Today's Laws & Customs:
• Count "Thirty-One Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the thirty-first 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 thirty-one days, which are four weeks and three days, 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: Tifferet sheb'Hod -- "Harmony in Humility"
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:
• Matzah Depleted (1313 BCE)
The supply of matzah (unleavened bread) which the Jewish people brought out of Egypt--enough for 60 meals--was exhausted on the 15th of Iyar, the 30th day after the Exodus. The people complained to Moses that they have nothing to eat. G-d notified them that He will rain down "bread from heaven" to sustain them (Exodus 16; see "Today in Jewish History" for tomorrow, Iyar 16).
• Jews Expelled from Ukraine (1727)
A few months prior to her death, Empress Catherine I, the second wife of Peter the Great, expelled all Jews from the Ukraine.
• Riots in Rostov-on-Don (1883)
Rostov-on-Don, Russia, was home to 14 Synagogues and many communal institutions. With the encouragement of local Russian officials, a wave of anti-Jewish riots (pogroms) swept the city on the 15th of Iyar of 1883.
Daily Quote:
In material matters, one who is "satisfied with his lot" (Ethics of the Fathers 4:1) is an individual of the highest quality; a person possessing this trait will attain the highest levels. In spiritual matters, however, to be satisfied with one's lot is the worst deficiency, and leads, G-d forbid, to descent and falling...[Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi (quoted in Hayom Yom, Sivan 30)]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Emor, 2nd Portion Leviticus 21:16-22:16 with Rashi
• Chapter 21
16And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, טזוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
17Speak to Aaron, saying: Any man among your offspring throughout their generations who has a defect, shall not come near to offer up his God's food. יזדַּבֵּר אֶל אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר אִישׁ מִזַּרְעֲךָ לְדֹרֹתָם אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בוֹ מוּם לֹא יִקְרַב לְהַקְרִיב לֶחֶם אֱלֹהָיו:
his God’s food: Heb. לֶחֶם אֱלֹהָיו, his God’s food. Any meal is termed לֶחֶם, as in, “…made a great feast (לְחֵם) ” (Dan. 5:1). לחם אלהיו: מאכל אלהיו, כל סעודה קרויה לחם, כמו (דניאל ה א) עבד לחם רב:
18For any man who has a defect should not approach: A blind man or a lame one, or one with a sunken nose or with mismatching limbs; יחכִּי כָל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ מוּם לֹא יִקְרָב אִישׁ עִוֵּר אוֹ פִסֵּחַ אוֹ חָרֻם אוֹ שָׂרוּעַ:
For any man who has a defect should not approach: [But this prohibition has already been stated (preceding verse). The meaning here is that] it is not fitting that he should approach, like “[When you offer up a blind [animal]…a lame or a sick one, is there nothing wrong?] Were you to offer it to your governor, [would he accept you or would he favor you? says the Lord of Hosts” (Malachi 1:8). Thus, just as an animal with a defect is not fitting as an offering, neither is a person with a defect fit for presenting it.] כי כל איש אשר בו מום לא יקרב: אינו דין שיקרב, כמו (מלאכי א ח) הקריבהו נא לפחתך:
with a sunken nose: Heb. חָרֻם. [This term means] that his nose is sunken between his two eyes, such that he applies [eye shadow to] his two eyes with one stroke [i.e., his nose is so sunken that its bridge does not intercede between the two eyes]. — [Torath Kohanim 21:48; Bech. 43b] חרם: שחוטמו שקוע בין שתי העינים, שכוחל שתי עיניו כאחת:
with mismatching limbs: Heb. שָׂרוּעַ [This term means] that one of his limbs is bigger than its counterpart, [e.g.,] one of his eyes is large, and one of his eyes is smaller [normal], or one thigh longer than its [normal] counterpart. — [see Sifthei Chachamim; Bech. 40b] שרוע: שאחד מאיבריו גדול מחברו, עינו אחת גדולה ועינו אחת קטנה, או שוקו אחת ארוכה מחברתה:
19or a man who has a broken leg or a broken arm; יטאוֹ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בוֹ שֶׁבֶר רָגֶל אוֹ שֶׁבֶר יָד:
20or one with long eyebrows, or a cataract, or a commingling in his eye; dry lesions or weeping sores, or one with crushed testicles כאוֹ גִבֵּן אוֹ דַק אוֹ תְּבַלֻּל בְּעֵינוֹ אוֹ גָרָב אוֹ יַלֶּפֶת אוֹ מְרוֹחַ אָשֶׁךְ:
one who has unusually long eyebrows: Heb. גִּבֵּן, sourcils in French, [meaning] that his eyebrow (גַּבִּין) hairs are [abnormally] long and droop. — [Bech. 43b] או גבן: שורצילו"ש בלע"ז [בעל גבות ארוכות] שגביני עיניו שערן ארוך ושוכב:
cataract: Heb. דַּק. [This means] that over his eyes he has a [thin] membrane (דּוֹק) which is called teile, tele, toyle, or tele in Old French, as in, “He Who stretches out [the heavens] like a curtain (דֹּק) ” (Isa. 40:22). — [Torath Kohanim 21:52; Bech. 38a] או דק: שיש לו בעיניו דוק שקורין טיל"א [קרום], כמו (ישעיה מ כב) הנוטה כדוק:
a commingling in his eyes: Heb. תְּבֻלַּל, something that mixes (מְבַלְבֵּל) the [colors of the] eye, e.g., a white line that extends from the white [of the eye], piercing the “ring” [viz., the iris,] i.e., the [colored] annulus that encompasses the black [center of the eye, viz., the pupil,] called prunelle in French. This line pierces the iris and enters the black [pupil]. The Targum renders תְּבֻלַּל as חִילִיז, derived from חִלָּזוֹן, because this line resembles a worm. And so did the Sages of Israel call it [when they enumerate] the defects of a firstborn animal [in the context of whether it may be slaughtered outside the Temple]: עֵינָב, נָחָשׁ, חִלָּזוֹן, a worm-shaped, snake-shaped [growth], or a berry-shaped [growth]. — [Torath Kohanim 21:52, Bech. 38a, Mishnah Bech. 6:2] או תבלל: דבר המבלבל את העין, כגון חוט לבן הנמשך מן הלבן ופוסק בסירא, שהוא עוגל המקיף את השחור, שקוראים פרוניל"א [אישון], והחוט הזה פוסק את העוגל ונכנס בשחור. ותרגום תבלול חיליז, לשון חלזון, שהוא דומה לתולעת אותו החוט. וכן כינוהו חכמי ישראל במומי הבכור חלזון נחש עינב (בכורות לח א):
or dry lesions or weeping sores: These are various types of boils. גרב וילפת: מיני שחין הם:
dry lesions: Heb. גָרָב. This is [equivalent to] חֶרֶס, a skin disease [whose lesions are] dry [both] underneath and on the surface. גרב: זו החרס, שחין היבש מבפנים ומבחוץ:
weeping sores: Heb. יַלֶּפֶת. This is the Egyptian lichen. And why is it called יַלֶּפֶת ? Because it bonds (מְלַפֶּפֶת) itself more and more [to the stricken person] until the day of [his] death. It is wet on its surface and dry underneath. Now, in another passage, a lesion wet on the surface and dry underneath is called גָרָב, as the verse says (Deut. 28:27), “weeping sores (גָרָב) and with dry lesions (חֶרֶס).” (But how is that so, when here, we have explained גָּרָב not only to be a completely dry lesion but also to be synonymous with חֶרֶס)? The answer is that] when גָּרָב is mentioned alongside חֶרֶס [as in Deut. 28:27], then the term גָרָב means [with wet lesions on the surface, and the term חֶרֶס refers to dry lesions both on the surface and underneath (see Rashi there)]. However, when it is mentioned alongside יַלֶּפֶת, then חֶרֶס [the dry lesion], is called גָרָב. Thus is the matter explained in Bech. (41a). ילפת: היא חזזית המצרית. ולמה נקראת ילפת שמלפפת והולכת עד יום המיתה, והוא לח מבחוץ ויבש מבפנים. ובמקום אחר קורא לגרב שחין הלח מבחוץ ויבש מבפנים, שנאמר (דברים כח כז) ובגרב ובחרס, כשסמוך גרב אצל חרס קורא לילפת גרב, וכשהוא סמוך אצל ילפת קורא לחרס גרב, כך מפורש בבכורות (מא א):
one who has crushed testicles: Heb. מְרוֹחַ אֶשֶׁךְ [This term is to be understood] according to the Targum [Onkelos] as מְרִיס פַּחֲדִין, meaning: his testicles are crushed, like, “the sinews of his testicles (פַּחִדָיו) are knit together” (Job 40:17). מרוח אשך: לפי התרגום מריס פחדין, שפחדיו מרוססים, שביצים שלו כתותין. פחדין כמו (איוב מ יז) גידי פחדיו ישורגו:
21Any man among Aaron the kohen's offspring who has a defect shall not draw near to offer up the Lord's fire offerings. There is a defect in him; he shall not draw near to offer up his God's food. כאכָּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ מוּם מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן לֹא יִגַּשׁ לְהַקְרִיב אֶת אִשֵּׁי יְהֹוָה מוּם בּוֹ אֵת לֶחֶם אֱלֹהָיו לֹא יִגַּשׁ לְהַקְרִיב:
Any man…who has a defect [shall not draw near…]: [But has this prohibition not already been stated in verse 17? This verse, however, comes to] include other types of defects [not specified in our passage]. — [Torath Kohanim 21:54] כל איש אשר בו מום: לרבות שאר מומין:
There is a defect in him: As long as he has the defect, he is unfit [for the Holy Service]. However, if his defect goes away, he is fit [to serve]. — [Torath Kohanim 21:55] מום בו: בעוד מומו בו פסול, הא אם עבר מומו כשר:
his God’s food: Any food is termed לֶחֶם. לחם אלהיו: כל מאכל קרוי לחם:
22His God's food from the most holy and from the holy ones, he may eat. כבלֶחֶם אֱלֹהָיו מִקָּדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים וּמִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים יֹאכֵל:
from the most holy: [This phrase] refers to [those sacrifices] with a higher degree of holiness; מקדשי הקדשים: אלו קדשי הקדשים:
and from the holy ones, he may eat: These are the sacrifices with a lesser degree of holiness. Now, if sacrifices with a higher degree of holiness are mentioned [that a kohen with a defect may eat of them], why is it necessary to state [the same of] sacrifices with a lesser degree of holiness? [The answer is that] had they not been stated, I would have concluded [the following]: Indeed [a kohen] with a defect may eat of the sacrifices with a higher degree of holiness, since we find that these were allowed to [be eaten even by] a non- kohen , since Moses [who was not a kohen ,] ate of the flesh of the sacrifices of the investitures. Consequently, perhaps the most holy sacrifices carry with them this leniency]. The breast and thigh of sacrifices with a lesser degree of holiness, however, shall not be eaten [by a kohen with a defect], for we do not find an instance where a non- kohen takes a share of these!“ Therefore, Scripture states here ”or from the holy" [thereby permitting a kohen with a defect to eat from the sacrifices with a lesser degree of holiness as well]. In this way the matter is explained in [Tractate] Zevachim (101b). ומן הקדשים יאכל: אלו קדשים קלים. ואם נאמרו קדשי הקדשים למה נאמרו קדשים קלים, אם לא נאמרו הייתי אומר בקדשי הקדשים יאכל בעל מום, שמצינו שהותרו לזר, שאכל משה בשר המלואים, אבל בחזה ושוק של קדשים קלים לא יאכל, שלא מצינו זר חולק בהן, לכך נאמרו קדשים קלים. כך מפורש בזבחים (קא ב):
23But he shall not come to the dividing curtain, nor shall he draw near to the altar, for he has a defect, and he shall not desecrate My holy things, for I am the Lord Who sanctifies them. כגאַךְ אֶל הַפָּרֹכֶת לֹא יָבֹא וְאֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לֹא יִגַּשׁ כִּי מוּם בּוֹ וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל אֶת מִקְדָּשַׁי כִּי אֲנִי יְהֹוָה מְקַדְּשָׁם:
But [he shall not come] to the dividing curtain: to sprinkle the seven sprinklings [of blood] towards the dividing curtain. — [see Lev. 4:6] אך אל הפרכת: להזות שבע הזאות שעל הפרכת:
[Nor shall he draw near] to the altar: [This refers to] the outer altar [(see Exod. 27:18) in the courtyard of the Sanctuary, as opposed to the inner incense altar (see Exod. 30:110) which was situated just outside the dividing curtain, all within the Holy enclosed area of the Sanctuary. Now, had our verse been referring to the inner altar, it would not have been necessary to specify the prohibition of the dividing curtain, for the dividing curtain was even closer in to the holy of holies. However, since it refers to the outer altar,] both [the altar and the curtain] are necessary to be written here; this matter is explained [in full] in Torath Kohanim (21:58). ואל המזבח: החיצון. ושניהם הוצרכו להכתב, ומפורש בתורת כהנים:
And he shall not desecrate My Holy Services: for if [a kohen with a defect] did perform the Holy Service, [his service is considered] desecrated [and] thereby deemed invalid. — [Torath Kohanim 21:60] ולא יחלל את מקדשי: שאם עבד, עבודתו מחוללת להפסל:
24Moses told [this to] Aaron and his sons, and to all of the children of Israel. כדוַיְדַבֵּר משֶׁה אֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל בָּנָיו וְאֶל כָּל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
Moses told: [Literally, our verse would read: “Moses spoke to Aaron and his sons, and to all of the children of Israel.” But what did he speak? He told them] this [entire] commandment [i.e., all the laws of the kehunah delineated in this passage]. וידבר משה: המצוה הזאת:
[to] Aaron and his sons, and to all the children of Israel: [But why command “all the children of Israel” about laws pertaining only to kohanim ?] So that the courts of law [comprising non- kohen judges] should warn kohanim [who have defects, to separate themselves from the Holy Service]. — [Midrash Hagadol, and see Torath Kohanim, Glosses of Gra] אל אהרן ואל בניו ואל כל בני ישראל: להזהיר בית דין על הכהנים:
Chapter 22
1The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: אוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
2Speak to Aaron and to his sons, that they shall separate themselves from the holy [sacrifices] of the children of Israel, which they sanctify to Me, so as not to desecrate My Holy Name. I am the Lord. בדַּבֵּר אֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל בָּנָיו וְיִנָּזְרוּ מִקָּדְשֵׁי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי אֲשֶׁר הֵם מַקְדִּשִׁים לִי אֲנִי יְהֹוָה:
they shall separate themselves: The term נְזִירָה means only separation [from something]. Likewise, Scripture says, “and draws away (וְיִנָּזֵר) from following Me” (Ezek. 14:7), and, “they drew backwards (נָזֹרוּ)” (Isa. 1:4). [Thus, here, the meaning is that] when kohanim are in a state of uncleanness, they shall separate themselves (וְיִנָּזְרוּ) from the holy things. — [Torath Kohanim 22:62] Another explanation: [The commentators are at a loss to explain this expression, because the following comment easily agrees with the preceding one. See below.] “shall separate themselves from the holy [sacrifices] of the children of Israel which they sanctify to Me, so as not to desecrate My Holy Name.” [Now, the verse, in the order it is written, reads: “Aaron and his sons…shall separate themselves from the holy (sacrifices) of the children of Israel, so as not to desecrate My Holy Name-which they sanctify to Me.”] Transpose the verse and explain it [as follows]: shall separate themselves from the holy [sacrifices] of the children of Israel which they sanctify to Me, so as not to desecrate My Holy Name." [Another explanation] (see Sifthei Chachamim): וינזרו: אין נזירה אלא פרישה, וכן הוא אומר (יחזקאל יד ז) וינזר מאחרי, (ישעיה א ד) נזורו אחור, יפרשו מן הקדשים בימי טומאתן. דבר אחר: וינזרו מקדשי בני ישראל אשר הם מקדישים לי ולא יחללו את שם קדשי, סרס המקרא ודרשהו, אשר הם מקדשים לי ולא יחללו את שם קדשי:
which they sanctify to Me: [This comes] to include offerings that the kohanim themselves sanctified [to the Holy Temple, offerings from which kohanim in the state of uncleanness shall also separate themselves]. [According to this explanation, no transposition is necessary, and the verse is to be explained as follows: When the kohanim are unclean, they must separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, i.e., those consecrated by the children of Israel, and also from those consecrated by the kohanim themselves. Accordingly, the words, “another explanation,” appear at this point, not as they appear in the Mikraoth Gedoloth. According to Mizrachi and others, and according to all manuscripts and incunabula editions, these words do not appear at all. - [Torath Kohanim 22:64] אשר הם מקדשים לי: לרבות קדשי כהנים עצמן:
3Say to them: Throughout your generations, any man among any of your offspring who, while his defilement is still upon him, comes near to the holy sacrifices that the children of Israel consecrate to the Lord that soul shall be cut off from before me. I am the Lord. גאֱמֹר אֲלֵהֶם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם כָּל אִישׁ | אֲשֶׁר יִקְרַב מִכָּל זַרְעֲכֶם אֶל הַקֳּדָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר יַקְדִּישׁוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לַיהֹוָה וְטֻמְאָתוֹ עָלָיו וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִלְּפָנַי אֲנִי יְהֹוָה:
Any man…who…comes near [to the holy sacrifices]: The phrase “comes near” really means “eating.” And so we find that a warning against eating holy sacrifices while in a state of uncleanness, is expressed as “touching,” [as is written], “she shall not touch anything holy” (Lev. 12:4) [which is] a warning against eating [anything holy, while in a state of uncleanness]. And our Rabbis have learnt [that these terms mean “eating” in this context] by way of a hekesh [a rule of Scriptural exposition, whereby, via Rabbinical transmission, laws from two passages are linked through their appearance in the same verse (Mizrachi).] Now, it is impossible to say that one is liable [to the penalty of excision] if he [merely] touches [holy sacrifices while he is in the state of uncleanness], for we find the penalty of excision for eating [holy sacrifices while one is unclean] stated in the passage “Command Aaron” (Lev. 7:20-21) [and moreover, there, we find] the penalty of excision for eating mentioned twice, one next to the other (see Lev. 7:20-21), and, if one would be liable just for touching, it would be unnecessary for Scripture to mention liability for eating. In a similar vein, [this explanation that our verse here refers to eating and not touching,] is expounded in Torath Kohanim (22:69), [as follows]: “…But is there [a case of] one who touches [holy sacrifices], that he should be liable [to the penalty of excision?!] If so, why does Scripture say, ”comes near“? [Because it teaches us that for eating holy sacrifices, one incurs the penalty of excision] only when they become fit to be ”brought near“ as an offering-for one becomes liable only if one [eats holy sacrifices] while one is unclean, after the parts that makes the sacrifice permissible to be eaten has been offered up [i.e., only when the sacrificial fats have been offered up and the blood has been dashed, or the offering of the fistful of flour in a meal-offering, or the sanctification in a vessel of parts of other offerings (see Hagahoth Uvei-urei HaGra on Torath Kohanim ; Mizrachi), is the holy sacrifice allowed to be eaten by the kohanim, and not before]. Now, one may ask: [Since our verse, as well as the two verses in Lev. 7:20-21, are all referring to eating holy sacrifices when one is unclean,] why is it necessary for Scripture to mention three times the penalty of excision for kohanim [eating holy sacrifices] when they are in an unclean state? These have already been expounded upon in Tractate Shevuoth (7a): ”One of them is [needed] to state the general law; one of them is [needed] to state a particular case [namely, the peace-offering, in order to preclude the eating of certain clean foods that are not sacrificed on the altar which do not have the punishment of excision; and one of them is needed to teach us that…when the verse says, “he incurs guilt” (Lev. 5:2), and may bring a קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד, a sliding-scale sacrifice, Scripture is referring to…a person…who, while in an unclean state, enters the Sanctuary or eats of its holy sacrifices]. כל איש אשר יקרב: אין קריבה זו אלא אכילה, וכן מצינו שנאמרה אזהרת אכילת קדשים בטומאה בלשון נגיעה בכל קדש לא תגע (ויקרא יב ד), אזהרה לאוכל. ולמדוה רבותינו מגזירה שוה. ואי אפשר לומר שחייב על הנגיעה, שהרי נאמר כרת על האכילה בצו את אהרן (ויקרא ז כ - כא) שתי כריתות זו אצל זו, ואם על הנגיעה חייב לא הוצרך לחייבו על האכילה, וכן נדרש בתורת כהנים וכי יש נוגע חייב, אם כן מה תלמוד לומר יקרב, משיכשר לקרב, שאין חייבין עליו משום טומאה, אלא אם כן קרבו מתיריו. ואם תאמר שלש כריתות בטומאת כהנים למה, כבר נדרשו במסכת שבועות אחת לכלל ואחת לפרט וכו' (שבועות ז א):
while his defilement is still upon him: [meaning:] While the person is in a state of uncleanness. But I might think that Scripture is referring to the flesh, while the flesh is unclean,“ and the verse is speaking of someone in a clean state who eats unclean flesh [of holy sacrifices]. However, one is forced to learn the meaning of the verse from the literal meaning [of this phrase ”while its/his uncleanness is still upon it/him"]-i.e., the verse is speaking of something from which uncleanness can be removed, and this is a person, because a person can cleanse himself in a mikvah [while meat cannot be purified once it is defiled. — [Torath Kohanim 22:69; Zev. 43b] וטמאתו עליו: וטומאת האדם עליו, יכול בבשר הכתוב מדבר, וטומאתו של בשר עליו, ובטהור שאכל את הטמא הכתוב מדבר, הרי כבר נאמר (ויק' ז יט) והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל, אלא על כרחך ממשמעו אתה למד, במי שטומאתו פורחת ממנו הכתוב מדבר, וזהו האדם שיש לו טהרה בטבילה:
shall be cut off: One might suggest that [the offender is to be “cut off”] from one place to another, i.e., he shall be cut off from his place [of abode] and exiled (Be’er Basadeh) to settle in another place. Scripture, therefore, continues, “I am the Lord”- [as if to say:] “I am in every place” [and even if someone is sent into exile, I am also in that other place. Hence, the “cutting off” here refers to excision of the soul, that he will die before his time (Be’er Basadeh)]. — [Torath Kohanim 22:69] ונכרתה וגו': יכול מצד זה לצד זה, יכרת ממקומו ויתיישב במקום אחר, תלמוד לומר אני ה', בכל מקום אני:
4Any man whatsoever among Aaron's offspring if he has tzara'ath or has had a discharge, he shall not eat of the holy sacrifices, until he cleanses himself. And one who touches anyone who has become unclean [by contact with a dead] person, or a man from whom semen issued, דאִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן וְהוּא צָרוּעַ אוֹ זָב בַּקֳּדָשִׁים לֹא יֹאכַל עַד אֲשֶׁר יִטְהָר וְהַנֹּגֵעַ בְּכָל טְמֵא נֶפֶשׁ אוֹ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר תֵּצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת זָרַע:
among Aaron’s offspring: I know only that Aaron’s offspring [are meant]. How do I know that he himself [and every Kohen Gadol (Ramban on verse 17, Rash MiShantz on Torath Kohanim) is also included]? Therefore, Scripture states [the apparently superfluous word “he” in the clause], “if he has tzara’ath ”; for one might think that since he is allowed to offer up holy sacrifices when he is an onen (Rashi Lev. 21:12 above), he would also be allowed to offer them up if he has tzara’ath or if he had a discharge. Scripture, therefore, says, “if he…” [to include Aaron and all other Kohanim Gedolim]. — [Torath Kohanim 22:70] מזרע אהרן: אין לי אלא זרעו, גופו מנין, תלמוד לומר והוא צרוע, שיכול הואיל ומקריב אונן יקריב צרוע וזב, תלמוד לומר והוא:
until he cleanses himself: [This means] sunset [after his immersion]. Or, perhaps, it means only immersion [in a mikvah, and that suffices]? It says here, וְטָהֵר, and it says below (verse 7), וְטָהֵר, “When the sun has set, he becomes clean (וְטָהֵר).” Just as there (in verse 7), [it means] sunset, here too, [it means] sunset [that he may not eat holy things until the sun sets after his immersion]. — [Torath Kohanim 22:72] עד אשר יטהר: ביאת השמש, או אינו אלא טבילה, נאמר כאן וטהר, ונאמר למטה וטהר (פסוק ז) ובא השמש וטהר, מה להלן ביאת שמש, אף כאן ביאת שמש:
anyone who has become unclean [by contact with a dead] person:Heb. טְמֵא נֶפֶשׁ, one who has become unclean by [contact with] a dead person. בכל טמא נפש: במי שנטמא במת:
5or a man who touches any creeping creature through which he becomes unclean or a person through whom he becomes unclean, whatever his uncleanness האוֹ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּכָל שֶׁרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יִטְמָא לוֹ אוֹ בְאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יִטְמָא לוֹ לְכֹל טֻמְאָתוֹ:
[A man who touches] any creeping creature through which he becomes unclean: [The seemingly superfluous phrase “through which he becomes unclean” means,] the [minimum] size [of a part of a creeping creature] through which [contact] one is rendered unclean (Torath Kohanim 22:76) -namely, through the volume of a lentil. — [Chag. 11a] בכל שרץ אשר יטמא לו: בשיעור הראוי לטמא, בכעדשה:
or a person: a corpse. - [Torath Kohanim 22:76] [That is to say, cleansing after contact with a dead body takes place only after immersion and sunset on the seventh day. — [Sifthei Chachamim] או באדם: במת:
through whom he becomes unclean: The size through which [contact] one is rendered unclean-namely, the volume of an olive. [Oholoth 2:1] אשר יטמא לו: כשיעורו לטמא, וזהו כזית:
whatever his uncleanness: [This comes] to include one who comes into contact with a man or woman who has had a discharge, or with a menstruating woman or with a woman who has given birth, [or with one who has tzara’ath]. — [Torath Kohanim 22:76] לכל טומאתו: לרבות נוגע בזב וזבה, נדה ויולדת ובמצורע:
6the person who touches it shall remain unclean until evening, and he shall not eat from the holy things unless he has immersed his flesh in water. ונֶפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תִּגַּע בּוֹ וְטָמְאָה עַד הָעָרֶב וְלֹא יֹאכַל מִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים כִּי אִם רָחַץ בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּמָּיִם:
The person who touches it: i.e., who touches any one of these unclean beings. נפש אשר תגע בו: באחד מן הטמאים הללו:
7When the sun sets, he becomes clean, and afterwards, he may eat of the holy things, for it is his food. זוּבָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְטָהֵר וְאַחַר יֹאכַל מִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים כִּי לַחְמוֹ הוּא:
and afterwards, he may eat of the holy things: This is expounded on in [Tractate] Yev. (74b) as referring to terumah, that [the purified kohen] may eat it after sunset [of the day of his cleansing]. ואחר יאכל מן הקדשים: נדרש ביבמות בתרומה, שמותר לאכלה בהערב השמש:
he may eat of the holy things: [meaning, some of the holy things,] but not all holy things [thus, our verse refers specifically to terumah, but not sacrificial flesh, which the kohen who was stricken with tzara’ath or had a discharge may not eat until he brings his sacrifices on the morrow]. — [see preceding Rashi] מן הקדשים: ולא כל הקדשים:
8He shall not eat a carcass or anything that was torn, thereby becoming unclean through it. I am the Lord. חנְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה לֹא יֹאכַל לְטָמְאָה בָהּ אֲנִי יְהֹוָה:
He shall not eat a carcass or anything that was torn, thereby becoming unclean through it: [Scripture] warned here regarding the [implications of one’s] uncleanness, as follows: If one ate a carcass of a clean bird, which [as explained (Rashi above 17:15),] does not defile through contact or by lifting it but defiles only when it is swallowed into the esophagus-this person is prohibited to eat holy things. Now, [a bird that had been torn (טְרֵפָה) and mortally wounded by a wild animal, if slaughtered properly, does not convey uncleanness. So why is it mentioned here?] We must say that וּטְרֵפָה is [stated only to teach us that the carcass of a bird conveys uncleanness only] of the species that can be prohibited because of טְרֵפָה, thus excluding the carcass of an unclean bird, whose species can never fall under the category of טְרֵפָה [because it is prohibited even if it was perfectly healthy]. — [Torath Kohanim 17:125126; see Rashi Lev . 17:15] נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל לטמאה בה: לענין הטומאה הזהיר כאן, שאם אכל נבלת עוף טהור, שאין לה טומאת מגע ומשא אלא טומאת אכילה בבית הבליעה, אסור לאכול בקדשים. וצריך לומר וטרפה, מי שיש במינו טרפה, יצא נבלת עוף טמא שאין במינו טרפה:
9They shall keep My charge and not bear a sin by [eating] it [while unclean] and thereby die through it since they will have desecrated it. I am the Lord Who sanctifies them. טוְשָׁמְרוּ אֶת מִשְׁמַרְתִּי וְלֹא יִשְׂאוּ עָלָיו חֵטְא וּמֵתוּ בוֹ כִּי יְחַלְּלֻהוּ אֲנִי יְהֹוָה מְקַדְּשָׁם:
They shall keep My charge: [and refrain] from eating teruman while one’s body is unclean. — [Sanh. 83a] ושמרו את משמרתי: מלאכול תרומה בטומאת הגוף:
and thereby die through it: we learn that it is death by the hands of Heaven [which is meted out “through it,”] meaning that the sin of eating while unclean brings about the death penalty by itself without any other prerequisites, such as witnesses or warning. That could be only death by the hands of Heaven. - [Gur Aryeh ; Sanh. 83a; also see Sifthei Chachamim] ומתו בו: למדנו שהיא מיתה בידי שמים:
10No non kohen may eat holy things; a kohen's resident and his hireling may not eat holy things. יוְכָל זָר לֹא יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ תּוֹשַׁב כֹּהֵן וְשָׂכִיר לֹא יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ:
No [non-kohen may] eat holy things: The text is referring to terumah, for the entire passage speaks of it (see Rashi verse 7). לא יאכל קדש: בתרומה הכתוב מדבר, שכל הענין דבר בה:
a kohen’s resident and his hireling: [could be erroneously read as “a kohen who is a resident or a hireling.” However, the correct meaning here is:] The resident of a kohen or one who is hired by a kohen. [I. e., the word תּוֹשַׁב means “the resident of.”] Therefore, תּוֹשַׁב is vocalized with a patach [under the “shin,”] because it is in the construct state. [Had it been in the absolute state, simply meaning “resident,” the “shin” would have been vocalized with a kamatz .] Now, who is considered a “resident” [in this context]? This is a Hebrew slave whose ear has been bored [i.e., one who elected to remain a slave after six years, and resides with his master (see Exod. 21:16)], thereby becoming acquired [by his master] until the Jubilee year (see Rashi Exod. 21:6). And who is considered a hireling [in this context]? This is someone acquired for a [set] number of years [to be a Hebrew slave] and who is to be released after six years (see Exod. 21:2). The text comes to teach you here that he does not become his master’s physical property [and is, therefore, not permitted] to eat terumah . — [Torath Kohanim 22:86; Yev. . 70a] תושב כהן ושכיר: תושבו של כהן ושכירו, לפיכך תושב זה נקוד פתח, לפי שהוא דבוק. ואיזהו תושב, זה נרצע שהוא קנוי לו עד היובל, ואיזהו שכיר, זה קנוי קנין שנים, שיוצא בשש, בא הכתוב ולמדך כאן שאין גופו קנוי לאדוניו לאכול בתרומתו:
11And if a kohen acquires a person, an acquisition through his money, he may eat of it, and those born in his house they may eat of his food. יאוְכֹהֵן כִּי יִקְנֶה נֶפֶשׁ קִנְיַן כַּסְפּוֹ הוּא יֹאכַל בּוֹ וִילִיד בֵּיתוֹ הֵם יֹאכְלוּ בְלַחְמוֹ:
And if a kohen acquires a person: [This refers to] a Canaanite slave, whose body is acquired [by his master and may therefore eat from his master’s terumah]. וכהן כי יקנה נפש: עבד כנעני שקנוי לגופו:
and those born in his house: These are the children of the [non-Jewish] maidservants [who are the property of the master]. We learn also from this verse here that a kohen’s wife may eat terumah, since she too, is considered “an acquisition through his money” [for the Jewish marriage is technically attained through the acquisition of a woman by a man by giving her money or an object worth money, such as a ring] (see Keth. 57b). However, we learn other [cases, namely, about a kohen’s wife who had been acquired through other means, e.g., by contract or cohabitation,] from another verse in Scripture “Anyone who is clean in your household [may eat it]” (Num. 18:11) [the above being expounded] in [Sifrei 18:29; see Levush Haorah also Gur Aryeh.] ויליד ביתו: אלו בני השפחות. ואשת כהן אוכלת בתרומה מן המקרא הזה, שאף היא קנין כספו. ועוד למד ממקרא אחר (במדבר יח יא) כל טהור בביתך וגו' בספרי:
12And if a kohen's daughter is married to a non kohen, she may [no longer] eat of the separated holy things. יבוּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר הִוא בִּתְרוּמַת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לֹא תֹאכֵל:
married to a non-kohen: אִישׁ זָר [lit., “an alien man,” here, in the context of kehunah , this means] to a Levite or an Israelite. — [Torath Kohanim 22:92] לאיש זר: ללוי ולישראל:
13But if the kohen's daughter becomes widowed or divorced, and she has no offspring she may return to her father's household as in her youth [and] eat of her father's food, but no non kohen may eat of it. יגוּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה וְזֶרַע אֵין לָהּ וְשָׁבָה אֶל בֵּית אָבִיהָ כִּנְעוּרֶיהָ מִלֶּחֶם אָבִיהָ תֹּאכֵל וְכָל זָר לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ:
[But if the kohen’s daughter] becomes widowed or divorced: from her non- kohen husband. אלמנה וגרושה: מן האיש הזר:
and she has no offspring: from him. וזרע אין לה: ממנו:
she may return [to her father’s household…(and) eat of her father’s food]: But, if she does have offspring from her non- kohen husband, she is prohibited to eat terumah as long as the offspring is alive. — [Yev. 87a-b] ושבה: הא אם יש לה זרע ממנו אסורה בתרומה כל זמן שהזרע קיים:
But no non-kohen may eat of it: [This seemingly superfluous phrase] is stated only to exclude an onen [kohen, i.e., one whose relative has died on that day,] who is permitted [to eat] terumah. [see Rashi 21:12 above] [It is as if Scripture is saying here:] “I said that only a non- kohen(זָר) [is prohibited to eat terumah]-but not an onen .” [Yev. 68b] וכל זר לא יאכל בו: לא בא אלא להוציא את האונן שמותר בתרומה. זרות אמרתי לך, ולא אנינות:
14And if a man unintentionally eats what is holy, he shall add a fifth of it to it and give the kohen the holy thing. ידוְאִישׁ כִּי יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה וְיָסַף חֲמִשִׁיתוֹ עָלָיו וְנָתַן לַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ:
And if [a man] eats that which is holy: [This refers to] terumah . כי יאכל קדש: תרומה:
and give the kohen the holy thing: something that is fit to become holy. He shall not pay him money, but non-consecrated fruits, which in turn become [consecrated as] terumah . — [Pes. 32a] ונתן לכהן את הקדש: דבר הראוי להיות קדש, שאינו פורע לו מעות אלא פירות של חולין, והן נעשין תרומה:
15And they shall not desecrate the holy things of the children of Israel, those that they have set aside for the Lord, טווְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קָדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵת אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ לַיהֹוָה:
And they shall not desecrate [the holy things of the children of Israel]:By allowing non- kohanim to eat of them. [see next Rashi] ולא יחללו וגו': להאכילם לזרים:
16thereby bringing upon themselves to bear iniquity and guilt, when they eat their holy things, for I am the Lord Who sanctifies them. טזוְהִשִּׂיאוּ אוֹתָם עֲוֹן אַשְׁמָה בְּאָכְלָם אֶת קָדְשֵׁיהֶם כִּי אֲנִי יְהֹוָה מְקַדְּשָׁם:
thereby bringing upon themselves to bear-: [lit., “And they will cause them to bear (iniquity and guilt).”] They will cause themselves to bear iniquity when they [the non- kohanim] eat their holy things which were set aside for terumah , and were consecrated and consequently prohibited for them. Onkelos, however, who rendered: when they eat in uncleanness, unnecessarily rendered in this manner [because the verse deals with giving the terumah to non- kohanim, not with eating it in an unclean state]. והשיאו אותם: את עצמם יטענו עון באכלם את קדשיהם, שהובדלו לשם תרומה וקדשו ונאסרו עליהם. ואונקלוס שתרגם במיכלהון בסואבא, שלא לצורך תרגמו כן:
thereby bringing upon themselves to bear: Heb. וְהִשִּׂיאוּ אוֹתָם. This is one of the three instances in Scripture of אֶת [normally referring to a third party “him,” “them” etc.], which are expounded by Rabbi Ishmael to mean that the Torah is speaking of the persons themselves [i.e., the verb is reflexive]. Similarly, [the other two examples are]: יָבִיא אֹתוֹ בְּיוֹם מלֹאת יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ [lit., “On the day when his abstinence is completed, he shall bring him”] (Num. 6:13)- [meaning] that he should bring himself. Likewise, וַיִּקְבֹּר אוֹתוֹ בַגַּי [lit., “And he buried him in the valley” (Deut. 34:6), meaning that] Moses buried himself (see Rashi there). Thus is it expounded in Sifrei (Bamidbar 6:124). והשיאו אותם: זה אחד משלשה אתים שהיה רבי ישמעאל דורש בתורה שמדברים באדם עצמו, וכן (במדבר ו יג) ביום מלאת ימי נזרו יביא אותו, הוא יביא את עצמו. וכן (דברים לד ו) ויקבור אותו בגיא, הוא קבר את עצמו, כך נדרש בספרי:
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 77 - 78
• Chapter 77
1. For the Conductor, on the yedutun,1 by Asaph, a psalm.
2. [I raise] my voice to God and cry out; [I raise] my voice to God and He will listen to me.
3. On the day of my distress I sought my Lord. My wound oozes at night and does not abate; my soul refuses to be consoled.
4. I remember God and I moan; I speak and my spirit faints, Selah.
5. You grasped my eyelids; I am broken, I cannot speak.
6. I think of olden days, of ancient years.
7. During the night I recall my music, I meditate with my heart, and my spirit searches:
8. Is it for eternity that my Lord forsakes [me], nevermore to be appeased?
9. Has His kindness ceased forever? Has He sealed the decree for all generations?
10. Has God forgotten mercy? Has He in anger restrained His compassion forever?
11. I said, "It is to ter- rify me that the right hand of the Most High changes.”
12. I remember the deeds of Yah, when I remember Your wonders of long ago.
13. I meditate on all Your works, and speak of Your deeds.
14. O God, Your way is in sanctity; what god is as great as God?
15. You are the God Who works wonders; You make Your might known among the nations.
16. You redeemed Your people with a mighty arm, the children of Jacob and Joseph, Selah.
17. The waters2 saw You, O God, the waters saw You and trembled; even the deep shuddered.
18. The clouds streamed water, the heavens sounded forth, even Your arrows flew about.
19. The sound of Your thunder was in the rolling wind; lightning lit up the world; the earth trembled and quaked.
20. Your way was through the sea, Your path through the mighty waters; and Your footsteps were not known.3
21. You led Your people like a flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron
Chapter 78
This psalm recounts all the miracles that God wrought for Israel, from the exodus of Egypt to David's becoming king over Israel.
1. A maskil1 by Asaph. Listen, my people, to my teaching; incline your ear to the words of my mouth.
2. I will open my mouth with a parable, I will utter riddles of long ago;
3. that which we have heard and know [to be true], and that our fathers have told us.
4. We will not withhold from their children, telling the final generation the praises of the Lord, and His might, and the wonders He has performed.
5. He established a testimony in Jacob, and set down the Torah in Israel, which He commanded our fathers to make known to their children,
6. so that the last generation shall know; children yet to be born will rise and tell their children,
7. and they shall put their hope in God, and not forget the works of the Almighty; and they shall guard His commandments.
8. And they shall not be like their fathers, a wayward and rebellious generation, a generation that did not set its heart straight, and whose spirit was not faithful to God.
9. The children of Ephraim, armed archers, retreated on the day of battle.2
10. They did not keep the covenant of God, and refused to follow His Torah.
11. They forgot His deeds and His wonders that He had shown them.
12. He performed wonders before their fathers, in the land of Egypt, in the field of Zoan.3
13. He split the sea and brought them across; He erected the waters like a wall.
14. He led them with a cloud by day, and all night long with the light of fire.
15. He split rocks in the wilderness, and gave them to drink as if from the abundant depths.
16. And He brought forth flowing waters from the rock, and caused waters to descend like rivers.
17. Yet they again continued to sin against Him, to provoke the Most High in the parched land.
18. And they tested God in their hearts, by requesting food for their craving.
19. They spoke against God; they said, "Can God set a table in the wilderness?
20. True, He hit the rock and waters flowed, streams gushed forth; but can He also give bread? Will He prepare meat for His people?”
21. And so the Lord heard and was enraged; a fire was kindled against Jacob; wrath, too, flared against Israel.
22. For they did not believe in God and did not trust in His salvation,
23. [though] He had commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven.
24. He had rained upon them manna to eat, and given them grain of heaven.
25. Man ate the bread of angels; He sent them [enough] provisions to satiate.
26. He drove the east wind through the heaven, and led the south wind with His might.
27. He rained meat upon them like dust, winged birds like the sand of seas;
28. and He dropped them inside His camp, around His dwellings.
29. And they ate and were very satiated, for He brought them their desire.
30. They were not yet estranged from their craving, their food was still in their mouths,
31. when the wrath of God rose against them and slew their mighty ones, and brought down the chosen of Israel.
32. Despite this, they sinned again, and did not believe in His wonders;
33. so He ended their days in futility, and their years in terror.
34. When He slew them they would seek Him, they would return and pray to God.
35. They remembered that God is their rock, God the Most High, their redeemer.
36. But they beguiled Him with their mouth, and deceived Him with their tongue.
37. Their heart was not steadfast with Him; they were not faithful to His covenant.
38. Yet He is compassionate, pardons iniquity, and does not destroy; time and again He turns away His anger, and does not arouse all His wrath.
39. He remembered that they were but flesh, a spirit that leaves and does not return.
40. How often they provoked Him in the desert, and grieved Him in the wasteland!
41. Again and again they tested God, and sought a sign from the Holy One of Israel.
42. They did not remember His hand, the day He redeemed them from the oppressor;
43. that He set His signs in Egypt, and His wonders in the field of Zoan.
44. He turned their rivers to blood, and made their flowing waters undrinkable.
45. He sent against them a mixture of beasts which devoured them, and frogs that destroyed them.
46. He gave their produce to the grasshopper, and their toil to the locust.
47. He killed their vines with hail, and their sycamores with biting frost.
48. He delivered their animals to the hail, and their livestock to fiery bolts.
49. He sent against them His fierce anger, fury, rage, and affliction; a delegation of messengers of evil.
50. He leveled a path for His anger, and did not spare their soul from death; He delivered their animals to pestilence.
51. He struck every firstborn in Egypt, the first fruit of their strength in the tents of Ham.4
52. He drove His nation like sheep, and guided them like a flock in the desert.
53. He led them in security and they did not fear, for the sea covered their enemies.
54. And He brought them to the boundary of His holy place, this mountain which His right hand acquired.
55. He drove out nations before them, and allotted them an inheritance [measured] by the cord; He settled the tribes of Israel in their tents.
56. Yet they tested and defied God, the Most High, and did not keep His testimonies.
57. They regressed and rebelled like their fathers; they turned around like a deceptive bow.
58. They angered Him with their high altars, and provoked Him with their idols.
59. God heard and was enraged, and He was utterly disgusted with Israel;
60. And He abandoned the Tabernacle of Shilo, the Tent where He had dwelled among men.
61. He put His might into captivity, and His glory into the hand of the oppressor.
62. He delivered His nation to the sword, and was enraged with His inheritance.
63. Fire consumed His young men, and His maidens had no marriage song.
64. His priests fell by the sword, and their widows did not weep.5
65. And the Lord awoke like one who had been asleep, like a warrior shouting [to sober himself] from wine.
66. He beat His enemies into retreat, and dealt them eternal disgrace.
67. He was disgusted with the tent of Joseph, and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim.
68. He chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion which He loves.
69. And He built His Sanctuary [permanent as] the heavens; like the earth, He established it forever.
70. And He chose David His servant, and took him from the sheep corrals.
71. From following the nursing ewes, He brought Him to shepherd His nation Jacob, Israel His inheritance.
72. And he tended them with the integrity of his heart, and led them with the skill of his hands.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 48• Lessons in Tanya
• Monday, Iyar 15, 5775 · May 4, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 48
והנה, פרטיות הצמצומים איך ומה, אין כאן מקום ביאורם
Now, as for the intricate details of the “contractions”, how they achieve their effect and what they actually are, — this is not the place for their explanation.
אך דרך כלל הן הם בחינת הסתר והעלם המשכת האור והחיות
But in general they are something in the nature of an obscuring and concealment of the flow of light and vitality,
שלא יאיר ויומשך לתחתונים בבחינת גילוי, להתלבש ולהשפיע בהן ולהחיותם להיות יש מאין
so that [the light and vitality] should illumine and reach the lower creatures in a revealed manner, pervading them and acting in them and animating them in such a way that they exist ex nihilo
כי אם מעט מזעיר אור וחיות, בכדי שיהיו בבחינת גבול ותכלית
in only an extremely minute measure, so that they be in a state of finitude and limitation.
Were their life-force to be revealed within them they would be infinite. “Contraction” ensures that the light and vitality which is their life-force remains concealed from them; all that is revealed is but a minute degree of light and vitality.
שהיא הארה מועטת מאד, וממש כלא חשיבי לגבי בחינת הארה בלי גבול ותכלית, ואין ביניהם ערך ויחס כלל
This light and vitality that is revealed within them after the “contraction” constitutes an infinitesimal illumination, and is truly considered as naught when compared with the quality of the limitless and infinite illumination, and there is no reference or relationship between them,
I.e., they are not quantitatively different, not even immensely different in quantity, but of a wholly different and incomparable quality.
כנודע פירוש מלת ערך במספרים, שאחד במספר יש לו ערך לגבי מספר אלף אלפים, שהוא חלק אחד מני אלף אלפים
as the term “reference” is understood in number values, where the number one has a relevancy to the number one million, for it is a one-millionth part of it;
The sum of one million is merely the sum of one million ones; subtract but one and the million ceases to exist — a clear demonstration of the relation that subsists between one and a million.
אבל לגבי דבר שהוא בבחינת בלי גבול ומספר כלל, אין כנגדו שום ערך במספרים
but as regards a thing which transcends finitude and numeration, there is no number — however great — that can be relative to it,
שאפילו אלף אלפי אלפים ורבוא רבבות אינן אפילו כערך מספר אחד לגבי אלף אלפי אלפים ורבוא רבבות
for a billion and a trillion1 when compared to infinity do not even attain the relevancy of the value of one in comparison with a billion or a trillion,
אלא כלא ממש חשיבי
For the sum of one retains some degree of relevance even when compared to a trillion — it is, in fact, one trillionth of it — while even a sum as large a trillion has no relevance at all when compared to the realm of the infinite, but is veritably accounted as nothing.
וככה ממש היא בחינת ההארה מועטת זו, המתלבשת בעולמות עליונים ותחתונים, להשפיע בהם להחיותם
So, indeed, is the utterly insignificant quality of this minute illumination — after the “contraction” — which clothes itself in the higher and lower worlds in order to provide them with sustenance and life,
לגבי אור הגנוז ונעלם, שהוא בבחינת אין סוף
when compared with the quality of the hidden and concealed light that is of an infinite order,
ואינו מתלבש ומשפיע בעולמות בבחינת גילוי להחיותם, אלא מקיף עליהם מלמעלה, ונקרא סובב כל עלמין
and does not clothe itself or exercise its influence in the worlds in a revealed manner, providing them with life, but encompasses them from above — i.e., it exerts its influence while remaining on its own level — and is called sovev kol almin(lit., “encompassing all worlds”).
Unlike the light that pervades all worlds (memale kol almin), which permeates and vests itself within them (just as the soul vests itself in the body), the encompassing light remains aloof from the worlds.
ואין הפירוש סובב ומקיף מלמעלה בבחינת מקום, חס ושלום, כי לא שייך כלל בחינת מקום ברוחניות
The meaning of this is not that it encircles and encompasses from above spatially, G‑d forbid, for in spiritual matters the category of space is in no way applicable,
Physical objects are spatial; they may be said to be found in one place or the other. Spirituality, however, is non-spatial; the terms “encompassing” and “encircling” are never to be understood in their literal, physical sense,
אלא רוצה לומר: סובב ומקיף מלמעלה לענין בחינת גילוי השפעה
but the meaning is that it “encircles and encompasses from above” insofar as the revelation of this influence is concerned,
כי ההשפעה שהיא בבחינת גילוי בעולמות נקראת בשם הלבשה, שמתלבשת בעולמות, כי הם מלבישים ומשיגים ההשפעה שמקבלים
for influence which is in the category of “revelation” in the worlds is referred to as “investiture”, being “clothed” within the worlds, for the influence that they receive is clothed and comprehended by them, i.e., they are able to comprehend and internalize it,
מה שאין כן ההשפעה שאינה בבחינת גילוי אלא בהסתר והעלם, ואין העולמות משיגים אותה, אינה נקראת מתלבשת, אלא מקפת וסובבת
whereas the influence which does not come within the category of “revelation”, but remains obscured and concealed, and is not apprehended by the worlds, is not described as being “invested” in them but as “encircling and encompassing” [them].
הלכך, מאחר שהעולמות הם בבחינת גבול ותכלית, נמצא שאין השפעת אור אין סוף מתלבשת ומתגלה בהם בבחינת גילוי, רק מעט מזער הארה מועטת מצומצמת מאד מאד
Therefore, since the worlds belong in the order of the finite and limited, it follows that only an extremely minute and contracted reflection of the flow of the [infinite] light of the blessed Ein Sof clothes and manifests itself in them in a revealed form,
והיא רק כדי להחיותם בבחינת גבול ותכלית
and this, only to animate them in a finite and revealed state.
In order for creation to come about there must necessarily be at least some glimmer of G‑dly illumination, albeit in an extremely limited form, for this enables creation to be finite and bounded.
אבל עיקר האור בלי צמצום כל כך נקרא מקיף וסובב, מאחר שאין השפעתו מתגלית בתוכם, מאחר שהם בבחינת גבול ותכלית
But the principal light that is without contraction to such an extent is calledmakkif (“encircler”) and sovev (“encompasser”), since its influence is not revealed within [the worlds], inasmuch as they belong in the order of the finite and the limited.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | “Text of Nishmat; Sifrei, beginning of Parshat Vaetchanan.” (— Note of the Rebbe.) It would seem that the Rebbe here explains why the Alter Rebbe specifically chose to mention these two numbers: they are cited in the prayer beginning “Nishmat...,” in accordance with the passage in Sifrei indicated above. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
Monday, Iyar 15, 5775 · May 4, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 133
The Dough Offering ("Challah")
"You shall offer up a cake of the first of your dough as a gift"—Numbers 15:20.
We are commanded to separate a portion of every dough we prepare and give it to the priest.
The Dough Offering ("Challah")
The Dough Offering ("Challah")
Positive Commandment 133
Translated by Berel Bell
The 133rd mitzvah is that we are commanded to separate challah from each dough and to give it to a kohen.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "You must separate the first portion of your kneading as challah [a dough offering]."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractates Challah and Orlah. It is a Biblical commandment only in Eretz Yisroel.2
FOOTNOTES
1.Num. 15:20.
2.Outside Eretz Yisroel it is obligatory by Rabbinic decree.
Positive Commandment 143
The Priestly Portion of Meat
"And this shall be the priests' due from the people, from those who perform a slaughter, be it an ox or a sheep"—Deuteronomy 18:3.
We are commanded to give to the priest the foreleg, jaw, and belly of any kosher animal that we slaughter.
The Priestly Portion of Meat
The Priestly Portion of Meat
Positive Commandment 143
Translated by Berel Bell
The 143rd mitzvah is that we are commanded to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the keivah1 from every kosher animal that we slaughter to a kohen.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "This shall be the law of what the Kohanim receive from the people when an animal is slaughtered: [whether ox or sheep you must give the Kohen the foreleg, the jaw, and the keivah]."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 10th chapter of tractate Chullin. Levites are not obligated in this mitzvah.3
FOOTNOTES
1.One of the cow's four stomachs.
2.Deut. 18:3.
3.Since the verse says, "from the people." See Chullin 131a.
Positive Commandment 144
The Priestly Portion of Fleece
"The first of the fleece of your sheep [shearing], you shall give him"—Deuteronomy 18:4.
We are commanded to separate the first portion of [a sheep's] shearing and give it to the priest.
This mitzvah applies only in the Land of Israel.
The Priestly Portion of Fleece
Positive Commandment 144
Translated by Berel Bell
The 144th mitzvah is that we are commanded to separate the first of our shearings and give them to a kohen.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "You shall give him the first of your shearing."
This itzvah applies only in Eretz Yisroel.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 11th chapter of tractate Chullin.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid. 18:4.
Eruvin - Chapter Three
Halacha 1
[The following rules apply when] there is a window between two courtyards: If the window is four handbreadths by four handbreadths1 or larger and it is within ten handbreadths of the ground - whether it is [almost] entirely above ten handbreadths and only a [small] portion is within ten handbreadths, or it is [almost] entirely within ten handbreadths and only a [small] portion is above ten handbreadths - [an option is granted to] the inhabitants of the courtyards.2
If they desire to join in a single eruv, they may. This causes [the entire area] to be considered a single courtyard, and carrying is permitted from one [courtyard] to the other.3 If they desire, they may make two eruvim, each for [the inhabitants of their respective courtyards]. [It is then forbidden] to carry from one courtyard to the other.]
If the windows are smaller than four [handbreadths by four handbreadths] or the entire window is above ten handbreadths from the ground,4 they may make two eruvim, each for [the inhabitants of the respective courtyard].
Halacha 2
When does the above apply? To a window between two courtyards. When, by contrast, the window lies between two houses,5 [they are permitted to make aneruv] even if the window is above ten handbreadths from the ground.6
Similarly, when there is a window between a house and a loft, if the inhabitants desire to establish a single eruv they may, even if there is not a ladder [leading to the window], provided [the window] is four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths]. If the window is round and it can circumscribe a square that is four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths], it is considered as if it were square.
Halacha 3
When there is a wall or a mound of hay that is less than ten handbreadths high7between two courtyards, they must make a single eruv and may not make twoeruvim. If [the wall or the mound] is ten or more handbreadths high, they must make two eruvim, each for the respective courtyard.
If there is a ladder8 on either side of the wall,9 it is considered to be an entrance, and if they desire, they may establish a single eruv. Even if the ladder is standing upright, next to the wall, and it is impossible to ascend it without moving its lower portion away from the wall, it permits [them to participate in a single eruv]. [Moreover,] even if the top of the ladder does not reach the top of the wall, if there are less than three handbreadths between them,10 it permits them to participate in a single eruv if they desire.
Halacha 4
If the wall is four [handbreadths] wide and a ladder is positioned on either side of the wall, they may make a single eruv, if they desire.11 If the wall is not four [handbreadths] wide, and there are less than three handbreadths between the [two] ladders, they may make a single eruv.12 If there are more than three handbreadths between [the ladders], they must make two eruvim.13
Halacha 5
[The following rules apply when] one builds a bench14 above a bench at the side of a wall [separating two courtyards]: If the lower bench is four handbreadths [high], [we consider it as if the height of the wall] were reduced.15If the lower [bench] is not four handbreadths [high], but there are less than three handbreadths between it and the upper [bench], [we consider it as if the height of the wall] were reduced.
[In such situations,] if [the inhabitants of the courtyards] desire, they may make a single eruv. Similar [principles apply] regarding wooden steps placed close to a wall.
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply when] there is a high wall separating two courtyards, and a projection16 protrudes from the middle of the wall: If less than ten cubits remain from the projection to the top of the wall, one may lean a ladder in front of the projection,17 and [this grants the inhabitants] the option of making a single eruv. If, however, one stands the ladder [against the wall] at the side of the projection, [we do] not [consider it as if the height of the wall were] reduced.18
If the wall is nineteen handbreadths high, [it is sufficient] to have a projection protrude for the inhabitants to have the option of making a single eruv. For there are less than ten handbreadths from the earth to the projection, and less than ten handbreadths from the projection to the top of the wall.19
Were the wall to be twenty handbreadths high, two projections are required for the inhabitants to have the option of establishing a single eruv. [Moreover, the projections] may not be parallel to each other:20 [In this way,] there will be less than ten handbreadths between the lower projection and the ground, and less than ten handbreadths between the upper projection and the top of the wall.
Halacha 7
If a date palm is chopped down and inclined from the earth to the top of a wall, the inhabitants have the option of establishing a single eruv.21 It is not necessary for them to make it a permanent part of the structure. Similarly, the [very] weight of a ladder22 causes it to be considered as having been placed permanently; it is not necessary to affix it to the structure.
If [the divider] separating two courtyards is made of straw,23 [the inhabitants] may not make a single eruv although there are ladders on either side. A person will not ascend the ladder, because nothing is supporting it.24 If the ladders are in the center, [leaning on a firm support,] and there is straw on either side, [the inhabitants] have the option of making two eruvim.25
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
[The following rules apply when] a wall is ten handbreadths high, and [the inhabitants] desire [to tear down a portion of the wall] to reduce itsheight so that they will be able to establish a single eruv. They have the option of establishing a single eruv, provided the portion whose height they reduce is [at least] four handbreadths long.30
If [the inhabitants of one of the adjoining courtyards] tear down a portion [of their side] of the wall so that it is less than ten [handbreadths high], they are granted [permission to use] the shorter portion of the wall.31 The remainder of the wall that is high is divided between [the inhabitants of] both courtyards.
Halacha 10
[The following rules apply when] a high wall between [two] courtyards is breached: If the breach is ten cubits [wide] or less, they [still may] establish twoeruvin.32 They do, however, have the option of establishing a single eruv, because [the breach] can be considered to be an opening. If [the breach] is more than ten [cubits wide], their only option is to establish a single eruv; they may not establish two eruvin.33
Halacha 11
If the breach is less than ten [cubits wide], and one [desires to] make it more than ten cubits, it is necessary to hollow out34a portion of the wall ten handbreadths high.35 [When this is done, the only option remaining is to] establish a single eruv.
At the outset, if one desires to open a breach larger than ten [cubits] in the wall, it is necessary that the height of the breach be equivalent to that of [an ordinary] person.36
Halacha 12
When there is a trench at least ten handbreadths deep and at least four handbreadths wide between two courtyards, it is necessary for [the inhabitants] to establish two eruvin.37 If its dimensions are less than this, [the inhabitants] must establish a single eruv; [they] do not [have the option of] establishing twoeruvin.38
If the depth of the trench is reduced by [adding] earth or pebbles, [the inhabitants] must establish a single eruv; [they] do not [have the option of] establishing two eruvin.39 For it can be assumed that the earth and the stones were intended to become a permanent part of the trench.40 If, by contrast, one reduced [the depth of the trench] by adding straw or hay, the reduction is not [significant] unless one intends41 that they become a permanent part [of the trench].
Halacha 13
Similarly, if one reduces the width [of the trench] with a board or with reeds42 by placing them across the entire length of the trench, [the inhabitants] must establish a single eruv; [they] do not [have the option of] establishing twoeruvin.
Any entity that may be carried on the Sabbath43 - e.g., a basket or a cup - is not considered to reduce its depth, unless one affixes it to the earth [firmly], in such a manner that one must dig with a spade to dislodge it.
Halacha 14
When one places a board that is [at least] four handbreadths wide across the trench, [the board is considered to be an entrance]. [Therefore, the inhabitants] may establish a single eruv. They also have the option of establishing twoeruvin.
Similar [rules apply when] two balconies are positioned opposite each other [across the public domain], and a board is extended from one balcony to the other.44 [The inhabitants] may establish a single eruv. They also have the option of establishing two eruvin, each one for his own balcony.
If the two balconies are on the same side [of the public domain], but are not at the same height - instead, one is higher than the other [the following rules apply]: If they are within three handbreadths of each other, they are considered to be a single balcony45 and [the inhabitants] may establish only a single eruv. If they are more than three [handbreadths] apart, they must establish twoeruvin,46 each one for his own balcony.
Halacha 15
[The following rule applies when] between two courtyards, there is a wall four handbreadths wide,47 which is ten handbreadths high from one courtyard, and at ground level48 at the second courtyard: The width of the wall is granted to the inhabitants of the courtyard at which it is at ground level, and it is considered to be an extension of their courtyard. [The rationale is] that since it is easily accessible to the inhabitants [of this courtyard], and more difficult to use for [the inhabitants of the other], it is granted to those for whom it is easily accessible.
Similarly, if there is a trench between the two courtyards that is ten handbreadths deep for the courtyard on one side and at ground level for the courtyard on the other side, the width of the trench is granted to the inhabitants of the courtyard at which it is at ground level. [The rationale is] that since it is easily accessible to the inhabitants [of this courtyard], and more difficult to use for [the inhabitants of the other], it is granted to those for whom it is easily accessible.
Halacha 16
[The following rules apply when] there is a wall between two courtyards that is lower than the upper courtyard, but higher than the lower courtyard:49 [During the week,] the inhabitants of the upper courtyard may make use of the breadth of the wall by lowering articles to it, and the inhabitants of the lower courtyard may make use of it by throwing articles onto it.
On the Sabbath, the inhabitants of both courtyards are forbidden to use the wall unless they establish a single eruv. If they do not establish an eruv, it is forbidden to bring articles that were left on the breadth of this wall into the homes,50 nor may one bring articles from the homes to the breadth of the wall.
Halacha 17
[The following rules apply when there is] a ruin that is a private domain between two houses: If [the inhabitants of] both houses can use the ruin by throwing objects into it,51 each one causes the other to be forbidden to use it [unless they establish an eruv].
If it is easy for [the inhabitants of] one [of the houses] to use [the ruin], while [the inhabitants of] the other may not throw articles into it [easily], because it is deeper than [their domain], it is granted to those who can use it [more] easily.52They may use it by throwing articles into it.
Halacha 18
All the following are considered to be [parts of] a single private domain:53 all the roofs of the city - despite the fact that some are high and some are low - all the courtyards, all the enclosures that were enclosed for purposes other than dwelling and are each less in area than that required to sow two se'ah,54 the breadths of all the walls, and all the lanes [in which one may carry because] either a post or a beam has been erected.
One may carry articles left in one [of these areas] at the commencement of the Sabbath to another without an eruv. One may not, however, transfer articles left in the homes to these areas unless an eruv is made.
Halacha 19
What is implied? When an article was left in a courtyard at the commencement of the Sabbath, whether the inhabitants of the courtyards established an eruvfor themselves or whether they failed to do so, it is permitted to take the article from the courtyard to the roof or to the top of the wall. Afterwards, it may be taken from the roof to another roof adjacent to it, even if [the second roof] is higher or lower than it.
From the second roof, it may be taken to another courtyard, and from the other courtyard to a third roof in a third courtyard. From this courtyard, it may be taken to a lane, and from the lane to a fourth roof. Indeed, one may carry throughout the entire city through the courtyards and roofs, through the enclosed areas and roofs, or through the courtyards and the enclosed areas, or through [any combination] of these three types of areas, provided one does not bring this article into any of the houses [in the city].55 [The latter is forbidden] unless all [the inhabitants of] these different areas join together in a single eruv.
Halacha 20
[Conversely,] if an article was located in a house at the beginning of the Sabbath, and it was later taken out to a courtyard,56 it may not be taken to another courtyard, to another roof, to the top of a wall, or to an enclosed area unless the inhabitants of all the areas through which the article passes join together in a single eruv.
Halacha 21
When a cistern is located between two courtyards,57 it is forbidden to draw water from it on the Sabbath unless a partition ten handbreadths high has been erected58 so that everyone would be drawing water from his own property.
Where should the partition be erected? If the partition is above the water, it is necessary that at least one handbreadth of the partition descend into the water.59 If the partition was constructed within the water, it must project a handbreadth outside the water, so that one domain will be distinct from the other.
Halacha 22
Similarly, if a beam four handbreadths wide60 has been placed over the mouth of the cistern, one may fill [his bucket] from this side of the beam, and the other may fill [his bucket] from the other side of the beam. Although the water is not divided below [the beam], it is considered as if one portion [of the cistern] were separated from the other. This is a leniency enacted by the Sages with regard to water.
Halacha 23
When a well lies in the midst of a path61 between the walls of two courtyards, [the inhabitants of] both courtyards may draw water from it; there is no necessity for them to extend projections to the well.62 [This ruling applies] even though the well is more than four handbreadths from each of the walls. [The rationale is] that [the presence of] a colleague's [domain] does not cause a person to be forbidden to carry [when he is lifting an entity] through the air.63
Halacha 24
[The following rules apply when the wall of] a small courtyard is broken down, opening [the courtyard] entirely to a large courtyard before the commencement of the Sabbath:64 The inhabitants of the large courtyard may establish an eruvfor themselves and they are permitted to carry, for portions of their wall still remain [standing] on each side.65
The inhabitants of the small courtyard, by contrast, are forbidden to remove articles from their homes to the courtyard until they establish a single eruvtogether with the inhabitants of the larger courtyard. [The governing principle is that] the dwellings of the larger courtyard are considered to be [part of] the smaller courtyard, while the dwellings of the smaller courtyard are not considered to be [part of] the larger courtyard.66
Halacha 25
When two courtyards have established a single eruv together through a shared opening or window, and that opening or window was closed on the Sabbath,67[the inhabitants of] each of the courtyards may carry within [their own courtyard].68 Since [carrying] was permitted for a portion of the Sabbath, it is permitted for the entire Sabbath.
Similarly, if [the inhabitants of] two courtyards have each established a separateeruv and the wall between them fell on the Sabbath, [the inhabitants of each courtyard] are still permitted [to carry] within their original area.69 They may each take articles from their homes and carry them to the point where they could originally.
[The rationale is that] since [carrying] was permitted for a portion of the Sabbath, it is permitted for the entire Sabbath.70 Although the number of people [within the courtyard] was increased, an increase of people on the Sabbath itself does not cause carrying to be forbidden.
[In the instance mentioned in the first clause, if after the opening or window was closed on the Sabbath,]71 the window was opened inadvertently, or an entrance was made, or gentiles made [an opening] on their own volition, it is again permitted [to carry from one to the other].
Similarly, if two ships were tied to each other and an eruv was established between them, it becomes forbidden to carry from one to the other if the connection between them is severed.72 [This ruling applies] even if they are surrounded by a partition. If the connection was reestablished inadvertently, it is again permitted [to carry from one to the other].
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
As reflected by the Rambam's ruling, Hilchot Tum'at Meit 7:1, this is the minimum size that a human being can squeeze through. For this reason, it is necessary that it be at least four handbreadths on each side; a total area of 16 square handbreadths is not sufficient (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 372:5; Mishnah Berurah 372:30). (See also the following halachah.)
|
| 2. |
Since the window is of sufficient size and it is close to the ground, the inhabitants of the courtyards are granted the option of considering it an entrance. If this option is taken, it causes the two courtyards to be considered a single entity.
|
| 3. |
The Mishnah Berurah 372:27 emphasizes that this ruling applies only when the courtyards did not join together in a shituf to permit carrying in the entire lane.
|
| 4. |
The window cannot be considered to be an entrance. Hence, the courtyards are considered to be separate.
|
| 5. |
This refers to an instance when an eruv was not established in the courtyard. Were that the case, it would be possible to transfer articles from house to house through the window, even without a separate eruv.
|
| 6. |
Eruvin 76b explains that a house is considered as if it is full, and thus it is as if there were less than ten handbreadths between the window and the ground.
|
| 7. |
A divider that is less than ten handbreadths high is not significant. Therefore, the entire area is considered to be a single domain, and all the inhabitants must join in one eruv.
|
| 8. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:8) states that the ladder must be at least four handbreadths wide and have four rungs. The commentaries question why the Rambam does not include these restrictions.
|
| 9. |
How close the ladders must be to each other is explained in the following halachah.
|
| 10. |
Based on the principle of l'vud, when there is a distance of less than three handbreadths between two entities, it is considered as though they were adjacent.
|
| 11. |
Since the wall is more than four handbreadths wide, it is possible to walk from one ladder to the other ladder on the wall.
|
| 12. |
Based on the principle of l'vud, it is considered as though the ladders were adjacent.
|
| 13. |
Because the ladders are distant from each other, the two courtyards are considered to be separate entities.
|
| 14. |
Our translation is based on Eruvin 77b, the apparent source for the halachah.
|
| 15. |
Since one can climb over the wall easily by ascending onto the bench, the wall is no longer considered an absolute division between the courtyards, and it is possible to establish an eruv, joining both courtyards.
This is the conception of the Rambam. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:9,11) follows the view of Rabbenu Asher which is more stringent and which maintains that a bench does not create the option of fusing the two courtyards into a single entity. The only leniency which is permitted is that the inhabitants of the courtyard where the bench is located may use the top of the wall.
|
| 16. |
The projection must be at least four handbreadths by four handbreadths (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 372:12).
|
| 17. |
In this way, the inhabitants can easily cross over the wall by climbing from the ground to the projection and from the projection to the top of the wall.
|
| 18. |
When the ladder is leaning on the projection, they are considered to be a single unit. When, by contrast, the ladder is leaning against the wall, even if it is in within three handbreadths of the projection, they are not considered to be a single unit (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 372:15; Mishnah Berurah 372:98-99).
|
| 19. |
Thus, they can climb over the wall easily in this fashion.
|
| 20. |
In this way, a ladder can be extended from one projection to another. Also, these projections must lie within ten handbreadths of each other. Thus, the people can climb from the earth to the first projection, from the first projection to the second, and from the second to the top of the wall.
In this instance as well, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:12) follows the view of Rabbenu Asher which is more stringent and which maintains that the projections do not create the option of fusing the two courtyards into a single entity. The only leniency which is permitted is that the inhabitants of the courtyard where the projections are located may use the top of the wall.
|
| 21. |
I.e., the date palm is considered to be a ladder, enabling people to climb across the wall.
|
| 22. |
The Maggid Mishneh notes that Eruvin 78a mentions a Babylonian ladder, for these ladders were large and heavy. The Maggid Mishneh explains that this concept is intimated by the Rambam's words "the [very] weight of the ladder...." These rules do not apply to a light ladder that is easily carried from place to place.
|
| 23. |
Our additions to the text are based on the commentary of the Meiri on Eruvin, loc. cit. A similar approach is also reflected in the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh on this halachah. Rashi offers a different interpretation of that Talmudic passage, and his understanding is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:13).
|
| 24. |
I.e., the straw divider will not support the weight of a person climbing on the ladder.
|
| 25. |
They also have the option of establishing a single eruv, if they so desire. Certain commentaries suggest amending the text of the Mishneh Torah to include this concept.
|
| 26. |
As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Shabbat 21:1, the Sages specified certain activities as forbidden as a safeguard to the observance of the Sabbath prohibitions. Each of the forbidden activities is referred to as a sh'vut. See also Hilchot Shabbat 21:6 which prohibits climbing trees.
|
| 27. |
For when a mitzvah is involved, we are not bound by the prohibitions in the category of sh'vutduring beyn hash'mashot (Hilchot Shabbat 24:10), and that is when the eruv takes effect (Chapter 1, Halachah 21). Since the eruv was acceptable beyn hash'mashot, it is acceptable for the entire Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 372:18).
|
| 28. |
A tree that is worshiped. The Torah prohibits deriving any benefit from such a tree. See Exodus 34:13; Deuteronomy 7:5 and 12:3; Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:3.
|
| 29. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:15) notes that Rabbenu Asher (in his gloss on Eruvin78b) reverses the rulings and permits the establishment of a single eruv if an asherah is used as a ladder, but not if an ordinary tree is used for that purpose. The later authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav, loc. cit.; Mishnah Berurah 372:116) favor the Rambam's interpretation.
|
| 30. |
If the portion of the wall that was torn down is at least four handbreadths wide, it can be considered to be an opening.
|
| 31. |
The interpretation of the passage in Eruvin 77a, the source for this halachah, is a matter of dispute among the commentaries. Our translation is based on the Lechem Mishneh's gloss on theMishneh Torah.
|
| 32. |
For the breach is not large enough to nullify the importance of the entire divider, provided the entire wall has not been destroyed.
|
| 33. |
An opening of that size causes the entire divider to be considered as having no significance. It is as if there were only one courtyard. (See Hilchot Shabbat 16:16.)
|
| 34. |
This represents the Rambam's interpretation of Eruvin 78b. The Ra'avad and others conceive of this passage in a different light. It is their view that is cited in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim372:14).
|
| 35. |
This is sufficient, even though there is a portion of the wall that is higher than ten handbreadths.
|
| 36. |
Our translation is based on the commentary of the Maggid Mishneh. Others explain this to mean the full height of the wall.
Making a breach of this height indicates that one desires to pass freely from one courtyard to another. If the breach is not this high, one might think that the opening was made solely for the purpose of transferring articles (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 37. |
For a trench of this size is not easy to cross and hence is considered to be a divider, and each of the courtyards a distinct entity. (See Hilchot Shabbat 14:23.)
|
| 38. |
A trench of this size can be crossed easily. Therefore, the entire area is considered to be a single courtyard.
|
| 39. |
This refers to a situation in which the depth of the trench is reduced across its entire length. If one reduces the portion in one area alone, that portion is considered to be an entrance from one courtyard to the other, and the inhabitants have the option of establishing either one or two eruvin(Mishnah Berurah 372:122).
|
| 40. |
Inside a dwelling, by contrast, different concepts apply. (See Hilchot Sukkah 4:13. Note, however,Hilchot Tum'at Meit 7:6.)
|
| 41. |
According to Shulchan Aruch HaRav 372:19, one must make an explicit statement, specifying one's intent. The Mishnah Berurah 372:121 cites that view, but also quotes an opinion that maintains that it is sufficient to have such thoughts in one's heart.
|
| 42. |
The width of the board or the reeds themselves is not significant; what is important is that they cause the width of the trench to be reduced (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 43. |
I.e., which is not forbidden to be carried, because of the prohibitions of muktzeh.
|
| 44. |
Based on the rulings of the Rashba, the Maggid Mishneh states that the same rules apply if there are less than four handbreadths between the two balconies, for it is easy to step from one balcony to the other as mentioned in Halachah 12. The Maggid Mishneh allows only one eruv to be established. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 373:1) gives the people the option of establishing one or two.
|
| 45. |
Because of the principle of l'vud.
|
| 46. |
They do not have the option of extending a board from one balcony to the other, because: a) as stated in Hilchot Shabbat 16:20, an entrance is not made in a corner; b) since the balconies are at different heights, a person will be afraid to walk from one to the other.
|
| 47. |
If it is less than four handbreadths wide, it is a makom patur, and may be used freely by the inhabitants of both courtyards, as stated in Hilchot Shabbat 14:7.
|
| 48. |
Rashi (Eruvin 77a), the Maggid Mishneh, and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:6) explain that this does not mean precisely ground level, but rather less than ten handbreadths high. Similar concepts apply regarding the trench mentioned in the second clause of the halachah.
|
| 49. |
This describes a situation in which both courtyards are situated on an incline.
|
| 50. |
The inhabitants of both courtyards may, however, transfer articles that had been left in their courtyards to the wall as reflected by Halachot 18 and 19 (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 51. |
I.e., there is not an entrance on either side of the ruin, but the inhabitants can throw articles into the ruin through its windows.
|
| 52. |
This follows the principle stated in Halachah 15. The inhabitants of the other house may not use the ruin at all unless they establish an eruv.
|
| 53. |
Our Sages decreed that although a walled city is a private domain, an eruv is necessary before one may carry freely within. They, nevertheless, restricted the scope of that decree to carrying articles from the houses outside, and from the areas outside the houses to the houses. The rationale for this leniency is that one does not usually leave articles outside. Hence, the Sages did not include this possibility in their original decree (Rashi, Eruvin 89a).
|
| 54. |
See Hilchot Shabbat 16:1 for more particulars.
|
| 55. |
Eruvin 91a gives several examples of how these principles were applied by the Sages.
|
| 56. |
The rule that follows applies even when an eruv was established in this particular courtyard, and it was permitted to bring the article there from the house.
|
| 57. |
Which did not establish an eruv together. Note the accompanying diagram.
|
| 58. |
Separating a portion of the cistern for each individual courtyard. Although there is no prohibition from the Torah against drawing water from such a cistern, the Sages forbade using the cistern, just as they forbade using other property that is jointly owned.
|
| 59. |
A partition that is suspended in the air is not normally acceptable. In this instance, however, additional leniency is granted, because the entire concept of forbidding carrying within water is Rabbinic in origin. (See also Hilchot Shabbat 15:13.)
|
| 60. |
This width is required so that one person will not be drawing water from his colleague's side of the cistern. Eruvin 86b states that the Sages estimated that a bucket would not travel more than four handbreadths under water.
|
| 61. |
The Maggid Mishneh notes that the word "path" implies a private walk and not a public thoroughfare. See Hilchot Shabbat 15:9. With this, he counters the objections of the Ra'avad, who maintains that it is necessary for the well to be surrounded by a partition ten handbreadths high in order to draw water from it.
|
| 62. |
See Hilchot Shabbat 15:14, where such projections are required.
|
| 63. |
I.e., the inhabitants are not carrying the water from the well, but lifting it up through windows that open to the path.
Some commentaries interpret the Rambam's wording as extending the application of this ruling even to an instance where there is an opening from the courtyards to the path. Other authorities (Rashba, as quoted by the Maggid Mishneh; Tur, Orach Chayim 376), by contrast, maintain that if there are entrances from the courtyards to the path, a projection is required. The difference between these two approaches is reflected in the rulings of the Shulchan Aruch and the Ramah (Orach Chayim 376:2).
|
| 64. |
If, however, the wall is broken on the Sabbath itself, the inhabitants of the smaller courtyard may continue to carry since they were permitted to do so at the commencement of the Sabbath (the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin 9:2).
|
| 65. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 374:3) states that portions of the wall of the small courtyard must jut into the large courtyard. If that is not the case, it is permitted to carry in the small courtyard as well. From the Rambam's wording and the drawings attributed to him that accompany his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 9:2), it does not appear that he considers this to be a necessity.
|
| 66. |
See also similar statements in Hilchot Tefillah 8:7 and Hilchot Kilayim 7:19.
|
| 67. |
This refers to a situation in which the window or the opening was buried under an avalanche or the like and could not be opened without violating the Sabbath laws (Rashi, Eruvin 93b).
|
| 68. |
The Ra'avad extends the leniency even further and maintains that the inhabitants of the courtyards may also pass articles from one courtyard to the other - e.g., by passing them over the wall. His opinion is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 374:1).
|
| 69. |
We do not say that the entire area should now be considered a single courtyard, and since aneruv was not established before the Sabbath, carrying is forbidden.
|
| 70. |
When citing this law, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:2) makes a point of emphasizing that if the wall between a courtyard and a public domain or a carmelit falls on the Sabbath, carrying is no longer permitted within the courtyard.
|
| 71. |
In this instance, as well, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:1) mentions a further leniency. If an eruv has been established for an entire year between two courtyards, the opening between them was closed during the week (and thus at the commencement of the Sabbath it was not permitted to carry from one to the other), if an opening were made on the Sabbath, it would be permitted to carry from one to the other.
|
| 72. |
The Rambam's ruling is based on his interpretation of Eruvin 101b. Other authorities have different conceptions of that Talmudic passage.
|
Bikkurim - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
Halacha 2
The obligation [to separate] challah applies only to [dough from] the five species of grain: wheat barley, rye, oats, and spelt,3 as [implied by Numbers 15:19]: "When you partake of the bread of the land." The term "bread" refers only to a loaf made from these five species.4 If, however, one makes bread from rice, millet, or other legumes, there is no obligation of challah at all.
Halacha 3
Although there is no obligation to separate terumah from leket, shichachah, pe'ah,5 grain which is ownerless,6 and grain which did not reach a third of its growth,7 there is an obligation to separate challah from these. Similarly, there is an obligation to separate challah [from dough made from grain in the following circumstances]: the tithes was separated from the grain early while it was still stalks8 and terumat ma'aser was separated from it, even though the portion of the great terumah is still included in it,9 [grain that was from] the second tithe or consecrated property that was redeemed, the extra [portions of barley harvested for] the omer offering,10 the two loaves [prepared to be offered on Shavuot], and [the loaves prepared for] the showbread11 which were redeemed.12
Halacha 4
When a dough was made from grain from the second tithe in Jerusalem13or from grain from the Sabbatical year,14 or when there is a doubt whether the dough was made from a mixture of terumah and ordinary produce,15 there is an obligation to separate challah. A mixture of terumah and ordinary produce is exempt from the obligation of challah.16
Halacha 5
The loaves for the thanksgiving offering17 and the wafers for the nazirite offering18 which a person made for himself19 are exempt from the obligation ofchallah, for they are sanctified.20 [If they were made] to sell in the market place to nazirites and to those bringing thanksgiving offerings, there is an obligation to separate challah, since [the baker] has the intent that if they are not sold [for sacrificial purposes], he will eat them.
Halacha 6
Halacha 7
When a person makes dough using grain that is tevel - whether the challah is separated before terumah or the terumah separated before challah - what he did is effective.23 If he separated the challah first, he should not partake of it until he separates terumah and terumat ma'aser for it. If he separated terumahfirst, he should not partake of it until he separates challah.24
Halacha 8
When a person makes a dough with the intent25 of feeding the bread baked from it to an domesticated animal or a wild animal, it is exempt fromchallah.26There is an obligation to separate challah from a dough made for dogs27 which is eaten by the shepherds.28 A dough made by a gentile is exempt from challah.29
Halacha 9
If a gentile and a Jew were partners in a dough and the portion owned by the Jew was large enough to be liable for challah, it is liable for challah.30
Halacha 10
When a gentile separates challah even in Eretz Yisrael, it is not challah. Instead, we inform him that he does not have to [observe this mitzvah. The dough separated] may be eaten by a non-priest.31
Halacha 11
[The following laws apply when a person] mixes flour from wheat34and rice flour35 and makes a dough: If it has the flavor of grain, challah must be separated from it.36 If not, it is exempt. Even if one placed yeast37 from wheat38into a dough from rice, one is obligated to separate challah from it if it has the flavor of wheat. If it does not have that flavor, it is exempt.
Halacha 12
There is an obligation to separate challah in all [the following instances]:39 a dough that was kneaded with wine, oil, or honey,40 or with boiling water, or one in which spices where placed, water was boiled and flour was placed inside of it and a dough was kneaded. [And challah must be separated when] dough was baked whether in an oven or [in a pit] in the earth,41 whether in a frying pan or a deep pan, whether first one attached the dough to the frying pan or the deep pan and then heated them with fire from below until the loaf was baked or one heated them first and then attached the dough.
If, however, one made a dough to dry it in the sun alone or to cook it in a pot, it is exempt from challah, for [dough cooked] in the sun is not bread whether it was kneaded with water or other liquids.42 Similarly, roasted grain that was kneaded whether with water or honey and which is eaten without being baked is exempt, for the obligation of challah applies only to a dough that will ultimately be baked as bread for human consumption.
Halacha 13
When a dough was first kneaded to make a dough to be cooked in the sun and then the person completed making it for a loaf of bread, or he began making it to bake bread and completed it to cook it in the sun and similarly, when roasted flour was kneaded to bake a loaf of bread, there is an obligation to separatechallah.43
Halacha 14
Halacha 15
What is the minimum measure of dough from which we are obligated to separate challah? An entire omer of flour,47 whether from one of the five species or from all five together, for they are all combined to reach the minimum measure.
What is the measure of an omer? One fifth [of a kab] less than two kabbin. Akab is four lugim and a log is four revi'iot.48 A revi'it is the volume of a cube two fingerbreadths by two fingerbreadths by a height of two and seven tenths fingerbreadths. A fingerbreadth refers to the width of a thumb.
Thus an omer is a measure that is ten fingerbreadths by ten fingerbreadths by a height of approximately 3 and one ninth fingerbreadths. Similarly, a cube with each side six and seven ninths fingerbreadths produces a measure of an omer.
How much does this measure contain? The volume of 43 and 1/5 eggs. This is equivalent to the weight of 86 2/3 selaim of Egyptian wheat flour.49 This is equivalent to 520 zuz of Egyptian zuzim at present. A measure that comprises such a weight of wheat is used universally to measure for the separation ofchallah.
Halacha 16
It is forbidden for a person to make his dough less than the minimum measure50 in order to free it from the obligation of challah.51 When a person separates challah from a dough that is smaller than the prescribed measure, his actions are of no consequence and the dough is ordinary dough as before.
When a person made a dough that is less than the prescribed measure, baked it, and put the loaf in a basket, baked another loaf52 and put it in the basket, and [continued doing this] until a measure from which challah [must be separated] was collected in the basket, the basket joins them together [as a single entity, establishing an obligation for] challah.53 He must separate challahfrom the bread. This is derived [from the prooftext mentioned above]: "When you partake of the bread of the land." [The verse] teaches that one should separate [challah] from [bread] that is baked. An oven, [however,] does not join loaves together [to create an obligation to separate] challah.54
Halacha 17
If [small] loaves were joined together and a quantity equal to the measure ofchallah was gathered together, there is an obligation to separate challah.55[This applies] even if they are not placed in a basket [together].56 If one baked loaves a little bit at a time and gathered together the entire quantity on a board that does not have a cavity,57 there is a doubt regarding [the matter].58 If [the obligation to separate] challah is of Rabbinic origin,59 one is not obligated to separate it until they are gathered in a container with a cavity.60
Halacha 18
When flour was not sifted, but instead kneaded together with its bran, since the entire measure of the flour61 comprises an omer, there is an obligation [to separate] challah.62 If, however, one removed the bran from the flour and then completed the [required] measure of dough by returning the bran to the flour, there is no obligation to separate challah.63
Halacha 19
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
The commentaries raise a question concerning this ruling, because seemingly, the baker should separate challah himself. Moreover, because of the severity of the prohibition of challah, the common people were not considered suspect to refrain from making this separation.
The Radbaz explains that we are speaking about an instance where the baker told the purchaser to separate challah, alternatively, an instance where the baker is suspect not to separate challah. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the responsibility for the baker to separate challah applies only when the challah is ritually pure. Since it will be eaten by the priest, it is appropriate that the baker separate it. When, by contrast, it is impure and must be burnt, it should be separated by the purchaser.
|
| 2. |
Difusim, translated as "trays," literally means "molds." In the Talmudic era, bread was baked in various molds so that the loaves would be shaped differently. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 1:3), the Rambam explains that there was an opinion which forbade separating challahfrom one tray for another lest the flour used to bake the different breads was from different years.
|
| 3. |
I.e., whether the dough is made from each of the species individually or a combination of any of the five, as stated in Halachah 15.
|
| 4. |
The Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 1:1) derives this concept because there is an association between challah and matzah. Matzah may only be made from these five species, for they are the only species that can become leaven. Hence, it is these five to which the mitzvah of challahapplies. See Halachah 11 which discusses the laws that apply when a dough is made using one of these grains and other species.
|
| 5. |
These mitzvot refer to grain left for the poor.
|
| 6. |
When the grain was left by its owner, it was ownerless and hence, there were no agricultural obligations incumbent upon it. Now, however, that someone took possession of it, those obligations do apply.
|
| 7. |
Because at this point it is not considered as grain yet. See Hilchot Ma'aser 2:3-5. Nevertheless, since a dough made from such grain will become leaven, there is an obligation to separate challah[the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim 1:4)].
|
| 8. |
Before it was threshed; see Hilchot Terumah3:13, Hilchot Ma'aser 3:19.
|
| 9. |
For as stated in Hilchot Terumah, op. cit., there is no obligation to separate terumah from such grain. And since there is no obligation to separate terumah, one might think that one is also exempt from the obligation to separate challah
|
| 10. |
As explained in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:11-12, three se'ah of barley would be harvested for the omer offering. That barley was then made into flour, sifted and refined until only an isaron (a far smaller measure) was selected for the omer offering. The remainder of the barley was redeemed and could be used for mundane purposes.
|
| 11. |
This refers to the extra flour which had been set aside for the two loaves or the showbread, like the remainder of the barley mentioned in the previous note, it could be redeemed and then used for mundane purposes.
|
| 12. |
In all these instances, since the dough was prepared after it was redeemed, it is considered as bread belonging to an ordinary person. Hence, the obligation to tithe it applies (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 13. |
Although produce of the second tithe is "the property of the Most High," in Jerusalem, it is permitted to be eaten by ordinary people. Hence, challah must be separated from the dough (Radbaz).
|
| 14. |
Like the ownerless produce mentioned in the previous halachah, at present, it is the property of the person who took it as his own. Hence, there is an obligation to separate challah.
|
| 15. |
Although there is a possibility that the produce is a mixture of terumah and ordinary produce which is exempt as stated in the following clause, there is also a possibility that this is only ordinary produce in which instance, an obligation does apply.
|
| 16. |
The Radbaz states that this law applies only in the present era when the obligation to separatechallah is of Rabbinic origin. In that instance, the prohibition of a mixture of terumah offsets the obligation to separate challah, for they are both Rabbinic safeguards. If, however, the obligation to separate challah is Scriptural in origin, it would take precedence.
|
| 17. |
Together with the thanksgiving offering, 40 loaves (10 each of four types) were offered.
|
| 18. |
Together with the ram a nazirite offered 30 loaves (10 each of three types) were offered. SeeHilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:12-24 for a description of these loaves.
|
| 19. |
To bring as part of his offering, rather than to sell to someone else.
|
| 20. |
And challah need only be separated from a person's private property, not from consecrated property (Menachot 67a).
|
| 21. |
This applies even if the dough is not large enough that each of the partners will receive a portion the size of an olive (Radbaz). Even though they intend to separate the bread after it is baked, as long as they do not intend to separate the dough, they are obligated to separate challah (Siftei Cohen 326:1).
|
| 22. |
We are speaking about a situation where a person bakes bread in order to give it to many people. He does not, however, declare the bread ownerless. Were he to do so, there would be no obligation to separate challah, as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 6.
|
| 23. |
I.e., even though he should have separated the terumah before the dough was made, after the fact, his separation is effective
|
| 24. |
The Radbaz questions why the Rambam does not mention the second tithe, for in the years that there is an obligation to separate it, one may not partake of the produce until it is separated.
|
| 25. |
The Radbaz states that the law depends on the intent of the person making the dough and not what it is eventually used for.
|
| 26. |
For the mitzvah applies only to dough prepared for human consumption.
|
| 27. |
A dough made without bran being separated from the flour which is thus usually not intended for human consumption [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 1:8)].
|
| 28. |
Since the shepherds also intend to partake of it, it is considered as intended for human consumption and challah must be separated from the entire dough, even from the portion intended for the dogs.
|
| 29. |
Menachot 67a derives this from the fact that Numbers 15:20, the prooftext for the obligation ofchallah, speaks of "the first of your dough," i.e., the dough of a Jew and not of a gentile.
|
| 30. |
The Radbaz maintains that the Jew mayt separate challah from the entire dough, even from the gentile's portion.
|
| 31. |
Because there is no holiness associated with it.
|
| 32. |
I.e., the Jew thought that if he gave the dough to a gentile to prepare, it would be exempt and the gentile desired to separate challah from it. The Radbaz states that although generally we do not suspect that a prohibition is being violated, there is room to do so in this instance, because otherwise, why would the gentile think of separating challah.
|
| 33. |
As stated in Halachah 15.
|
| 34. |
Or any other of the five species of grain mentioned in Halachah 2.
|
| 35. |
The Turei Zahav 324:9 states this law applies to rice and not to other species, because rice takes on the flavor of wheat.
|
| 36. |
This applies even if quantitatively, there is more rice than wheat. For the wheat is considered as dominant.
The Ra'avad states that this ruling applies only when there is enough wheat in the dough to establish an obligation. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that the Rambam does not make such a distinction. The difference of opinion between them centers on the interpretation of the Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 3:5). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 324:9) quotes the Rambam's wording without any further qualification. There is a similar disagreement between the Rambam and the Ra'avad with regard to matzah made from wheat and rice. See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 6:5.
|
| 37. |
Yeast is singled out, because a small amount of yeast can affect an entire dough.
|
| 38. |
The Ra'avad states that this applies when the yeast is taken from a dough from which challah had not been separated. The Radbaz, however, states that it is possible that the Rambam does not accept that conclusion. In this instance as well, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 324:10) quotes the Rambam's ruling without further qualification.
|
| 39. |
All of the instances mentioned in the first clause of the halachah are not bread in the simple sense. Nevertheless, they are all considered as dough within the context of this mitzvah.
|
| 40. |
Even though no water was mixed into it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 329:9)].
|
| 41. |
Since ultimately the dough was baked, the fact that the flour was boiled first is not significant (Siftei Cohen 329:8).
|
| 42. |
Similarly, dough boiled in water is not considered as bread, but as cooked food.
|
| 43. |
As long as there was an intent to use the dough for bread at one stage in its preparation, challahmust be separated.
|
| 44. |
A mixture of whey and bread crumbs used as a dip.
|
| 45. |
This shape indicates that he may change his mind and serve the cakes as bread.
|
| 46. |
This indicates that he is not intending to serve the strips as bread, but will indeed crumble them and use them for kutach.
|
| 47. |
Our Sages derived this measure as follows: Numbers 15:19 states: "You shall separate the first of your dough as challah." As Exodus 16:16 relates the amount of manna allotted to each individual in the desert was an omer. Hence we use that as the size of the required measure of dough (Eruvin 83b).
|
| 48. |
A revi'it is approximately 86cc according to Shiurei Torah and approximately 150 cc according toChazon Ish. Thus a log is 344 or 600 cc, a kab 1376 or 2400 cc, and the measure of the dough from which challah must be separated is 2500 (because the above figures are approximations) or 4320 cc.
|
| 49. |
Shiurei Torah writes that a blessing should be recited when separating challah from a dough made from 3 pounds and 10 ¾ ounces of flour and one should be stringent and separate challah from a dough made from 2 pounds and 10.1 ounces of flour.
|
| 50. |
I.e., less than the measure described in the previous halachah.
|
| 51. |
This applies even though he is ritually impure and he knows that he will be separating the dough to have it burnt (Challah 2:3). The Turei Zahav 324:17 and the Siftei Cohen 324:25 emphasize that this applies only when the person's intent in making the loaf small is that he will not have to separate challah. If he has another intent, his actions are not sanctioned.
|
| 52. |
Which was also less than the prescribed measure.
|
| 53. |
This applies even though the loaves themselves are not joined together. One of the examples of the separation of challah with which many are familiar - the separation of challah from matzah - employs this principle.
|
| 54. |
I.e., if small loaves are baked together in an oven, but taken out separately, there is no obligation to separate challah.
|
| 55. |
Even though at the time the dough was made, there was not a sufficient quantity to require the separation of challah.
|
| 56. |
The fact that they are joined is sufficient for them to be considered as a singled entity.
|
| 57. |
In contrast to the basket mentioned in the previous halachah.
|
| 58. |
Pesachim 48b mentions an unresolved difference of opinion concerning this question among the Sages.
|
| 59. |
Like the challah separated in the present era, as stated Chapter 5, Halachah 5.
|
| 60. |
For we follow the principle: When there is a doubt regarding a Rabbinic obligation, we rule leniently (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 325:1) writes that if one places the bread on a board and then covers it with a cloth, there is an authority who requires the separation of challah. The Siftei Cohen325:5 questions why the Shulchan Aruch uses the expression "there is an authority...," in as much as this principle is universally accepted.
|
| 61. |
I.e., the flour together with the bran, even though the flour alone is not of sufficient quantity to require challah to be separated.
|
| 62. |
For a poor person will eat bread made from coarse flour containing bran (Shabbat 76b).
|
| 63. |
The Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 2:6) explains that this is derived from Numbers 15:21 that speaks of "your dough," i.e., the way dough is ordinarily made.
|
| 64. |
According to the Rambam, this halachah pertains to a baker and not to ordinary individuals. The laws pertaining to them are mentioned in the following halachah.
|
| 65. |
To sell to others to use the yeast to leaven other doughs without this dough being baked.
|
| 66. |
So that he will be baking smaller portions and not be obligated to separate challah.
|
| 67. |
I.e., private individuals who will use the yeast for themselves and not for commercial purposes.
|
| 68. |
Because the dough is not being made to be baked as bread, but to be divided as dough. Since it is being made for private individuals, the Rambam maintains that there is little likelihood that they will change their minds and have it baked. Even though the women did not give their flour to the baker together, the fact that he made a dough from them would have caused an obligation for challahhad the intent been to bake the dough. Moreover, the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 326:3) rules that if the women consent to having their flour mixed in a larger dough, an obligation to separate challah is created.
The Ra'avad maintains that if one woman makes dough to use as yeast, the law mentioned with regard to a baker in the previous halachah applies to her and she is required to separate challah.Here the leniency is granted because several women are involved. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh argue against the Ra'avad's conclusion and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 326:2) states that the stringency applies to a baker and not to an ordinary person.
|
Bikkurim - Chapter 7
Halacha 1
[The following laws apply when] there are two doughs that when combined comprise the measure that obligates the separation of challah, but neither comprises that measure alone should they touch each other and become attached to each other.1 If they belong to two individuals,2 they are exempt fromchallah even though they are of the same type of grain.3 [The rationale is that] we assume that the two people object [to the combination of their doughs].4 If it is known that they would not object to the combination of their doughs, they are considered as one.
Halacha 2
[Different rules apply if] the two belonged to one person. If they were from one type [of grain], they are combined and challah is obligated to be separated from them. If they are from two types, they are not combined. [The rationale is that] we assume that one person does not object [to the combination of his doughs].5If he objects [to their combination and endeavors] that one dough not touch the other or become mixed with it, they are not considered as one, even if they are of one type of grain.
Halacha 3
What is meant by the statement that if they belonged to one person and were from the same type [of grain] they are combined? When a dough from wheat touches6 a dough from spelt, they are combined.7 If it touched [a dough from] another type of grain,8 they are not combined.9 Similarly, if a dough of barley touches a dough of spelt,10 oats, or rye, or doughs of spelt, oats, or rye touch each other, they can be combined.11
Halacha 4
A dough from grain from one year should not be combined with a dough from grain from the previous year even though they are of the same species. [This is a decree,] lest people say that terumah may be separated from new grain for old grain.12 A person should not separate [the challah] from the middle of the two.13 Instead, he should bring another dough - either from this year or the previous - and combine it with them to complete the required measure.14
When does the above apply? When one dough touches another. If, however, one mixes flour from the species of grain and makes a single dough from one of them, the five are combined to comprise the measure of dough required forchallah, as we explained.15
Halacha 5
When there is a dough that is less than the required measure on one side and another dough less than the required measure on the other side,16 and a dough that is exempt from challah in the middle - e.g., a dough of rice, a dough of terumah [flour] or from terumah [flour] that was mixed with ordinary flour, or a dough from a gentile17 - [the doughs] are not combined even though they touch each other.18 [The rationale is that] an entity that is exempt from challahseparates in the middle.
Halacha 6
When, by contrast, there is a dough from which challah was separated between them, [the two outer doughs] can be combined, because originally, there was an obligation to separate challah from the dough in the center.19Similarly, if a dough that was consecrated was in the center, they are combined, [because that dough] is fit to be redeemed20 [at which point,] there will be an obligation to separate challah from it. Similarly, if there was a dough of another type of grain, a dough belonging to another person, or a dough from a different year between them, the doughs on the sides are combined [to comprise an obligation to separate] challah.
Halacha 7
There were two doughs, each one of them less than the minimum measure forchallah. One separated challah from each of them. Afterwards, they touched each other and [the combined doughs] comprise the [required] measure. There is an obligation to separate challah [from the combined doughs], for the challotseparated originally are of no consequence.21
Halacha 8
Two gentiles22 made a dough comprising the required measure [for challah]23and divided it. Afterwards, they converted24 and after the conversion, each one added to his portion until it comprised the [required] measure. There is an obligation [to separate] challah. [The rationale is that] there was no time that it was of the size obligating [challah] while they were gentiles, because each was to receive less than the required measure.25
Halacha 9
If, however, two Jews made [a dough] in the above manner and then, they divided it and each one of them added to his portion26 until it comprised the required measure, it is exempt. [The rationale is that] there was a time when there would have been an obligation [to separate challah from the original dough]27and they were exempt at that time, because the dough was made to be divided.28
Halacha 10
[Different rules apply when], by contrast, the dough was owned by a gentile and a Jew in partnership and they divided it.29 If, afterwards, the gentile converted and then added to his portion and the Jew added to his portion until each one of them completed the measure that requires the separation of challah, there is an obligation to separate challah from the dough of the Jew,30 but the dough of the gentile31 is exempt.32
Halacha 11
[The following laws apply when a person] takes yeast from a dough from whichchallah was not separated and places it in a dough from which challah was separated. He should bring a second dough that - together with this yeast - will comprise a measure that obligates the separation of challah and combine it with the dough from which challah was separated.33 He should then separate from the second dough the appropriate measure of challah for it and for the yeast. [In this manner,] he is separating [challah] from [dough] that is in the same place.34 If he does not have a second dough, the entire [first dough] is considered as tevel. He should separate challah for the entire amount.35 [The rationale is that] when tevel36 is mixed with its own type,37 even the slightest amount causes the mixture to become forbidden.38
Halacha 12
A dough from which challah has not been separated is like ordinary produce and not like challah with regard to the laws of ritual purity. As will be explained in the appropriate place,39 impurity of the second degree does not bring about impurity of the third degree with regard to ordinary produce.40
It is permitted to cause ordinary produce to contract ritual impurity in Eretz Yisrael.41 Therefore when there are two doughs, one that is ritually impure and one that is ritually pure, one may take [a portion of dough]42 equivalent to the measure of challah to be separated from both of them from a dough from whichchallah was not separated and place it in the center close to the pure dough. He should then extend a portion of the impure dough the size of an egg43 to the pure dough44 so that he will be able to separate challah45 from the dough in the same place.46
Halacha 13
A person may make a pure dough and refrain from separating challah from it, setting it - or a portion of it - aside to continuously separate challot from other doughs with it until the dough set aside becomes challah in its entirety,47provided [the dough set aside] does not become spoiled to the point that it is no longer fit for human consumption. [This applies] even if the doughs became impure. Once the dough is no longer fit for human consumption, [challah] cannot be separated with it.
When does the above apply? When there is a question whether or not challahhas been separated from the doughs for which he is separating challah.48[The rationale is that] challah of a doubtful status49may be taken from the pure dough for the impure as an initial preference50 and the two need not be in the same place.51
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
The Radbaz emphasizes that touching each other is not sufficient; the two doughs must become attached. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 325:1).
|
| 2. |
Who are not partners (Siftei Cohen 326:1).
|
| 3. |
See the following halachah which distinguishes between doughs made from one type and those made from two. See also Chapter 6, Halachot 16-17, which deal with the issues mentioned in this and the following halachot.
|
| 4. |
Thus even if they were kneaded together, since they were intended to be separated, they are considered as distinct entities.
|
| 5. |
Since they both belong to him and are of the same type of grain, why would he object to their combination?
This, however, applies only when the two doughs are types that would normally be mixed together. If they would not be normally mixed, even if they are owned by one person, this principle does not apply [Shulchan Aruch and Rama (Yoreh De'ah 326:1)].
|
| 6. |
And becomes attached. This applies to all the other instances when touching doughs are mentioned in this chapter.
|
| 7. |
Although they are from different species, since they are of the same general type (for the doughs made from the two are similar, see Chapter 8, Halachah 4), they are combined.
|
| 8. |
I.e., barley, oats, or rye.
|
| 9. |
Despite the fact that if the different species of grain are mixed in the same dough, they are combined, as stated in the following halachah.
|
| 10. |
Although spelt is often associated with wheat (ibid.), its dough can be combined with that of rye.
|
| 11. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 324:2) mentions the Rambam's perspective as a minority ruling, favoring the opinion of Rabbenu Asher who maintains that rye can be combined with barley and with spelt, but not with oats or wheat. And oats can be combined with barley and spelt, but not with rye or wheat.
|
| 12. |
See Hilchot Terumah 10:18.
|
| 13. |
I.e., taking a portion of both of the two doughs. This advice was given by Rabbi Yishmael (Challah4:4).
|
| 14. |
I.e., placing the doughs of new grain on either side of the dough of old grain or the doughs of old grain on either side of the dough from new grain. Since the person will see that he is adding an extra dough, he will not err and think that one may separate terumah from new grain for old grain [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 324:8); see Halachah 6]. The Radbaz offers a different explanation.
|
| 15. |
Chapter 6, Halachah 15.
|
| 16. |
The two doughs on the sides are of the same type of grain and together, they comprise the required measure.
|
| 17. |
See Chapter 6, Halachot 2-4, 9-10, which mention the exemption of these doughs.
|
| 18. |
I.e., the two external doughs touch the middle dough. If, however, the two external doughs are touching, challah must be separated from them.
|
| 19. |
In all the instances mentioned in this halachah, the governing principle is that even if the dough in the center cannot be combined with those on the side (as explained in Halachot 1-4), since it is fit to require the separation of challah, it does not prevent the doughs on the side from being combined.
|
| 20. |
This is speaking about a dough that was not consecrated until after it was made. If it was consecrated before it was rolled together, it is not fit to be redeemed. See Chapter 8, Halachot 6-7.
|
| 21. |
As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 16.
|
| 22. |
In contrast to two Jews or a Jew and a gentile, as explained in the following halachot.
|
| 23. |
Since they were gentiles (see Chapter 6, Halachah 8) at the time the obligation to separate challahcould have taken effect, the mitzvah of challah is not relevant to them at all . Hence, the exemption because the dough was made with the intent that it be divided into small portions (see ibid. 19) is not significant.
|
| 24. |
If, however, they divided the dough after they converted, there is no obligation to separate challaheven if they added to the dough. For in such an instance, they would be comparable to the two Jews mentioned in the following halachah (Rambam LeAm).
|
| 25. |
Hence we do not say - as is said with regard to the following halachah - since the dough was exempt at the time when it could have been obligated, it cannot become obligated again.
|
| 26. |
The Siftei Cohen 326:8 emphasizes that for this law to apply the addition must be less than the size that obligates the separation of challah.
|
| 27. |
Had it belonged to one person.
|
| 28. |
And since the obligation was not incurred at the time it could have been incurred originally, it cannot be incurred afterwards.
The Ra'avad objects to this ruling. He admits that it appears to have a source in the Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 3:4), but argues that logically, it is hard to distinguish this from a situation where a person made a dough smaller than the required size and then attached it to a dough of the required size (see Chapter 6, Halachah 16). Hence, he rules that both Jews should separatechallah from the dough after they increased its size.
The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh support the Rambam's ruling, differentiating between the two instances by explaining that when a dough is smaller than the required size, it has never reached a state where the obligation to separate challah relates to it. In contrast, in the instance described here, the dough was of the size that obligates the separation of challah and it was exempted. TheShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 326:4) quotes the Rambam's view.
|
| 29. |
The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explains that this is speaking about a situation where the two had not originally intended to divide their dough and then decided to divide it. Had they originally intended to divide it, it would be necessary to separate challah from the portion belonging to the convert as well.
|
| 30. |
In contrast to the situation mentioned in the previous halachah, the dough was not originally intended to be divided. Hence, since the gentile has a portion in it, while it is whole, it is not considered as if the mitzvah of challah relates to it. Thus the Jew's portion of the dough was never of the size that requires the separation of challah and when he increases its size, an obligation is created (Radbaz).
|
| 31. |
I.e., the convert.
|
| 32. |
Since originally, the gentile's involvement in the dough caused his portion to be exempted, when he adds to it, it is not liable, based on the principle explained above. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that there is an obligation to separate challah from both doughs. For just as the mitzvah of challah is not considered as relating to the Jew's dough, it also does not relate to the gentile's dough. Hence, when he adds to it after his conversion, the obligation takes effect. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh favor the Rambam's understanding and it is quoted as halachah byShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 330:6).
|
| 33. |
This is preferable to separating challah from the dough with which the yeast was mixed, because a) it will represent a saving for the person separating the challah, since he will not be separatingchallah a second time; b) it is not desirable to separate challah from the first dough, because the obligation to separate challah from it is Rabbinic, not Scriptural, as will be explained.
|
| 34. |
As is required (Chapter 5, Halachah 14). That is why the second dough must be combined with the first dough into which the yeast was placed.
|
| 35. |
The combination of the yeast and the dough.
|
| 36. |
The yeast.
|
| 37. |
And yeast and dough are considered of the same type.
|
| 38. |
This is a Rabbinic decree, according to Scriptural Law, the presence of tevel is also nullified when there is a majority of permitted substances. Our Sages considered tevel as a devar sheyeish lo matirin, a prohibition that could be released, since once the necessary separations are made, the prohibition no longer exists. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:6. Hence, he is not considered to be separating challah from dough that is obligated for that which is exempt (Siftei Cohen 324:20).
|
| 39. |
Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 11:2, 15.
|
| 40. |
It does, however, have such an effect with regard to terumah and challah.
|
| 41. |
See Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 16:9. There the Rambam differentiates between produce from which the appropriate agricultural separations have been made and produce from which they have not been made (as in the present instance). If the separations have already been made, one may bring it into direct contact with ritual impurity. If they have not been made, one may only "cause it to contract ritual impurity," i.e., indirectly.
|
| 42. |
Which is ritually pure.
|
| 43. |
Challah 2:8 gives this suggestion, but speaks of taking less than the size of an egg of the impure dough, for in that manner, the other dough will not become impure.
|
| 44. |
Causing it to touch it. This will cause the pure dough to become ritually impure (see Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 6:18). Nevertheless, this is not significant, because - as the Rambam stated - there is no prohibition against causing food to become ritually impure.
|
| 45. |
The dough set aside to be separated as challah does not become ritually impure, because until it becomes consecrated as challah, it does not become impure because it was touched by dough that was impure to the second degree. And before it is consecrated as challah, it is lifted up and no longer in contact with the source of ritual impurity. To clarify this, the Rambam began this halachah: "A dough from which challah has not been separated is like ordinary produce and... impurity of the second degree does not bring about impurity of the third degree with regard to ordinary produce" (Radbaz).
|
| 46. |
Ordinarily to separate challah for two doughs in the same place, it is not necessary for them to touch. Nevertheless, since one should not separate challah from dough that is ritually pure for dough that is ritually impure (Chapter 5, Halachah 14), in this instance, they must be touching.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, based on Challah 2:8, but the Radbaz explains the Rambam's position as above.
|
| 47. |
I.e., the person would consider an appropriate portion of the dough set aside as challah for a given dough and would continue doing this for future doughs until the entire dough that was set aside became challah [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 4:6)].
|
| 48. |
E.g., two witnesses stated that challah had been separated from the dough and two other witnesses state that it was not separated.
|
| 49. |
Here the demai is being used differently than its ordinary meaning. For unlike the tithes, it is taken for granted that the common people separate challah just as they separate terumah (Radbaz; see Chapter 8, Halachah 14).
|
| 50. |
Generally, the initial preference is not to separate challah from dough that is ritually pure for dough that is ritually impure (Chapter 5, Halachah 14).
|
| 51. |
And generally, they must (ibid.).
|
Bikkurim - Chapter 8
Halacha 1
When a person separates challah from flour, it is not challah.1 [The flour given] the priest is like stolen property in his possession2 and there is an obligation [to separate] challah from a dough [made from] the remainder [of the flour].3 If the flour set aside [mistakenly] as challah is an omer in measure4 and a dough was made from it, one must separate challah from it as [is necessary with regard to doughs made] from any ordinary flour.
Halacha 2
When should challah be set aside? When one adds water and mixes the flour with the water, he should set aside [a portion as] challah from the first portion that is kneaded, as [indicated by Numbers 15:20:] "From the first of your dough."5
[The above applies] provided a measure of flour equal to an omer6 that has not become mixed with water does not remain in the kneading trough.7 If he stipulates: "This is challah for the dough, for the yeast, and for the flour that remains. When it all becomes one dough, the portion set aside will become sanctified as challah," it is permitted.8
Halacha 3
If the person left the dough [intact] until it was all kneaded and mixed together and separated [the challah] afterwards, [the delay] is of no consequence. If he does not separate challah while the mixture is a dough, but bakes the entire dough, he should separate [challah] from the loaf, as we explained.9
Halacha 4
When does the obligation [to separate] challah from dough take effect? When the wheat [flour] was rolled into a ball and [all of] the flour becomes mixed with it or when the barley [flour] was made into a single mass and formed one block. One may snack from the dough until the wheat [flour] was rolled into a ball or the barley [flour] was made into a single mass.10 The laws pertaining to wheat [flour] pertain to spelt [flour] and those pertaining to barley [flour] pertain to oat and rye [flour].11
Halacha 5
Once the wheat [flour] was rolled into a ball or the barley [flour] was made into a single mass, one who partakes of it before challah was separated, he is liable for death [at the hand of heaven], because it is tevel.12 Therefore, if there is a Scriptural obligation [to separate] challah from the dough, a person who partakes of it is liable for lashes, as is anyone who partakes of tevel.13 If the obligation is Rabbinic in origin, [a person who partakes of the dough] is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 6
When a dough from ordinary flour becomes mixed with flour that is terumah14before [all the flour] was rolled into a ball, it is exempt [from the obligation ofchallah].15 When it becomes mixed with it after it was rolled into a ball, there is an obligation [to separate challah].16
Similarly, if a person consecrates a dough or declares it ownerless17 before it was rolled into a ball and then redeemed it or took possession of it and rolled it into a ball - alternatively, he consecrated it or declared it ownerless after it was rolled into a ball18 - there is an obligation [to separate] challah.
Halacha 7
If he consecrated it before he rolled it and it was rolled in the possession of the Temple treasury and afterwards, he redeemed it, it is exempt. For at the time the obligation would have taken effect, [the dough] was exempt.19
Halacha 9
[The following laws apply when] a convert joins the Jewish faith. If he had a dough that was rolled into a ball before he converted, it is exempt.22 If it was rolled afterwards, there is an obligation [to separate challah]. If there is a doubt [concerning the matter], there is an obligation, [because eating bread from which challah was not separated] is a transgression punishable by death [at the hand of heaven].23 If a non-priest [unknowingly] partook of this challah that was separated due to such a doubt or the like, he is not liable to add a fifth [when making restitution].24
Halacha 10
When a question arises concerning the ritual purity of a dough before it was rolled together as a ball,25 he should prepare [the dough] in a state of ritual impurity.26 For it is permitted to make ordinary produce impure in Eretz Yisrael. The challah should then be burnt.27
If, after a dough was rolled into a ball, a doubtful situation arose concerning its ritual purity which, were it to be ascertained that it was definitely impure, would convey ritual impurity of Scriptural origin, its [preparation] should be completed in a state of ritual purity. [The rationale is that with regard to] any circumstance where impurity would be imparted to ordinary produce were one certain that it transpired, our Sages decreed that if there is a doubt that it transpired, a dough upon which the obligation to separate challah already fell should not intentionally be made impure, for that obligation has already taken effect.28Instead, the challah [separated] is a tentative state; it is not eaten,29 nor is it burnt.30
Halacha 11
As an initial preference, a person should not prepare his dough in a state of ritual impurity.31 Instead, he should be careful and endeavor to purify himself and his utensils so that he can separate challah in a state of ritual purity. If he is more than four mil32 from water [fit for an immersion],33 he should prepare [the dough] in a state of ritual impurity and separate impure challah.
Halacha 12
A loaf to serve as challah34 should not be prepared in a state of ritual purity for a common person.35 A loaf of ordinary produce may, however, be made in ritual purity [for him].36
What is implied? A chaver37 may mix the dough and separate an appropriate measure of challah from it. He then places [the challah] in a utensil made from dung, stone, or clay, which do not contract ritual impurity.38 When the common person comes, he should take both of them, the dough and the challah. We tell him: "Be careful not to touch the challah, lest it become tevel again."39 Why is this allowed?40 So that the person making the dough could earn his livelihood.
Halacha 13
The wife of a chaver may sift and strain [flour] together with the wife of a common person.41 Once water has been mixed with the dough, however, she should not help her, because [the wife of the common person] makes her dough while ritually impure.42 Similarly, one should not kneaded or array dough with a baker who bakes his dough in a state of ritual impurity. [The rationale is that] one should not reinforce the hands of transgressors.43 One may, however, transport bread with him to a bakery.44
Halacha 14
When a person purchases bread from a baker who is a common person in Syria45 and [the baker] tells him: "I separated challah," [the purchaser] does not need to separate challah because of the doubt.46 Just as the entire Jewish people47 in Eretz Yisrael were not suspect [to ignore the separation of] the great terumah, so too, in Syria, they were not suspect [to ignore the separation of] challah.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
It is permitted to be eaten by a non-priest. Rashi (Kiddushin 46b) explains that the rationale for this law is that the prooftext requiring the separation of challah mentions "your doughs," i.e., the obligation is incurred only when dough is made.
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 327:1) clarify that this law applies when the person desires that the flour be considered as challah while it is still flour. If, however, he stipulates: "May it be considered challah when a dough is made from it," when it is made into a dough, his statement takes effect.
|
| 2. |
The priest is obligated to return it to the person who gave it to him. This applies even if the one who gave it is a Torah scholar who knows that flour cannot be separated as challah. Although one could assume that he was giving the flour to the priest as a gift, it must be returned lest the priest think that it was challah and not separate challah from the dough he makes from it (Kiddushin 46b;Turei Zahav 327:1).
|
| 3. |
Since the first separation is of no consequence.
|
| 4. |
I.e., it was of the measure from which we are required to separate challah.
|
| 5. |
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, stating that it is undesirable to separate challah in this manner, for as indicated by Halachah 4, the obligation to separate challah has not taken effect yet. Based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Pesachim 3:3), the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that the statements in this halachah are a safeguard against the dough becoming ritually impure. From the time the water is mixed with the flour, it is permitted to separated the challah and one may do so if he is worried that the dough will become ritually impure. It is, however, preferable to wait until the dough is thoroughly mixed as stated in Halachah 4. Certainly, this applies in the present era when there is no need to take safeguards against ritual impurity [Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 327:3)]
|
| 6. |
I.e., it was of the measure from which we are required to separate challah.
|
| 7. |
For then the dough made from that flour would have a separate obligation. When, by contrast, there is less than that measure, it is considered as ancillary to the initial dough.
|
| 8. |
This applies even if an omer of flour remains. Since he can easily mix the dough, he can make a stipulation that will take effect when he actually mixes it together. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 327:2) states that it is desirable to teach women who separate challah to make this stipulation.
|
| 9. |
Chapter 6, Halachah 16.
|
| 10. |
After the obligation to separate challah takes effect, however, it is forbidden to snack from the dough. It is considered as tevel and one is liable as stated in the following halachah.
|
| 11. |
For spelt flour has characteristics similar to wheat flour, and rye and oats to barley.
|
| 12. |
See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 10:19; Hilchot Ma'aser 1:5; 9:2.
|
| 13. |
Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:1. This applies when he is given a warning before transgressing.
|
| 14. |
And thus challah need not be separated from it.
|
| 15. |
As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 4. This applies only in the present era when the obligation to separate challah is Rabbinic in origin (Radbaz).
|
| 16. |
Because the obligation to separate challah from the dough had already taken effect.
|
| 17. |
There is no obligation to separate challah from dough that is consecrated. Once, however, the consecrated dough is redeemed, challah must be separated. When a person makes dough from flour that was ownerless which he acquired, he must separate challah from it. See Chapter 6, Halachot 3 and 5.
|
| 18. |
In which instance, the obligation to separate challah had already taken effect before it was consecrated or declared ownerless.
|
| 19. |
Because it was consecrated.
|
| 20. |
Because the obligation to separate challah took effect when the dough belonged to the Jew.
|
| 21. |
For at the time the obligation to separate challah was to take effect, the dough belonged to the gentile and was exempt.
|
| 22. |
Because at the time the obligation to separate challah was to take effect, the convert had not converted and was not obligated to separate challah.
|
| 23. |
The Rambam adds this explanation (based on Chullin 134a), because generally, we would follow the principle: "When one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him" (see Chapter 9, Halachah 13). Nevertheless, in this instance, because of the severity of the transgression, challah should be separated. The Turei Zahav 330:3 and the Siftei Cohen 330:8 note that in the present age, when there is a question whether of not challah has been separated, one is exempt, for at present the observance of the mitzvah of challah is Rabbinic in origin. On this basis, the Sifei Cohen questions why this law is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah330:5),
|
| 24. |
Since there is a doubt concerning the matter, the person must make restitution for the challah, because whenever there is a question with regard to Scriptural Law, we rule stringency and require him to make restitution sp that he can gain atonement. There is, however, no such obligation with regard to the additional fifth, because it was never definitely established that he was liable.
|
| 25. |
And thus, the obligation to separate challah has not been established. Hence, the principle that we are allowed to cause ordinary produce to become impure is applied.
|
| 26. |
For in this way, he will have defined the ritual state of the challah.
|
| 27. |
As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 4.
|
| 28. |
We are forbidden to cause challah mandated by Scriptural Law to contract ritual impurity (Hilchot Terumah 12:1). In this instance, since the challah has not been separated, that prohibition would not be violated. Nevertheless, since the obligation to separate challah has been established, it is preferable to be stringent.
|
| 29. |
Lest it be impure. Thus a priest who partakes of it would be transgressing, as stated in Hilchot Terumah 7:3.
|
| 30. |
Lest it be pure. In which case, it would be forbidden to destroy it unnecessarily. See Hilchot Terumah 12:3.
|
| 31. |
This refers to dough prepared in Eretz Yisrael when the obligation to separate challah was of Scriptural origin. See Hilchot Terumah 12:1. See also Radbaz.
|
| 32. |
A Talmudic measure roughly equivalent to a kilometer.
|
| 33. |
I.e., a mikveh or stream in which he can purge himself from impurity. Compare to Hilchot Tefilah4:2-3 which makes a distinction whether the water is before him or behind him. See Kessef Mishneh.
|
| 34. |
I.e., a loaf to be set aside and used as challah for loaves to be baked in the future.
|
| 35. |
Lest over time he cause it to become impure. The person making the loaf is thus enabling the common person to transgress the prohibition against making challah impure.
|
| 36. |
By making the dough pure, the doughmaker is required to separate challah in a state of ritual impurity. That is problematic, because the common person may cause it to become ritually impure. Nevertheless, as will be explained, certain provisions are enacted to allow such a dough to be made.
|
| 37. |
A person who is careful in his observance of the laws of ritual impurity.
|
| 38. |
See Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 6:2, Hilchot Keilim 1:6, et al. Thus even if the common person would touch the utensil, it would not become impure.
|
| 39. |
This warning is not true, for once challah is separated, a dough never becomes tevel again. Nevertheless, we assume that the common person will not know the law and will be careful not to touch the dough, because of this warning. We are not concerned about the dough itself, because one is permitted to cause ordinary produce to contract ritual impurity, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 12.
|
| 40. |
I.e., it is not desirable, because ultimately, there is the possibility that the challah will become impure.
|
| 41. |
Although the common person's wife is presumed to be ritually impure, nevertheless, since the flour is dry, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Hence even if she would touch it, it would not present a difficulty [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 5:9)]. This leniency is allowed only as an expression of "the ways of piece" (Sh'vi'it, loc. cit.).
|
| 42. |
I.e., needless to say, the wife of the chaver should not let the wife of the common person help her, for her dough would become ritually impure. She should not even help the wife of the common person for the reason stated by the Rambam.
|
| 43. |
And preparing dough in a state of ritual impurity was considered a transgression in the Talmudic era when the laws of ritual impurity were observed.
|
| 44. |
For then the baking process has already been completed.
|
| 45. |
Which is considered an intermediate level between Eretz Yisrael and the Diaspora with regard to many of the agricultural laws. With regard to its status for challah, see Chapter 5, Halachah 8.
Certainly, this law applies in Eretz Yisrael where eating bread from which challah was not separated is punishable by death at the hand of heaven. We do not suspect a baker of being willing to cause a fellow Jew to violate such a transgression. Nevertheless, the above applies only when the baker says that he has separated the challah. If he does not make such a statement and he is a common person, even in Eretz Yisrael, the purchaser must separate challah as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 1 (Radbaz).
|
| 46. |
I.e., he can rely on the baker.
|
| 47. |
Even the common people.
|
| 48. |
We are speaking about a baker who is a common person. Even if he says that he separatedchallah, his word is not accepted (Radbaz).
|
| 49. |
Even if he is a common person.
|
| 50. |
We assume that a common person is careful about what he eats himself - and what he serves from his kitchen. It is only when selling retail that his integrity is suspect.
|
• Monday, Iyar 15, 5775 · 04 May 2015
Iyar 15, 30th day of the omer
Torah lessons: Chumash: B'har, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 77-78.
Tanya: The Holy One, (p. 253)...vegetable matter alone. (p. 255).
In the days of the Alter Rebbe the Chassidim had a familiar saying: "The piece of bread that I have is yours just as it is mine." And they would say the word "yours" first, "...yoursjust as it is mine."
Daily Thought:
Faith in the Dark
Do you believe only when you can see with your eyes? When your prayers are answered and miracles carry you on their wings? Or do you also believe when circumstances fly in your face?
If it touches you to the core, if it is a belief you truly own, if it is as real to you as life itself, then it does not change.
And if it does not change, then you are bound up with the true essence of the One who does not change.
___________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment