I given all the tithes within Israel."
Halacha 3
Afterwards, he separates one tenth from the remainder. This is called "the second tithe." This belongs to the owners and is eaten in Jerusalem.7Concerning this, it is stated [Leviticus 27:31]: "If a person shall redeem his tithes and [Deuteronomy 14:22-23] states: "You shall surely tithe.... And you shall partake of it before God your Lord in the place that He will choose."
Halacha 4
These portions should be separated in this order8 in the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of the Sabbatical cycle. In the third and sixth years of that cycle, by contrast, after the first tithe is separated, a different tithe9 is separated from the remainder and it is given to the poor. It is called the tithe for the poor. In these two years, the second tithe is not separated, only the tithe for the poor. Concerning it is written [Deuteronomy 14:28-29]: "At the conclusion of three years, you shall bring out the tithe of all your grain in that year and deposit it in your gates and the Levite10... [and the stranger, the orphan...] shall come." And concerning it, it is written [ibid. 26:12]: "When you will complete your tithing [in the third year]...."
Halacha 5
In the seventh year, all [the produce] is ownerless. There is no [obligation to separate] terumah, not tithes at all, not the first tithe, nor the second tithe, nor the tithe for the poor.11 In the Diaspora12 where [the requirement to] let the land lie fallow does not apply,13 [in the seventh year, in Egypt, Ammon, and Moab,14we separate the first tithe15 and the tithe for the poor,16 because these lands are close to Eretz Yisrael and in this way, the poor people in Eretz Yisrael can rely on [the produce of these other lands] in the Sabbatical year.
It is a halachah conveyed to Moses at Sinai that the tithe for the poor should be separated in the lands of Ammon and Moab in the Sabbatical year. In Babylonia, the second tithe should be separated in the Sabbatical year as is the practice in most years.17
Halacha 6
[After] taking the first tithe, a Levite should separate one tenth and give it to a priest. It is called terumat ma'aser.18 Concerning this, [Numbers 18:26] states: "To the Levites, say...."
Halacha 7
When poor people pass by the owner of the field while he is [in his field]19and in possession of the tithe for the poor, he should give each poor person who passes by him [a portion] of the tithe that will satisfy him,20 [as implied byDeuteronomy 26:12]: "And they shall eat in your gates and be satisfied."21
Halacha 8
How much is "[a portion] that will satisfy him? If from wheat, he should give him no less than half a kab.22 If from barley, he should give him no less than a kab. If from spelt, he should give him no less than a kab.23 If from dried figs, he should give him no less than a kab. If from a mass of figs, he should give him no less than the weight24 of 25 selaim.25 If from wine, he should give him no less than half a log.26 If from oil, he should give him no less than a fourth [of alog]. If from rice, he should give him no less than a fourth of a kab. If he gives him vegetables, he should give him a liter weight, i.e., the weight of 35 dinarim. From carobs, [he should give him] three kabbim; from nuts,27 ten, from peaches, five; from pomegranates, two; an esrog, one. If he gives him from other produce, he should not give him less than would enable him to sell them and to buy food for two meals with the proceeds.
Halacha 9
If one only has a small amount of produce and there are many poor people so that he does not have enough to give each one the appropriate measure, he should place [the entire quantity] before them and they should divide it among themselves.28
Halacha 10
The owners do not have the right to apportion the tithe for the poor that is given away at the grainheap at their discretion.29 Instead, the poor come and take it against their will. Even the poor among the Jewish people can expropriate from them. When, by contrast, one gives out the tithe of the poor in his home, he may give it to any poor man to whom he desires.30
Halacha 11
When a person has [a quantity of] the tithe for the poor in his grainheap and he desires to give it to a poor person who is his relative or acquaintance, he should set aside half of it to give it to him and half to give to all the poor who pass by according to the measures mentioned above.
Halacha 12
When does the concept that one must give a poor person enough to satisfy him apply? In the field. If, however, he has tithes in his home, he may divide it among all the poor people, giving each one even only an olive-sized portion,31for he is not commanded to give him an amount necessary to satisfy him except in a field, for there are no others there from whom to take, as [implied by] the verse: "And they shall eat in your gates and be satisfied."
Halacha 13
If a man and a woman come to [a person possessing tithes] at home,32 we give to the woman first33 and allow her to depart and then give to the man. [In the situations, when one] of the pair - a father and his son, a person and his relative, two brothers, or two partners - was poor, the other may give him the tithe for the poor which he possesses.34
Halacha 14
When two poor people receive a field under a sharecropping agreement, one may separate the tithe for the poor from his portion and give it to his colleague. And his colleague may separate the tithe for the poor from his portion and give it to him.35
Halacha 15
When a person receives [the right] to harvest a field,36 he is forbidden to collectleket, shichichah, pe'ah, and the tithe for the poor.
When does the above apply? When he accepted a field [with the proviso] that he receive a portion of the produce of the entire field, e.g., he was given a third or a fourth [of the harvest] as his wage. If, however, the owner of the field told: "You will receive only a third of what you harvest," or "...a fourth of what you will harvest," [the harvester of the field] does not have a right to anything until he harvests it. Hence, at the time of the harvest, he is a poor man.37 Therefore he is permitted [to collect] leket, shichichah, and pe'ah, but he is forbidden [to take] the tithe for the poor. [The rationale is that] the tithe for the poor is separated only after the harvest is completed and [at that time,] he has already acquired the portion he harvested.38
Halacha 16
When a person sells his field - both the land and the produce39 - and becomes impoverished, he is permitted [to collect] leket, shichichah, pe'ah, and tithe for the poor from it. The purchaser is forbidden [to collect] these presents even though he has not paid the money [for the field] yet.40 Even if he borrowed the money and purchased it, he can no longer collect the presents for the poor.
Halacha 17
The tithe for the poor may not be used as payment for a loan,41 nor can it be given in exchange for favors.42 It may be used for an act of kindness,43 but one must tell the recipient that it is the tithe for the poor.44 It should not be used to redeem captives,45 given as shushbinut,46 nor given as a specific gift to charity. It can be given to the sage of a city for his benefit47 and it may not be taken from Eretz Yisrael into the Diaspora, as [Deuteronomy 14:28] states: "And you shall place it in your gates,"48and it is written [ibid. 26:22]: "And they shall eat in your gates and be satiated."
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
I.e., in addition to leket, peret, ollelot, shichichah, and peah (Radbaz).
|
| 2. |
See Hilchot Terumot 5:4-5.
|
| 3. |
One fiftieth is the average amount separated. As explained in Hilchot Terumot, ch. 3, there is no prescribed amount of terumah required according to Scriptural Law. And even according to Rabbinic Law, there are varying amounts.
|
| 4. |
It is called the great terumah in comparison to terumat ma'aser which is only one hundredth of the crop.
|
| 5. |
I.e., the tithe is one tenth of the remainder after terumah has been separated and not one tenth of the original sum.
|
| 6. |
Although Ezra penalized the Levites for not making aliyah and ordained that the tithes should be given to the priests and not to them, that ordinance applied only in that generation and not for all time (Hilchot Ma'aser 1:4).
|
| 7. |
In a state of ritual purity.
|
| 8. |
I.e., the order is significant. It is undesirable to separate them in a different order.
|
| 9. |
More than two tithes are never separated. Thus in the years that the second tithe is separated, the tithe for the poor is not separated. And in the years that the tithe for the poor is separated, the second tithe is not separated.
|
| 10. |
Although the verse mentions Levites, the intent is that he should collect the initial tithe (Rashi on the verse; Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 331:39). The tithe given afterwards, by contrast, is not necessarily given to the Levites, put to the poor as the verse continues.
|
| 11. |
As stated at the conclusion of the previous chapter, none of the agricultural obligations apply with regard to ownerless produce. All of the produce of the Sabbatical year is ownerless by Divine decree (Bava Metzia 39a).
|
| 12. |
Here the meaning of the term Diaspora is limited applying only to those lands mentioned by the Rambam here. Crops from all other parts of the Diaspora are not obligated in any of the agricultural laws that apply to the produce of Eretz Yisrael.
|
| 13. |
See Hilchot Shemitah 4:25-27.
|
| 14. |
Pe'at HaShulchan 23:27 explains that the Rambam is speaking about the portions of Ammon and Moav that were not conquered by the Jewish people upon their entry into Eretz Yisrael and thus never became part of the Holy Land. There were, by contrast, certain portions of Ammon and Moab that were conquered by Sichon. After he was vanquished by the Jewish people, that land became part of Eretz Yisrael. They are bound by the same laws that apply in Eretz Yisrael. Although this interpretation is accepted by most authorities, it appears to contradict the Rambam's own statements in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yedayim 4:3).
|
| 15. |
The Rambam's source (Yedayim, loc. cit.) mentions the separation of the tithe for the poor, but not the separation of the first tithe. Since the tithe for the poor is never separated unless the first tithe is separated, the Rambam concluded that it should also be separated at this time (Radbaz).
|
| 16. |
See Hilchot Terumot 1:1.
|
| 17. |
Our Sages also ordained that terumah and the tithes be separated there for the reasons stated by the Rambam (ibid.). Since it is distant from Eretz Yisrael, the poor of Eretz Yisrael would not gain any significant advantage by having the tithe for the poor separated in that year.
|
| 18. |
It is governed by all the ritual restrictions applying to the great terumah.
|
| 19. |
In contrast to the tithe for the poor distributed from one's home as mentioned in Halachot 10, 12.
|
| 20. |
See the following halachah for a definition of this term.
|
| 21. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 130) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 474) include this commandment as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 22. |
A kab is approximately 1382 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 2400 cc according to Chazon Ish. This quantity will enable him to produce a quantity of food appropriate for a meal.
|
| 23. |
Significantly, Pe'ah 8:5, the Rambam's source mentions a kab and a half. The commentaries question why the Rambam does not state that figure.
|
| 24. |
Since the figs are collected in a mass, a measure of weight is given, rather than of volume (Radbaz).
|
| 25. |
A total of 91 grams in contemporary measure.
|
| 26. |
A log is approximately 345 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 600 cc according to Chazon Ish.
|
| 27. |
In this and the following instances, the Rambam mentions a measure appropriate to sell and purchase with the proceeds, food for two meals.
|
| 28. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 8:6), the Rambam explains that the poor should divided it equally among themselves.
|
| 29. |
For the verse requiring that it be separated (Deuteronomy 14:28) states: "And you shall set it down in your gates" and does not mention "giving" it (Nedarim 84b).
|
| 30. |
For a second verse concerning the tithe to the poor (Deuteronomy 26:12) speaks of "giv[ing] it to the Levites, the strangers, to the orphan,..." (Chulin 131a,b).
|
| 31. |
He must, however, give an olive-sized portion, because Deuteronomy, loc. cit., speaks of "giv[ing]" and the term "giving" implies giving a significant amount. Kritot 6b states that anything less than an olive-sized portion is not significant.
|
| 32. |
The Radbaz states that certainly this law applies if the man and the woman approach the person apportioning his tithes in his fields. The Rambam LeAm, however, cites authorities who rule otherwise.
|
| 33. |
For it is more embarrassing for a woman to beg than for a man (Yevamot 100a).
|
| 34. |
A poor person who owns a field may not take the tithe of the poor from his field for himself (Gittin12a). Nevertheless, despite the fact that these individuals are very close to him, he is permitted to give them his tithes.
|
| 35. |
This is an extension of the principle stated in the previous halachah.
|
| 36. |
In return for a certain share of the produce as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
|
| 37. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 5:5), the Rambam explains the difference between the two instances. In the first instance, the harvester has a right to the entire field even before he begins the harvest. Hence he is not considered as poor. In the second instance, since he does not own anything until the harvest is completed, he is considered as poor.
|
| 38. |
The rationale is not necessarily that he is no longer poor, but that since he has a share in the harvest, he cannot take a portion for himself as stated in Halachah 10 (Radbaz).
|
| 39. |
If, however, one owns the land and the other, the produce, they are both forbidden to acquire the presents for the poor.
|
| 40. |
I.e., once he has acquired it through a kinyan, a formal process of acquisition, it is his regardless of whether he paid for it or not.
|
| 41. |
I.e., a poor person who receives it may not use it to pay a debt he owes, for it was given to him for his own personal expenses alone.
|
| 42. |
I.e., one person may not give another the tithe of the poor as a loan, because the recipient gave him a loan on a previous occasion.
|
| 43. |
To be given to a mourner in exchange for food that he once gave (Radbaz).
|
| 44. |
So that he will know to use it only for his personal use, not to do a favor in return for it, and not to take it to the Diaspora.
|
| 45. |
Since we are obligated to redeem captives, using the tithe for the poor for this purpose is equivalent to using it to pay a debt (Siftei Cohen 331:166).
|
| 46. |
Wedding gifts; see Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah, chap. 7.
|
| 47. |
I.e., that is not considered as an affront to his dignity.
|
| 48. |
I.e., in a city that belongs to you, for it is part of your land.
|
Matnot Aniyiim - Chapter 7
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment to give charity1 to the poor among the Jewish people,2 according to what is appropriate for the poor person3 if this is within the financial capacity of the donor,4 as [Deuteronomy 15:5] states: "You shall certainly open your hand to him." [Leviticus 25:35] states: "You shall support him, a stranger and a resident and they shall live with you," and [ibid.:36] states: "And your brother shall live with you."
Halacha 2
Anyone who sees a poor person asking5 and turns his eyes away from him and does not give him charity transgresses a negative commandment,6 as [Deuteronomy 15:7] states: "Do not harden your heart or close your hand against your brother, the poor person."
Halacha 3
We are commanded to give a poor person according to what he lacks. If he lacks clothes, we should clothe him. If he lacks household utensils, we should purchase them for him. If he is unmarried, we should help him marry. And for an unmarried woman, we should find a husband for her.
Even if the personal habit of this poor person was to ride on a horse and to have a servant run before him7 and then he became impoverished and lost his wealth, we should buy a horse for him to ride and a servant to run before him.8[This is implied by Deuteronomy 15:8 which] speaks [of providing him with] "enough to [fill the] lack that he feels."9 You are commanded to fill his lack, but you are not obligated to enrich him.10
Halacha 4
With regard to an orphan for whom people are seeking to find a wife for him to marry: First, we rent for him a house, provide for him a bed and all his household necessities and then we seek to find a wife for him to marry.11
Halacha 5
When a poor person comes and asks for his needs to be met and the giver does not have the financial capacity, he should give him according to his financial capacity.
How much? The most desirable way of performing the mitzvah is to give one fifth of one's financial resources.12 Giving one tenth is an ordinary measure.13Giving less [than that] reflects parsimony. A person should never refrain from giving less than a third of a shekel a year.14 A person who gives less than this has not fulfilled the mitzvah. Even a poor person who derives his livelihood from charity is obligated to give charity to another person.
Halacha 6
When a poor person whose identity is unknown says: "I am hungry, provide me with food," we do not investigate whether he is a deceiver. Instead, we provide him with sustenance immediately.15 If he was unclothed and he said: "Cloth me," we investigate whether he is a deceiver. If we are familiar with him, we clothe him according to his honor16 immediately and we do not investigate the matter.17
Halacha 7
We provide sustenance and clothing for the poor of the gentiles together with the poor of the Jewish people18 as an expression of the ways of peace.
When a poor person19 begs from door to door, we do not give him a large gift.20 Instead, we give him a small gift. It is forbidden to turn away a poor person who asks [for charity] empty-handed. Even giving him one fig [is sufficient], as [Psalms 74:21]: "Let not the dejected turn away in shame."
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
When a person does not want to give charity or desires to give less than what is appropriate for him, the court should compel him and give him stripes for rebellious conduct28 until he gives the amount it was estimated that he should give. We take possession of his property when he is present29 and expropriate the amount that is appropriate for him to give. We expropriate property for the sake of charity even on Fridays.30
Halacha 11
It is forbidden to demand and to collect charity from a soft-hearted person who gives more than is appropriate to charity31 or from a person who causes himself difficulty and gives to charity collectors so that he will not be embarrassed. When a charity collector embarrasses such a person and asks him [for charity], [the charity collector] will be subjected to retribution in the future, as [implied byJeremiah 30:20:] "I will visit My providence on those who pressure him."
Halacha 12
We do not impose a levy for charity on orphans,32 even for the redemption of captives,33 and even if they possess many financial resources.34 If a judge imposed a levy upon them to heighten their reputation,35 it is permitted.
A charity collector may accept small [donations] from women,36 servants, and children, but not large donations. For we operate under the assumption that a large amount was stolen or robbed from others. What is meant by a small [donation]? Everything is calculated according to the wealth or poverty of the owners.37
Halacha 13
A poor person who is one's relative receives priority over all others. The poor of one's household receive priority over the poor of one's city. And the poor of one's city receive priority over the poor of another city, as [implied byDeuteronomy 15:11]: "[You shall surely open your hand to] your brother,38 the poor, and the destitute in your land."39
Halacha 14
When a person went on a business trip and the people of the city to which he traveled levy an assessment for charity upon him,40 he should give it to the poor of that city.41 If there are many [such individuals]42 and an assessment for charity was made upon them, they must make the allocation43 and when they go [to return home], they take [the money] with them and use it to support the poor of their city. If there is a communal sage,44 they give it to him and he divides it as he sees fit.
15 When a person says:45 "Give 200 zuz to a synagogue" or "Give a Torah scroll to a synagogue," we give it to the synagogue which he customarily [attends].46 If he would frequent two, [the sum] should be divided among both of them.47 If he says: "Give 200 dinarim to the poor," we give them to the poor of his city.48
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 195) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 479) include this commandment as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 2. |
Note, however, Halachah 7.
|
| 3. |
I.e., his needs as defined by his social standing.
|
| 4. |
I.e., he is not obligated to borrow to give charity to a colleague. Alternatively, he is not obligated to give more than one fifth of his own resources, as stated in Halachah 5 (Rav Yosef Corcus).
|
| 5. |
The Tzaphnat Paneach states that the negative commandment is violated only when the poor person asks. If he does not, there is no prohibition.
|
| 6. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 232) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 478) includes this commandment as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 7. |
To announce his coming.
|
| 8. |
Ketubot 67b relates that a person from a dignified family became impoverished and the great Sage Hillel would hire a servant to run before him and announce his coming. Once Hillel could not find such a servant and performed this service himself.
|
| 9. |
Because of his previous lifestyle, this person feels a severe lack if he does not have these conveniences.
|
| 10. |
Thus there are times when providing a certain person with what he feels are his needs will require a greater expense than providing another with what he views as luxuries.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 250:1) quotes the Rambam's ruling. The Rama states that this ruling applies to a collector of charity or to the community at large, but not to an individual person. An individual is not required to personally attempt to meet all of a colleague's needs. Instead, it is sufficient for him to inform the community of the problem. If, however, there are no communal resources, he is individually obligated to help the person if he has the capacity. See also Halachot 5 and 7 and notes.
|
| 11. |
I.e., first we provide him with those matters that are essential for him to maintain a household. Only afterwards do we assist him in marrying. See also Hilchot De'ot 5:11 which states that a person should build a home and find a profession before marrying.
|
| 12. |
This also reflects an upper limit. As Ketubot 50a states: "Even a person who distributes money to charity with largess should not distribute more than a fifth." This concept is derived from Jacob's vow to tithe (Genesis 28:22). There the verb which conveys the promise to tithe is repeated, allowing for the concept of giving two tithes. See also Hilchot Arachin 8:13 which cites Leviticus 27:28 which speaks of a person designating a dedication offering "from all that is his." The Rambam continues:
Yayin Malchut notes that in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 1:1), the Rambam writes that as an act of piety, a person may give more than a fifth. Nevertheless, there is not necessarily a contradiction between the two. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam is speaking about giving to a needy person who asks for alms. In response to that acute need, one may give more that a fifth. Here the Rambam is speaking about giving to charity when there is no acute need. Hence a limit can be established. See also Ketubot 67b which states that these restrictions apply during a person's lifetime. He may leave a greater percentage of his resources to charity in his will.
In Iggeret HaTeshuvah, Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi states that one may give more than a fifth of his resources to charity to atone for his sins, for just as one is not concerned with the amount one gives when it comes to healing a physical wound or blemish, so too, one should not be worried about cost when healing a spiritual blemish.
|
| 13. |
The Sifri derives this from the fact that Deuteronomy 14:22, the verse that conveys the Biblical command to tithe repeats the verb, implying an obligation to tithe - not only one's produce - but all income.
|
| 14. |
This is slightly less than seven grams of silver.
|
| 15. |
For hunger involves a risk to life. Clothing, by contrast, does not (Bava Batra 9a).
|
| 16. |
According to his social standing.
|
| 17. |
For we are familiar with his character and do not think that he will prove to be a deceiver.
|
| 18. |
One might interpret the Rambam's words as implying that only when a gentile comes together with a Jew should he be given charity, lest he feel that he is being subjected to discrimination. TheSiftei Cohen 251:2, however, does not accept this interpretation and maintains that even if a gentile comes alone, he may be given charity.
|
| 19. |
This clause refers to a Jew.
|
| 20. |
For he is appealing to people at large for help. Hence, no one individual feels the onus to deal with his problem entirely.
|
| 21. |
Half a me'ah. A pundiyon is equivalent to eight barleycorns of pure silver, approximately .4 grams in contemporary measure
|
| 22. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 8:7), the Rambam explains that this is a loaf of bread made from a quarter of a kab of flour. The commentaries explain that a loaf this size provides food for two meals. Thus the intent is that we provide him with the minimum necessary for his immediate needs.
|
| 23. |
In Hilchot Eruvin 1:12-13, Hilchot Shekalim 1:23, Hilchot Arachin 4:3-4.
|
| 24. |
Which must be eaten in honor of the Sabbath (Hilchot Shabbat 30:19).
|
| 25. |
The Radbaz adds that we should also provide him with a meal for Saturday night. We assume that he will have with him provisions for at least one meal which he will use Sunday morning.
|
| 26. |
For in this way, he will not be embarrassed to take.
|
| 27. |
I.e., we do not support him with charity.
|
| 28. |
A punishment instituted by the Sages in many instances including the failure to observe a positive Scriptural commandment.
Tosafot, Bava Batra 8b, questions this ruling, noting that Chulin 110b states that a court is not obligated to administer punishment for any positive commandment for which a reward is given for its observance. And charity is one of the mitzvot for which we are promised a reward in this material world. The Radbaz explains that according to the Rambam, there is no difficulty, because according to the Rambam, the commandment to give charity is reinforced by a negative commandment, not to refrain from doing so. In such a situation, the principle cited from Chulindoes not apply. The Radbaz also explains that we are more stringent in this instance, because the welfare of the poor is involved.
|
| 29. |
But not in his absence (Ketubot 48a; Siftei Cohen 248:4). See also Hilchot Ishut 12:15.
|
| 30. |
I.e., we do not excuse a person from giving based on the rationale that he is preoccupied with his Sabbath preparations.
|
| 31. |
Taanit 24a relates that Rabbi Elazar of Birta would give all of his money to charity. The charity collectors would flee from him so that he would not see them.
|
| 32. |
I.e., orphans who are under majority.
|
| 33. |
Which is of the highest level of charity, as indicated by Chapter 8, Halachah 10.
|
| 34. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 248:3) quotes the Rambam's ruling. The Rama states that if the donation to charity is for a specific and limited purpose or that withholding the donation will bring shame upon the orphan's family, donations may be taken from them.
|
| 35. |
I.e., that they receive renown as persons of wealth. This is permitted if the court thinks that acquiring such a reputation will be to their benefit.
The Bayit Chadash (Yoreh De'ah 248) states that if the orphans already have a reputation as wealthy individuals, it is forbidden to assess such a levy upon their estate.
|
| 36. |
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 248:4) emphasizes that if a woman's husband objects, it is forbidden to accept any donations from her.
|
| 37. |
Thus what would be considered a small donation for some would be considered as a large donation for others.
|
| 38. |
"Your brother" is mentioned first implying that a person's first responsibility is to his family.
|
| 39. |
I.e., the prooftext mentions "your land" to imply that one's first obligations is to give the poor that are in one's immediate proximity.
Although the poor of Eretz Yisrael are given priority over the poor of other cities, they are not given priority of the poor of one's own city (Siftei Cohen 251:6).
|
| 40. |
It was customary in Talmudic times, for a community to request that a percentage of the profits from business dealings be given to charity.
|
| 41. |
Since he is only one person, he cannot argue that his failure to give charity will have a significant effect on the fortunes of the poor of his own city.
|
| 42. |
The Radbaz states that we are speaking about an instance where the majority of the people in a city journey to do business in another city. Hence when they return home, it is proper that they take the money that they gave to charity with them so that they will be able to support the poor in their own city. For, otherwise, there will be no one to support them. Alternatively, he states that it applies even if only three people from one city go to another city. Since they are a significant group, they are considered as an independent entity.
|
| 43. |
And give it to the charity collector in that city to show that they respect the ordinances of that city (Rashi, Megilah 27a).
|
| 44. |
I.e., a Torah scholar charged with the administration of the needs of the city (ibid.:b).
|
| 45. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 253:23) quotes this law with regard to a person's division of his estate on his deathbed. This interpretation explains why we do not simply ask him to clarify his intent.
|
| 46. |
For it is most likely that this was his intent.
|
| 47. |
Our translation follows the gloss of the Radbaz. With regard to a Torah scroll that cannot be divided, it should be read in one synagogue half of the time and in the other, half of the time.
|
| 48. |
For we assume that he desired to give the gift to those who he is obligated to support.
|
• Friday, Nissan 28, 5775 · 17 April 2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: K'doshim, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 135-139.
Tanya: Ch. 44. Each of (p. 231)...until the morning... (p. 233).
Chassidim asked the Alter Rebbe: "Which is the superior avoda, love of G-d or love of Israel?" He replied: "Both love of G-d and love of Israel are equally engraved in every Jew's neshama, ruach, and nefesh.1 Scripture is explicit: 'I have loved you, says the L-rd.'2 It follows that love of Israel is superior - for you love whom your beloved loves."
FOOTNOTES
1. Different levels or aspects of the soul. The two loves thoroughly permeate the soul on every level.
2. Malachi 1:2.
Daily Thought:
Breaking Limits
Everything a human being is given comes in a finite package. Even the tablets Moses carried down from Mount Sinai were defined and bounded.
And so, when G‑d saw Moses mourning over the broken tablets, He said, “Your powers were focused when you smashed the tablets. For now you will receive a Torah you may extend wider than the sea.”
When a human being fails, he shatters the treasures G‑d has put in his trust. But then he cries and picks up the shards to restore what he has ruined.
That is when he discovers that G‑d Himself was hidden inside.
That is when he discovers the Infinite.
Breaking Limits
Everything a human being is given comes in a finite package. Even the tablets Moses carried down from Mount Sinai were defined and bounded.
And so, when G‑d saw Moses mourning over the broken tablets, He said, “Your powers were focused when you smashed the tablets. For now you will receive a Torah you may extend wider than the sea.”
When a human being fails, he shatters the treasures G‑d has put in his trust. But then he cries and picks up the shards to restore what he has ruined.
That is when he discovers that G‑d Himself was hidden inside.
That is when he discovers the Infinite.
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment