Today in Jewish History:
• Chovat Halevavot published (1559)
Chovat Halvavot, the classical work on Jewish ethics, was authored by Rabbi Bachya ben Yosef ibn Paquda (the first "Rabbeinu Bechayei") on or before 1161, and translated into Hebrew from the original Arabic by the famed translator R. Judah idn Tibbon in 1167. It was first published on the 25th of Tevet of the year 5319 from creation (1559).
Daily Quote"
You will see My back; but My face will not be seen.[Exodus 33:23]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Va'eira, 4th Portion Exodus 7:8-8:6 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Exodus Chapter 7
8The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, חוַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהֹוָ֔ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה וְאֶל־אַֽהֲרֹ֖ן לֵאמֹֽר:
9"When Pharaoh speaks to you, saying, 'Provide a sign for yourselves,' you shall say to Aaron, 'Take your staff, [and] cast [it] before Pharaoh; it will become a serpent.' " טכִּי֩ יְדַבֵּ֨ר אֲלֵכֶ֤ם פַּרְעֹה֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר תְּנ֥וּ לָכֶ֖ם מוֹפֵ֑ת וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֣ אֶל־אַֽהֲרֹ֗ן קַ֧ח אֶת־מַטְּךָ֛ וְהַשְׁלֵ֥ךְ לִפְנֵֽי־פַרְעֹ֖ה יְהִ֥י לְתַנִּֽין:
a sign: Heb. מוֹפֵת, a sign to make [it] known that there is power in the One who is sending you. — [from Onkelos] מופת: אות להודיע שיש צרוך במי ששולח אתכם:
a serpent: Heb. תלְתַנִין, a serpent. לתנין: נחש:
10[Thereupon,] Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh, and they did so, as the Lord had commanded; Aaron cast his staff before Pharaoh and before his servants, and it became a serpent. יוַיָּבֹ֨א משֶׁ֤ה וְאַֽהֲרֹן֙ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֔ה וַיַּ֣עֲשׂוּ כֵ֔ן כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֖ר צִוָּ֣ה יְהֹוָ֑ה וַיַּשְׁלֵ֨ךְ אַֽהֲרֹ֜ן אֶת־מַטֵּ֗הוּ לִפְנֵ֥י פַרְעֹ֛ה וְלִפְנֵ֥י עֲבָדָ֖יו וַיְהִ֥י לְתַנִּֽין:
11[Then,] Pharaoh too summoned the wise men and the magicians, and the necromancers of Egypt also did likewise with their magic. יאוַיִּקְרָא֙ גַּם־פַּרְעֹ֔ה לַֽחֲכָמִ֖ים וְלַֽמְכַשְּׁפִ֑ים וַיַּֽעֲשׂ֨וּ גַם־הֵ֜ם חַרְטֻמֵּ֥י מִצְרַ֛יִם בְּלַֽהֲטֵיהֶ֖ם כֵּֽן:
with their magic: Heb. בְּלַהִטֵיהֶם [Onkelos renders בְּלַחֲשֵהון], [meaning] with their incantations. It [the word בְּלַהִטֵיהֶם has no similarity in the [rest of] Scripture. It may, however, be compared to “the blade of (לַהַט) the revolving sword” (Gen. 3:24), which seemed to be revolving because of a magic spell. בלהטיהם: בלחשיהון ואין לו דמיון במקרא, ויש לדמות לו (בראשית ג כב) להט החרב המתהפכת, דומה שהיא מתהפכת על ידי לחש:
12Each one of them cast down his staff, and they became serpents; but Aaron's staff swallowed their staffs. יבוַיַּשְׁלִ֨יכוּ֙ אִ֣ישׁ מַטֵּ֔הוּ וַיִּֽהְי֖וּ לְתַנִּינִ֑ם וַיִּבְלַ֥ע מַטֵּה־אַֽהֲרֹ֖ן אֶת־מַטֹּתָֽם:
but Aaron’s staff swallowed their staffs: After it had again become a staff, it swallowed them all. — [from Shab. 97a] ויבלע מטה אהרן: מאחר שחזר ונעשה מטה בלע את כולן:
13But Pharaoh's heart remained steadfast, and he did not hearken to them, as the Lord had spoken. יגוַֽיֶּֽחֱזַק֙ לֵ֣ב פַּרְעֹ֔ה וְלֹ֥א שָׁמַ֖ע אֲלֵהֶ֑ם כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֖ר דִּבֶּ֥ר יְהֹוָֽה:
14The Lord said to Moses, "Pharaoh's heart is heavy; he has refused to let the people out. ידוַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה כָּבֵ֖ד לֵ֣ב פַּרְעֹ֑ה מֵאֵ֖ן לְשַׁלַּ֥ח הָעָֽם:
is heavy: Heb. כָּבֵד. Its Aramaic translation is יַקִיר [heavy], and not אִתְיַקַר [has become heavy], because it is the name of a thing [an adjective and not a verb], as in for the matter is too heavy (כָבֵד) for you (Exod. 18:18). כבד: תרגומו יקיר, ולא אתיקר, מפני שהוא שם דבר, כמו (שמות יח יח) כי כבד ממך הדבר:
15Go to Pharaoh in the morning; behold, he is going forth to the water, and you shall stand opposite him on the bank of the Nile, and the staff that was turned into a serpent you shall take in your hand. טולֵ֣ךְ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֞ה בַּבֹּ֗קֶר הִנֵּה֙ יֹצֵ֣א הַמַּ֔יְמָה וְנִצַּבְתָּ֥ לִקְרָאת֖וֹ עַל־שְׂפַ֣ת הַיְאֹ֑ר וְהַמַּטֶּ֛ה אֲשֶׁר־נֶהְפַּ֥ךְ לְנָחָ֖שׁ תִּקַּ֥ח בְּיָדֶֽךָ:
behold, he is going forth to the water: to relieve himself, for he had deified himself and said that he did not need to relieve himself; so, early in the morning he went out to the Nile and there he would perform his needs. — [from Mid. Tanchuma, Va’era 14; Exod. Rabbah 9:8] הנה יצא המימה: לנקביו, שהיה עושה עצמו אלוה ואומר שאינו צריך לנקביו ומשכים ויוצא לנילוס ועושה שם צרכיו:
16And you shall say to him, 'The Lord God of the Hebrews sent me to you, saying, "Send forth My people, so that they may serve Me in the desert," but behold, until now, you have not hearkened. טזוְאָֽמַרְתָּ֣ אֵלָ֗יו יְהֹוָ֞ה אֱלֹהֵ֤י הָֽעִבְרִים֙ שְׁלָחַ֤נִי אֵלֶ֨יךָ֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר שַׁלַּח֙ אֶת־עַמִּ֔י וְיַֽעַבְדֻ֖נִי בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר וְהִנֵּ֥ה לֹֽא־שָׁמַ֖עְתָּ עַד־כֹּֽה:
until now: Heb. עַד-כֹּה, [meaning] until now [Onkelos]. Its midrashic interpretation is: Until you hear from me [the announcement of] the plague of the firstborn, which I will introduce with “So (כֹּה said the Lord, ‘When the night divides…’” (Exod. 11: 4). — [from an unknown midrashic source] עד כה: עד הנה ומדרשו עד שתשמע ממני מכת בכורות, שאפתח בה בכה (יא ד) כה אמר ה' כחצות הלילה:
17So said the Lord, "With this you will know that I am the Lord." Behold, I will smite with the staff that is in my hand upon the water that is in the Nile, and it will turn to blood. יזכֹּ֚ה אָמַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֔ה בְּזֹ֣את תֵּדַ֔ע כִּ֖י אֲנִ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה הִנֵּ֨ה אָֽנֹכִ֜י מַכֶּ֣ה | בַּמַּטֶּ֣ה אֲשֶׁר־בְּיָדִ֗י עַל־הַמַּ֛יִם אֲשֶׁ֥ר בַּיְאֹ֖ר וְנֶֽהֶפְכ֥וּ לְדָֽם:
and it will turn to blood: Since there is no rainfall in Egypt, and the Nile ascends and waters the land, so the Egyptians worship the Nile. He therefore smote their deity and afterwards He smote them. — [from Sifrei, Devarim 38; Exod. Rabbah 9:9; Tanchuma, Va’era 13] ונהפכו לדם: לפי שאין גשמים יורדים במצרים, ונילוס עולה ומשקה את הארץ, ומצרים עובדים לנילוס, לפיכך הלקה את יראתם ואחר כך הלקה אותם:
18And the fish that are in the Nile will die, and the Nile will become putrid, and the Egyptians will weary [in their efforts] to drink water from the Nile.' " יחוְהַדָּגָ֧ה אֲשֶׁר־בַּיְאֹ֛ר תָּמ֖וּת וּבָאַ֣שׁ הַיְאֹ֑ר וְנִלְא֣וּ מִצְרַ֔יִם לִשְׁתּ֥וֹת מַ֖יִם מִן־הַיְאֹֽר:
and the Egyptians will weary: Heb. וְנִלְאוּ [I.e., the Egyptians will become weary trying] to seek a remedy for the waters of the Nile so that it would be fit to drink. — [from Jonathan] ונלאו מצרים: לבקש רפואה למי היאור שיהיו ראוין לשתות:
19The Lord said to Moses, "Say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and stretch forth your hand over the waters of Egypt, over their rivers, over their canals, over their ponds, and over all their bodies of water, and they will become blood, and there will be blood throughout the entire land of Egypt, even in wood and in stone.' " יטוַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהֹוָ֜ה אֶל־משֶׁ֗ה אֱמֹ֣ר אֶל־אַֽהֲרֹ֡ן קַ֣ח מַטְּךָ֣ וּנְטֵה־יָֽדְךָ֩ עַל־מֵימֵ֨י מִצְרַ֜יִם עַל־נַֽהֲרֹתָ֣ם | עַל־יְאֹֽרֵיהֶ֣ם וְעַל־אַגְמֵיהֶ֗ם וְעַ֛ל כָּל־מִקְוֵ֥ה מֵֽימֵיהֶ֖ם וְיִֽהְיוּ־דָ֑ם וְהָ֤יָה דָם֙ בְּכָל־אֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם וּבָֽעֵצִ֖ים וּבָֽאֲבָנִֽים:
Say to Aaron: Since the Nile protected Moses when he was cast into it, it therefore was not smitten by him, neither with blood nor with frogs, but was smitten by Aaron. — [from Tanchuma, Va’era 14] אמר אל אהרן: לפי שהגין היאור על משה כשנשלך לתוכו, לפיכך לא לקה על ידו לא בדם ולא בצפרדעים, ולקה על ידי אהרן:
their rivers: They are the rivers that flow, like our rivers. נהרתם: הם נהרות המושכים כעין נהרות שלנו:
their canals: Heb. יְאֹרֵיהֶם. These are man-made pools and ditches, [extending] from the riverbank to the fields. [When] the waters of the Nile increase, it [the Nile] rises through the canals and irrigates the fields. — [from Othioth d’Rabbi Akiva יאריהם: הם בריכות ונגרים העשויות בידי אדם משפת הנהר לשדות, ונילוס מימיו מתברכים ועולה דרך היאורים ומשקה השדות:
their ponds: Water that does not spring [from beneath the ground] and does not flow [to any other place] but stands in one place. It is called estanc [in Old French], pond. אגמיהם: קבוצת מים שאינן נובעין ואינן מושכין, אלא עומדין במקום אחד, וקורין לו אישטנ"ק [אגם]:
throughout the entire land of Egypt: Even in the bathhouses, and in the bathtubs in the houses. בכל ארץ מצרים: אף במרחצאות ובאמבטאות שבבתים:
even in wood and in stone: Water in wooden vessels and in stone vessels. — [from Onkelos, Jonathan, Exod. Rabbah 9:11] ובעצים ובאבנים: מים שבכלי עץ ובכלי אבן:
20Moses and Aaron did so, as the Lord had commanded, and he raised the staff and struck the water that was in the Nile before the eyes of Pharaoh and before the eyes of his servants, and all the water that was in the Nile turned to blood. כוַיַּֽעֲשׂוּ־כֵן֩ משֶׁ֨ה וְאַֽהֲרֹ֜ן כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֣ר | צִוָּ֣ה יְהֹוָ֗ה וַיָּ֤רֶם בַּמַּטֶּה֙ וַיַּ֤ךְ אֶת־הַמַּ֨יִם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּיְאֹ֔ר לְעֵינֵ֣י פַרְעֹ֔ה וּלְעֵינֵ֖י עֲבָדָ֑יו וַיֵּהָֽפְכ֛וּ כָּל־הַמַּ֥יִם אֲשֶׁר־בַּיְאֹ֖ר לְדָֽם:
21And the fish that were in the Nile died, and the Nile became putrid; the Egyptians could not drink water from the Nile, and there was blood throughout the entire land of Egypt. כאוְהַדָּגָ֨ה אֲשֶׁר־בַּיְאֹ֥ר מֵ֨תָה֙ וַיִּבְאַ֣שׁ הַיְאֹ֔ר וְלֹא־יָכְל֣וּ מִצְרַ֔יִם לִשְׁתּ֥וֹת מַ֖יִם מִן־הַיְאֹ֑ר וַיְהִ֥י הַדָּ֖ם בְּכָל־אֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם:
22And the necromancers of Egypt did likewise with their secret rites, and Pharaoh's heart was steadfast, and he did not heed them, as the Lord had spoken. כבוַיַּֽעֲשׂוּ־כֵ֛ן חַרְטֻמֵּ֥י מִצְרַ֖יִם בְּלָֽטֵיהֶ֑ם וַיֶּֽחֱזַ֤ק לֵֽב־פַּרְעֹה֙ וְלֹֽא־שָׁמַ֣ע אֲלֵהֶ֔ם כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֖ר דִּבֶּ֥ר יְהֹוָֽה:
with their secret rites: Heb. בְּלָטֵיהֶם, an incantation which they uttered silently and in secret (בְּלָּט). [This follows Onkelos.] Our Rabbis, however, said: בְּלָטֵיהֶם means acts of demons. בְּלַהִטֵיהֶם means acts of magic. — [from Sanh. 67b] [See above commentary on verse 11.] בלטיהם: לחש שאומרין אותו בלט ובחשאי. ורבותינו אמרו בלטיהם מעשה שדים, בלהטיהם מעשה כשפים:
and Pharaoh’s heart was steadfast: saying, “You are doing this through sorcery. ‘You are bringing straw to Aphraim,’ a city that is full of straw. So too you bring magic to Egypt, which is [already] full of magic.” - from Exod. Rabbah 9:11, Men. 85a] ויחזק לב פרעה: לומר על ידי מכשפות אתם עושים כן, תבן אתם מכניסין לעפריים, עיר שכולה תבן, אף אתם מביאין מכשפות למצרים שכולה כשפים:
23Pharaoh turned and went home, and he paid no heed even to this. כגוַיִּ֣פֶן פַּרְעֹ֔ה וַיָּבֹ֖א אֶל־בֵּית֑וֹ וְלֹא־שָׁ֥ת לִבּ֖וֹ גַּם־לָזֹֽאת:
even to this: Neither to the sign of the staff that had turned into a serpent nor to this one of blood. גם לזאת: למופת המטה, שנהפך לתנין ולא לזה של דם:
24All the Egyptians dug around the Nile for water to drink because they could not drink from the water of the Nile. כדוַיַּחְפְּר֧וּ כָל־מִצְרַ֛יִם סְבִיבֹ֥ת הַיְאֹ֖ר מַ֣יִם לִשְׁתּ֑וֹת כִּ֣י לֹ֤א יָֽכְלוּ֙ לִשְׁתֹּ֔ת מִמֵּימֵ֖י הַיְאֹֽר:
25Seven full days passed after the Lord had smitten the Nile. כהוַיִּמָּלֵ֖א שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֑ים אַֽחֲרֵ֥י הַכּֽוֹת־יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶת־הַיְאֹֽר:
Seven full days passed: Heb. וַיְּמָּלֵא, literally, seven days were filled. Since the word וַיְּמָּלֵא is singular, Rashi explains: The number of seven days that the Nile did not return to its original state [was filled], for the plague would be in effect for a quarter of a month, and for three quarters [of the month], he [Moses] would exhort and warn them. — [from Tanchuma, Va’era 13, Exod. Rabbah 9:12, as explained by Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh]. וימלא: מנין שבעת ימים, שלא שב היאור לקדמותו, שהיתה המכה משמשת רביע חדש ושלשה חלקים היה מעיד ומתרה בהם:
26The Lord said to Moses, "Come to Pharaoh and say to him, 'So said the Lord, "Let My people go, so that they may serve Me. כווַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה בֹּ֖א אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֣ אֵלָ֗יו כֹּ֚ה אָמַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֔ה שַׁלַּ֥ח אֶת־עַמִּ֖י וְיַֽעַבְדֻֽנִי:
27But if you refuse to let [them] go, behold, I will smite all your borders with frogs. כזוְאִם־מָאֵ֥ן אַתָּ֖ה לְשַׁלֵּ֑חַ הִנֵּ֣ה אָֽנֹכִ֗י נֹגֵ֛ף אֶת־כָּל־גְּבֽוּלְךָ֖ בַּֽצְפַרְדְּעִֽים:
But if you refuse: Heb. מָאֵן, [which means] and if you are a refuser. מָאֵן is like מְמָאֵן, refuses, but Scripture calls the person by his action, like “tranquil (שָׁלֵו) and still (וְשָׁקֵט) ” (see Job 16:12) 4; “sad and upset (וְזָעֵף)” (I Kings 20:43). ואם מאן אתה: ואם סרבן אתה. מאן כמו ממאן, מסרב, אלא כינה האדם על שם המפעל, כמו (איוב טז יב) שלו, (ירמיהו מח יא) ושקט, (מלכים א' כ מג) סר וזעף:
smite all your borders: Heb. נֹגֵף, [means] smite. Similarly every expression of מַגֵּפָה, plague, [also means a smiting,] “and they strike (וְנָגְפוּ) a pregnant woman” (Exod. 21:22), does not mean [striking to] death. Similarly “before your feet are dashed (יִתְנַגְּפוּ) ” (Jer. 13:16); “lest your foot be dashed (ךְתִּגֹּף) on a stone” (Ps. 91:12); “a stone upon which to dash oneself (נֶגֶף) ” (Isa. 8:14). נגף את כל גבולך: מכה, וכן כל לשון מגפה אינו לשון מיתה אלא לשון מכה, וכן (שמות כא כב) ונגפו אשה הרה, אינו לשון מיתה. וכן (ירמיהו יג טז) ובטרם יתנגפו רגליכם, (תהילים צא יב) פן תגוף באבן רגליך, (ישעיהו ח יד) ולאבן נגף:
28And the Nile will swarm with frogs, and they will go up and come into your house and into your bedroom and upon your bed and into the house of your servants and into your people, and into your ovens and into your kneading troughs; כחוְשָׁרַ֣ץ הַיְאֹר֘ צְפַרְדְּעִים֒ וְעָלוּ֙ וּבָ֣אוּ בְּבֵיתֶ֔ךָ וּבַֽחֲדַ֥ר מִשְׁכָּֽבְךָ֖ וְעַל־מִטָּתֶ֑ךָ וּבְבֵ֤ית עֲבָדֶ֨יךָ֙ וּבְעַמֶּ֔ךָ וּבְתַנּוּרֶ֖יךָ וּבְמִשְׁאֲרוֹתֶֽיךָ:
and they will go up: from the Nile. ועלו: מן היאור:
into your house: and afterwards, into the house of your servants. He [Pharaoh] introduced the plan first, [as it is written:] “He said to his people…” (Exod. 1:9), and with him the retribution started. — [from Sotah 11a] בביתך: ואחר כך בבתי עבדיך. הוא התחיל בעצה תחלה (שמות א ט) ויאמר אל עמו, וממנו התחילה הפורענות:
29and into you and into your people and into all your servants, the frogs will ascend." ' " כטוּבְכָ֥ה וּבְעַמְּךָ֖ וּבְכָל־עֲבָדֶ֑יךָ יַֽעֲל֖וּ הַֽצְפַרְדְּעִֽים:
and into you and into your people and into all your servants: They [the frogs] would go into their intestines and croak. — [from Tanna d’vei Eliyahu, Seder Eliyahu Rabbah, ch. 7] ובכה ובעמך: בתוך מעיהם נכנסין ומקרקרין:
Exodus Chapter 8
1The Lord said to Moses, "Say to Aaron, stretch forth your hand with your staff over the rivers, over the canals, and over the ponds, and bring up the frogs on the land of Egypt." אוַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהֹוָה֘ אֶל־משֶׁה֒ אֱמֹ֣ר אֶל־אַֽהֲרֹ֗ן נְטֵ֤ה אֶת־יָֽדְךָ֙ בְּמַטֶּ֔ךָ עַל־הַ֙נְּהָרֹ֔ת עַל־הַיְאֹרִ֖ים וְעַל־הָֽאֲגַמִּ֑ים וְהַ֥עַל אֶת־הַֽצְפַרְדְּעִ֖ים עַל־אֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם:
2And Aaron stretched forth his hand over the waters of Egypt, and the frogs came up and covered the land of Egypt. בוַיֵּ֤ט אַֽהֲרֹן֙ אֶת־יָד֔וֹ עַ֖ל מֵימֵ֣י מִצְרָ֑יִם וַתַּ֨עַל֙ הַצּפַרְדֵּ֔עַ וַתְּכַ֖ס אֶת־אֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם:
and the frogs came up: Heb. וַתַּעַל הַצְפַרְדֵעַ, literally, and the frog came up. It was one frog, and they [the Egyptians] hit it, and it split into many swarms of frogs. This is its midrashic interpretation (Tanchuma, Va’era 14); for its simple meaning, it can be said that the swarming of the frogs is referred to as singular, and likewise, “and the lice were (וַתְּהִי הַכִּנָם) ” (verse 13), the swarming, pedoiliyere in Old French, swarming of lice, and also וַתַּעַל הַצְּפַרְדֵּע, grenoylede in Old French, swarming of frogs. ותעל הצפרדע: צפרדע אחת היתה והיו מכין אותה והיא מתזת נחילים נחילים זהו מדרשו. ופשוטו יש לומר שרוץ הצפרדעים קורא לשון יחידות. וכן (להלן יד) ותהי הכנם, הרחישה דוילייר"א בלעז [רחישת כנים] ואף ותעל הצפרדע גרינוילייר"א בלעז [רחישת צפרדעים]:
3And the necromancers did likewise with their secret rites, and they brought up the frogs on the land of Egypt. גוַיַּֽעֲשׂוּ־כֵ֥ן הַֽחַרְטֻמִּ֖ים בְּלָֽטֵיהֶ֑ם וַיַּֽעֲל֥וּ אֶת־הַֽצְפַרְדְּעִ֖ים עַל־אֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם:
4Thereupon, Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron, and said, "Entreat the Lord that He remove the frogs from me and from my people, and I will let out the people [of Israel] so that they may sacrifice to the Lord." דוַיִּקְרָ֨א פַרְעֹ֜ה לְמשֶׁ֣ה וּלְאַֽהֲרֹ֗ן וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ הַעְתִּ֣ירוּ אֶל־יְהֹוָ֔ה וְיָסֵר֙ הַֽצְפַרְדְּעִ֔ים מִמֶּ֖נִּי וּמֵֽעַמִּ֑י וַֽאֲשַׁלְּחָה֙ אֶת־הָעָ֔ם וְיִזְבְּח֖וּ לַֽיהֹוָֽה:
5And Moses said to Pharaoh, "Boast [of your superiority] over me. For when shall I entreat for you, for your servants, and for your people, to destroy the frogs from you and from your houses, [that] they should remain only in the Nile? " הוַיֹּ֨אמֶר משֶׁ֣ה לְפַרְעֹה֘ הִתְפָּאֵ֣ר עָלַי֒ לְמָתַ֣י | אַעְתִּ֣יר לְךָ֗ וְלַֽעֲבָדֶ֨יךָ֙ וּלְעַמְּךָ֔ לְהַכְרִית֙ הַֽצְפַרְדְּעִ֔ים מִמְּךָ֖ וּמִבָּתֶּ֑יךָ רַ֥ק בַּיְאֹ֖ר תִּשָּׁאַֽרְנָה:
Boast [of your superiority] over me: Heb. הִתְפָּאֵר עָלַי, similar to “Shall the axe boast (הִיִתְפָּאֵר) over the one who hews with it” (Isa. 10:15). It praises itself, saying, “I am greater than you,” vanter in Old French. Similarly, הִתְפָּאֵר עָלַי, [Moses says to Pharaoh,] “you praise yourself by acting cleverly and asking a difficult thing and saying that I will be unable to do it.” התפאר עלי: כמו (ישעיהו י טו) היתפאר הגרזן על החוצב בו, משתבח לומר אני גדול ממך ונט"ר בלעז [להתפאר]. וכן התפאר עלי, השתבח להתחכם ולשאול דבר גדול ולומר שלא אוכל לעשותו:
For when shall I entreat for you: Heb. לְמָתַי. That which I will entreat for you today regarding the extermination of the frogs [tell me,] when do you wish them to be exterminated? And you will see whether I fulfill my words for the time that you set for me. If it were stated, מָתַי אַעְתִּיר it would mean “When shall I pray?” Now that it says, לְמָתַי [and thus it means:] Today I will pray for you that the frogs will be exterminated at the time that you set for me. Tell me, on which day do you want them to be exterminated? [The Torah uses three words:] אַעְתִּיר, I will entreat; הַעְתִּירוּ ((verse 4), entreat (command form); וְהַעְתַּרְתִּי (verse 25), and I will entreat [all in the “hiph’il,” causative conjugation], and it does not say, אֶעְתַּר, עִתְרוּ, and וְעָתַרְתִּי [in the “kal,” simple conjugation], because every expression of עתר means to pray very much, and just as one says אַרְבֶּה, I will increase, הַרְבּוּ, increase [command form], וְהִרְבֵּיתִי, and I will increase, in the “hiph’il” conjugation, so does one say: אַעְתִּיר, I will increase, הַעְךְתִּירוּ (verse 4), increase [command form] וְהַעְתַּרְתִּי (verse 25), and I will increase words, and the “father” [i.e., the main proof] of them all is: “ הַעְתַּרְתֶּם your words” (Ezek. 35:13), you have multiplied. למתי אעתיר לך: את אשר אעתיר לך היום על הכרתת הצפרדעים, למתי תרצה שיכרתו, ותראה אם אשלים דברי למועד שתקבע לי. אלו נאמר מתי אעתיר, היה משמע מתי אתפלל, עכשיו שנאמר למתי משמע אני היום אתפלל עליך שיכרתו הצפרדעים לזמן שתקבע עלי, אמור לאיזה יום תרצה שיכרתו. אעתיר, העתירו, והעתרתי, ולא נאמר אעתר עתרו ועתרתי, מפני שכל לשון עתר הרבות פלל הוא, וכאשר יאמר הרבו, ארבה, והרביתי לשון מפעיל, כך יאמר, אעתיר, העתירו, והעתרתי דברים, ואב לכולם העתרתם עלי דבריכם (יחזקאל לה יג), הרביתם:
6And he [Pharaoh] said, "For tomorrow." And he [Moses] said, "As you say, in order that you should know that there is none like the Lord, our God. ווַיֹּ֖אמֶר לְמָחָ֑ר וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ כִּדְבָ֣רְךָ֔ לְמַ֣עַן תֵּדַ֔ע כִּי־אֵ֖ין כַּֽיהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ:
And he [Pharaoh] said, “For tomorrow”: Pray today that they should be exterminated tomorrow. ויאמר למחר: התפלל היום שיכרתו למחר:
---------------------
Daily Tehillim: Chapter 119, Verses 1-96
• Hebrew text
• English text
•
Verses 1-96
David composed this prominent psalm in alphabetical sequence-eight verses for each letter. Every verse contains one of the following words (referring to different aspects of Torah): Way; Torah; Testimony; Precept; Commandment; Statement (translated here as Word or Promise); Word; Judgement (or Laws); Righteousness; Statute. Replete with morals and prayers, this psalm should be recited daily, as a powerful preparation for the service of God. (In verses beginning with one of the letters of the mnemonic PeReTZ BeN DaMaH, the word "עדותיך" is pronounced "eidvotecha.")
1. Fortunate are those whose way is artless, who walk with the Torah of the Lord.
2. Fortunate are those who keep His testimonies, who seek Him with all their hearts.
3. Indeed, they have not done iniquity; they walk in His ways.
4. You have commanded Your precepts to be observed diligently.
5. My wish is that my ways be directed to keep Your statutes.
6. Then I will not be ashamed, when I behold all Your commandments.
7. I will give thanks to You with uprightness of heart, when I learn Your righteous judgments.
8. I will keep Your statutes; do not utterly forsake me
9. How can a young man keep his way pure? By observing Your word.
10. With all my heart I have sought You; do not let me stray from Your commandments.
11. I have harbored Your word in my heart, that I might not sin against You.
12. Blessed are You, O Lord; teach me Your statutes.
13. With my lips I have declared all the judgments of Your mouth.
14. I have rejoiced in the way of Your testimonies, as I would with all riches.
15. I will speak of Your precepts, and gaze upon Your ways.
16. I will delight in Your statutes; I will not forget Your word.
17. Deal kindly with Your servant, that I may live to keep Your word.
18. Unveil my eyes, that I may behold wonders from Your Torah.
19. I am a sojourner on earth; do not hide Your commandments from me.
20. My soul is crushed with a longing for Your judgments every moment.
21. You have rebuked the accursed scoffers, those who stray from Your commandments.
22. Remove insult and contempt from me, for I have kept Your testimonies.
23. Though princes sat and spoke against me, Your servant speaks of Your statutes.
24. Indeed, Your testimonies are my delight; they are my counsellors.
25. My soul cleaves to the dust; revive me in accordance with Your word.
26. I have spoken of my ways, and You answered me; teach me Your statutes.
27. Make me understand the way of Your precepts, and I will speak of Your wonders.
28. My soul drips away out of grief; sustain me according to Your word.
29. Remove from me the way of falsehood, and graciously endow me with Your Torah.
30. I have chosen the way of faith; Your judgments have I laid before me.
31. I held fast to Your testimonies, O Lord; put me not to shame.
32. I will run on the path of Your commandments, for You will broaden my heart.
33. Teach me, O Lord, the way of Your statutes, and I will keep it to the last.
34. Grant me understanding and I will keep Your Torah; I will observe it with all my heart.
35. Direct me in the path of Your commandments, for that is my desire.
36. Incline my heart to Your testimonies, and not to greed.
37. Avert my eyes from seeing vanity; by Your ways give me life.
38. Fulfill for Your servant Your promise, which brings to the fear of You.
39. Remove my shame which I fear, for Your judgments are good.
40. Behold, I have longed for Your precepts; give me life in Your righteousness.
41. And let Your kindness come to fruition for me, O Lord, Your salvation as You promised.
42. I will offer a retort to those who taunt me, for I trust in Your word.
43. Do not at all remove the word of truth from my mouth, for I hope [to fulfill] Your judgments.
44. I will keep Your Torah continually, for ever and ever.
45. And I will walk in spacious paths, for I seek Your precepts.
46. I will speak of Your testimonies before kings, and I will not be ashamed.
47. And I will delight in Your commandments, which I love.
48. I will lift up my hands to Your commandments, which I love, and I will speak of Your statutes.
49. Remember the word [promised] to Your servant, by which You gave me hope.
50. This is my comfort in my affliction, for Your word has given me life.
51. [Though] the wicked ridicule me severely, I have not strayed from Your Torah.
52. When I remember Your judgments of old, O Lord, I take comfort.
53. Trembling seized me because of the wicked, those who forsake Your Torah.
54. Your statutes have been my songs in the house of my wanderings.
55. At night I remembered Your Name, O Lord, and I kept Your Torah.
56. All this came to me because I kept Your precepts.
57. The Lord is my portion; I pledged to keep Your words.
58. I pleaded before You with all my heart: have compassion upon me according to Your word.
59. I contemplated my ways, and returned my feet to Your testimonies.
60. I hurried and did not delay to keep Your commandments.
61. Bands of wicked men plundered me, [but] I did not forget Your Torah.
62. At midnight, I rise to thank You for Your righteous judgments.
63. I am a friend to all who fear You, and to those who keep Your precepts.
64. Your kindness, O Lord, fills the earth; teach me Your statutes.
65. You have dealt goodness to Your servant, O Lord, in accord with Your promise.
66. Teach me the goodness and wisdom of the [Torah's] reasons, for I believe in Your commandments.
67. Before I afflicted myself, I would blunder; but now I observe Your word.
68. You are good and benevolent; teach me Your statutes.
69. The wicked have smeared me with lies, [when in truth] I keep Your precepts with all my heart.
70. Their hearts grew thick as fat; but as for me, Your Torah is my delight.
71. It is for my good that I was afflicted, so that I might learn Your statutes.
72. The Torah of Your mouth is better for me than thousands in gold and silver.
73. Your hands have made me and prepared me; grant me understanding, that I may learn Your commandments.
74. Those who fear You will see me and rejoice, because I hoped in Your word.
75. I know, O Lord, that Your judgments are just; righteously have You afflicted me.
76. Let Your kindness be my comfort, as You promised to Your servant.
77. Let Your mercies come upon me, that I may live, for Your Torah is my delight.
78. Let the scoffers be shamed, for they have maligned me with falsehood; but I will meditate upon Your precepts.
79. May those who fear You return to me, and those who know Your testimonies.
80. May my heart be perfect in Your statutes, so that I not be shamed.
81. My soul longs for Your salvation; I hope for Your word.
82. My eyes long for Your promise, saying, "When will You comfort me?”
83. Though I became [dried out] like a wineskin in smoke, I did not forget Your statutes.
84. How many are the days of Your servant? When will You execute judgment upon my pursuers?
85. The wicked have dug pits for me, in violation of Your Torah.
86. All Your commandments teach truth, [yet] they pursue me with lies, help me!
87. They nearly consumed me upon the earth, but I did not forsake Your precepts.
88. As befits Your kindness, grant me life, and I will keep the testimony of Your mouth.
89. Forever, O Lord, Your word stands firm in the heavens.
90. Your faithfulness persists for all generations; You established the earth, and it stands.
91. They stand ready today [to execute] Your judgments, for all are Your servants.
92. Had Your Torah not been my delight, I would have perished in my affliction.
93. Never will I forget Your precepts, for through them You have sustained me.
94. I am Yours; save me, for I have sought Your precepts.
95. The wicked hope to destroy me, but I meditate upon Your testimonies.
96. To every goal I have seen a limit, but Your commandment is immensely broad.
---------------------Tanya: Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 13
• Lessons in Tanya
• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
• Wednesday, Tevet 25, 5776 · January 6, 2016
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 13
אך מאחר שהרע שבחלל השמאלי בבינוני הוא בתקפו כתולדתו, להתאות תאוה לכל תענוגי עולם הזה
Yet, inasmuch as the evil in the left part of the Beinoni’s heart is in its native strength, craving after all the pleasures of this world,
ולא נתבטל במיעוט לגבי הטוב ולא נדחה ממקומו כלל
and is neither so minute as to be nullified before the good of the divine soul (as is the case with a tzaddik), nor has it been displaced from its position to any degree,
רק שאין לו שליטה וממשלה להתפשט באברי הגוף
but merely lacks authority and power to become diffused throughout the limbs of the body to cause them to do, speak or think evil; nor is the evil’s lack of ability attributable to the Beinoni’s efforts, for his evil, like that of the rasha,retains its native strength to pervade the entire body; rather, the evil is powerless merely
מפני הקב״ה העומד לימין אביון, ועוזר ומאיר לנפש האלקית
because of the Holy One, blessed be He, who “stands at the right hand of the poor man,” helping him and irradiating his divine soul so that it may be able to prevail over the evil.
Thus it is only Divine intervention that prevents the evil from pervading the body; essentially, however, the evil of theBeinoni’s animal soul is as strong as it was at birth.
לכן נקרא כרשע, כמאמר רז״ל: אפילו כל העולם כולו אומרים לך צדיק אתה, היה בעיניך כרשע
Therefore [the Beinoni] is described as being “k‘rasha” (“like a rasha”), but not actually a rasha, as in the statement of our Sages, “Even if the whole world tells you that you are a tzaddik, be in your own eyes likea rasha.”
ולא רשע ממש
He should not [regard himself as] an actual rasha, for the Mishnah admonishes,1 “Be not wicked in your own estimation.”
Moreover, regarding oneself as a rasha hinders one from serving G‑d joyfully.
אלא שיחזיק עצמו לבינוני
Rather, one should consider oneself a Beinoni,
ולא להאמין להעולם שאומרים שהרע שבו נתבטל לגבי הטוב, שזו מדרגת צדיק
and should not believe i.e., accept the world’s opinion which would have him believe that the evil in him has been nullified by the good, for this is the level of a tzaddik.
Only the tzaddik succeeds in nullifying and transforming the evil within him. But the “world”, which judges the Beinoniby his actions and sees that he never transgresses, assumes that he too has effectively banished from within him the evil that is the cause of sin; consequently, people regard him as a tzaddik.
He is therefore cautioned against accepting the opinion of “the world.”
אלא יהיה בעיניו כאלו מהותו ועצמותו של הרע הוא בתקפו ובגבורתו בחלל השמאלי כתולדתו
Instead, he should take the view that the essence and core of the evil is in its full native strength and might, in the left part of his heart,
ולא חלף והלך ממנו מאומה
not having vanished or departed from him at all.
ואדרבה נתחזק יותר בהמשך הזמן שנשתמש בו הרבה
On the contrary, with the passage of time [the evil] has gained strength because he utilized it i.e., the animal soul considerably,
באכילה ושתיה ושאר עניני עולם הזה
in eating and drinking and in other mundane pursuits.
As with every faculty, constant use of the animal soul causes it to become even stronger than it was at birth.
The Alter Rebbe thus concludes that the words “consider yourself ‘like a rasha’” mean that one must consider himself aBeinoni. The above applies even to those who have reached a lofty spiritual level; they too should consider themselvesBeinonim. For should one consider himself a tzaddik and maintain that the evil within him has already been nullified by the good, he will cease to do battle with the evil. If he is mistaken and is not in fact a tzaddik, such an unfounded attitude can cause him to slip drastically from his level, descending even lower than the level of a Beinoni to that of a rasha.
* * *
Until now we have been speaking of a working man who does not have the opportunity to spend all his time in Torah study and divine service. Now the discussion turns to the individual who spends all his time immersed in the study of Torah.
ואף מי שבתורת ה׳ חפצו, ויהגה בה יומם ולילה לשמה
Even if one’s entire aspiration is in G‑d’s Torah, which he studies day and night for its own sake,
אין זו הוכחה כלל שנדחה הרע ממקומו
this is still no proof whatever that the evil has been dislodged from its place.
אלא יכול להיות שמהותו ועצמותו הוא בתקפו ובגבורתו במקומו בחלל השמאלי
Perhaps, rather, the essence and substance of the evil are in their full strength and might in its abode in the left part of the heart,
רק שלבושיו שהם מחשבה דבור ומעשה של נפש הבהמית אינן מתלבשים במוח והפה והידים ושאר אברי הגוף
except that its garments — namely, the thought, speech and action of the animal soul — are not invested in the brain, mouth and hands and other parts of the body, to think and do that which is forbidden,
מפני ה׳ שנתן שליטה וממשלה למוח על הלב
because G‑d has granted the mind supremacy and dominion over the heart.
ולכן נפש האלקית שבמוח מושלת בעיר קטנה, אברי הגוף כולם
Therefore the divine soul in the mind rules over the “small city,” i.e., [over] all the parts of the body,
שיהיו לבוש ומרכבה
making them,the body’s organs, serve as “garment and vehicle”
I.e., as a means of expression (“garment”) that is totally subservient to its user (as is a “vehicle” to its rider); thus, because of its G‑d-given supremacy, the divine soul is able to use the body’s organs as a “garment and vehicle” —
לשלשת לבושיה שיתלבשו בהם, שהם מחשבה דבור ומעשה של תרי״ג מצות התורה
through which its three “garments” — namely, the thought, speech and action of the Torah’s 613 commandments — are expressed (“clothed”).
It may be, then, that with regard to this individual’s thinking and speaking words of Torah and performing the mitzvot, the divine soul rules over the body; in this area the divine soul has the upper hand and the animal soul is subservient.
אבל מהותה ועצמותה של נפש האלקית אין לה שליטה וממשלה על מהות ועצמותה של נפש הבהמית בבינוני
However, in its essence and substance the divine soul has no preponderance over the essence and substance of the animal soul, in the case of a Beinoni,
כי אם בשעה שאהבת ה׳ הוא בהתגלות לבו
except at those times when his love for G‑d manifests itself in his heart
בעתים מזומנים כמו בשעת התפלה וכיוצא בה
on propitious occasions such as during prayer and the like.
Then, as mentioned in the previous chapter, the Beinoni is aroused to a burning love of G‑d that causes the evil of the animal soul to be nullified before the goodness of the divine soul.
ואף גם זאת הפעם
Even then, during those times when the divine soul gains the upper hand over the animal soul,
אינה רק שליטה וממשלה לבד
it is limited to preponderance and dominion alone, i.e., the divine soul succeeds in dominating the animal soul, not in vanquishing it, in the sense of nullifying its essence.
כדכתיב: ולאום מלאום יאמץ
As is written of the battle between Jacob and Esau,2 allegorically representing the war between the good and evil in man’s soul: “And one nation shall prevail over the other.” Jacob, exemplifying the good, merely prevails over Esau, the evil, but does not succeed in totally vanquishing him.
כשזה קם זה נופל, וכשזה קם כו׳
This agrees with our Sages‘ comment on this verse: “When this one rises and prevails that one falls, and when that one rises…[this one falls].”
The animal soul, although it had “fallen” during prayer, is afterwards able to “rise” and rally once again, indicating that the divine soul had not succeeded in vanquishing it even during prayer, for which reason even its dominance is only temporary.3
שנפש האלקית מתאמצת ומתגברת על נפש הבהמית במקור הגבורות, שהיא בינה
Thus, the divine soul gains strength and ascendancy over the animal soul, in the source of strength[“Gevurot”], which is understanding [“Binah”] —
In the Kabbalah’s description of the Sefirot, Binah is the source of Gevurah. In terms of one’s divine soul, this means that the source of its strength (“Gevurah”) to combat the animal soul is found in its faculty of understanding (“Binah”), the faculty with which it understands the greatness of G‑d.
להתבונן בגדולת ה׳ אין סוף ברוך הוא, ולהוליד אהבה עזה לה׳ כרשפי אש בחלל הימני שבלבו
[Thus, when the divine soul gains strength…over the animal soul…during prayer,] pondering on the greatness of G‑d, the blessed Ein Sof, and [thereby] giving birth to intense and flaming love of G‑d in the right part of his heart;
ואז אתכפיא סטרא אחרא שבחלל השמאלי
and then when the divine soul dominates the animal soul with its intense and revealed love of G‑d, the sitra achra (the evil of the animal soul) in the left part of the heart is subjugated.
אבל לא נתבטל לגמרי בבינוני, אלא בצדיק, שנאמר בו: ולבי חלל בקרבי
But it is not entirely abolished, in the case of the Beinoni; it is so only in a tzaddik, concerning whom it is said,4 “My heart is void5 within me.” The abode in the heart usually occupied by the evil inclination is void in the heart of a tzaddik.
והוא מואס ברע ושונאו בתכלית השנאה והמיאוס, או שלא בתכלית השנאה כנ״ל
He — the tzaddik —despises and loathes evil with a consummate hatred if he is a “complete” tzaddik, or without quite such utter hatred if he is an “incomplete” tzaddik, as explained above in ch. 10.
אבל בבינוני הוא דרך משל כאדם שישן, שיכול לחזור וליעור משנתו
All the above applies to the tzaddik. But in a Beinoni [the evil] merely lies dormant, as with a sleeping man, for example, who can awaken from his sleep at any time and reactivate his faculties.
כך הרע בבינוני הוא כישן בחלל השמאלי
So is the evil in the Beinoni dormant, as it were, in the left part of the heart, not functioning at all, not evendesiring physical pleasures —
בשעת קריאת שמע ותפלה, שלבו בוער באהבת ה׳
during the recital of the Shema and Amidah, when his heart is aglow with the love of G‑d, causing the evil of the animal soul to be dormant.
ואחר כך יכול להיות חוזר וניעור
[Therefore,] after prayer it can reawaken.
The Alter Rebbe will now describe an even higher level of Beinoni — one who is permeated throughout the day with the same degree of love for G‑d that he feels during prayer. The animal soul of such a Beinoni is permanently dormant. Accordingly, we will understand how it was possible for Rabbah to classify himself mistakenly as a Beinoni.
In ch. 1 it was proved that the term Beinoni could not refer (as a literal interpretation would lead us to believe) to a person half of whose deeds are virtuous and half sinful. Were this so, how could such a sage like Rabbah, who never neglected his Torah study for even a moment, make the mistake of classifying himself as a Beinoni?
However, the Alter Rebbe’s definition of Beinoni as one who does not sin in practice, does not seem to satisfy this difficulty. Indeed, as the Alter Rebbe explained in ch. 12, a Beinoni never sins; yet he has sinful desires. Rabbah, who was in fact a tzaddik, must have known full well that he was free of such desire. How then could he even mistakenly classify himself as a Beinoni?
According to the discussion which now follows concerning the level of the Beinoni who never even desires evil, this matter is readily understood:
ולכן היה רבה מחזיק עצמו כבינוני, אף דלא פסיק פומיה מגירסא
For this reason Rabbah considered himself a Beinoni, though his mouth never ceased from Torah study,
ובתורת ה׳ חפצו יומם ולילה בחפיצה וחשיקה ותשוקה
and his desire was in [studying] G‑d’s Torah day and night, with a craving, desire and longing,
ונפש שוקקה לה׳ באהבה רבה, כבשעת קריאת שמע ותפלה
his soul yearning for G‑d with overwhelming love, such as that experienced during the recitation of theShema and the Amidah.
During prayer, as mentioned above, the Beinoni’s heart is aroused to a love of G‑d so passionate that he does not feel the evil of his animal soul at all. Rabbah, however, experienced this arousal of love not only during prayer but throughout the day. Therefore, his animal soul was always dormant and he never desired mundane matters.
ונדמה בעיניו כבינוני המתפלל כל היום
It was therefore possible for him to consider himself a Beinoni, for he appeared in his own eyes as a Beinoni who prays all day, i.e., a Beinoni who throughout the day retains the level attained during prayer,
וכמאמר רז״ל: הלואי שיתפלל אדם כל היום כלו
as, indeed, our Sages have said,6 “Would that a man pray the whole day long!”
Such a Beinoni is constantly ablaze with the love of G‑d, and consequently his desire for evil is always dormant, as explained. Therefore, the absence of any evil desires did not conclusively prove to Rabbah that he was a tzaddik; it was still possible for him to maintain that he was a Beinoni — a Beinoni “who prays all day long.”
What emerges from all that has been said is that even during prayer when the Beinoni succeeds in arousing his love of G‑d and rendering the evil dormant, his divine soul has merely prevailed over his animal soul but has not vanquished it, for which reason it is possible for this state to cease after prayer. Therefore, the Beinoni’s level of divine service is not considered truthful when compared to the service of the tzaddik. For “truth” implies continuity and consistency.
The Alter Rebbe goes on to explain that nevertheless, the Beinoni’s love — relative to his standing — is considered a true form of service.
והנה מדת אהבה זו האמורה בבינונים בשעת התפלה על ידי התגברות הנפש האלקית כו׳
Now, this aformentioned love attained by Beinonim at the time of prayer by virtue of the temporarypreponderance of the divine soul over the animal soul, etc.,
הנה לגבי מדרגת הצדיקים עובדי ה׳ באמת לאמיתו, אין בחינת אהבה זו נקראת בשם עבודת אמת כלל
when compared to the standard of the tzaddikim who serve G‑d in perfect truth (“in the truest manner of truth”), [this love] is not called “true service” at all,
מאחר שחולפת ועוברת אחר התפלה
since it passes and disappears after prayer;
וכתיב: שפת אמת תכון לעד, ועד ארגיעה לשון שקר
whereas it is written,7 “The language (lit., ‘the lip’) of truth shall be established forever, but the tongue of falsehood is only momentary.”
Thus, the term “truth” refers to something immutable; the temporary and passing are not considered “true”. The same applies here as well: Since the Beinoni’s love of G‑d is felt only during prayer and disappears afterwards, it does not measure up to the “truest” sense of truth — the perfect truth attained by tzaddikim.
ואף על פי כן לגבי מדרגת הבינונים נקראת עבודה תמה באמת לאמיתו שלהם
Nevertheless, in relation to the rank of the Beinoni, [this level of love] is regarded as a truly perfect service in terms of their level of truth, i.e., the level of Beinonim,
איש איש כפי מדרגתו במדרגת הבינונים
in each man relative to his standing in the category of the Beinonim (for, as mentioned earlier, the rank of Beinoniis subdivided into many levels).
והריני קורא באהבתם שבתפלתם גם כן: שפת אמת תכון לעד
Their love, too, which they possess [only] during prayer, I term, “The language of truth [,which] shall be established for ever,” i.e., their love is true and permanent, though manifest only during prayer,
הואיל ובכח נפשם האלקית לחזור ולעורר בחינת אהבה זו לעולם, בהתגברותה בשעת התפלה מדי יום ביום
since their divine soul has the power to reawaken this love constantly, whenever it gathers strength during prayer, day after day,
על ידי הכנה הראויה לכל נפש כפי ערכה ומדרגתה
by means of the spiritual preparation appropriate to each soul’s quality and rank. The higher the level of the soul, the less preparation it requires to awaken its love of G‑d. Regardless, every soul has the capacity to arouse its love of G‑d during prayer.
The Beinoni’s love of G‑d is thus constant, since it is either in an active, revealed state, or is in potentia, and can be revealed at any moment throughout the day (for, as mentioned earlier, every Beinoni has the potential to attain the level of “praying the whole day long.”
One difficulty yet remains: How is it possible for the same level of service to be considered untrue by the standards oftzaddikim, and true with regard to Beinonim? Is truth not absolute?
This matter is now explained as follows:
The quality of truth is to be found on every level. In each, truth means the essence and core of that level; i.e., truth is defined as that which agrees with the essence of that particular level where it is measured.
Since this is so in all the myriad levels of the spiritual worlds, from the very highest to the very lowest, and since the lowest levels are incomparable to the highest, how can it be said that the lower grades possess truth? We must say, therefore, that the term “truth” is relative to the level on which it is found, that each grade has its own core of truth. Things are true if they agree with [the essence of] their own level and untrue if they do not; they need not agree with a higher level to be considered “true”.
In the Alter Rebbe’s words:
כי הנה מדת אמת היא מדתו של יעקב, הנקרא בריח התיכון המבריח מן הקצה אל הקצה
For truth is the attribute of Jacob, as the verse states:8 “You give truth to Jacob,” who is called9 “the middle bolt which secures everything from end to end,”10 just as the middle bolt in the Tabernacle secured and bolted together all the boards by passing through them all.
מרום המעלות ומדרגות עד סוף כל דרגין
In spiritual terms, this means that the attribute of truth passes from the highest gradations and levels to the end (i.e., lowest) of all grades.
ובכל מעלה ומדרגה מבריח תוך נקודה האמצעית
in each gradation and level it passes through the central point of that particular level,
שהיא נקודת ובחינת מדת אמת שלה
which is, i.e., which then becomes the point and quality (i.e., the standard) of [that level’s] attribute of truth.
Proof is now given that each grade has its own standard of truth, as it were:
ומדת אמת היא נחלה בלי מצרים, ואין לה שיעור למעלה עד רום המעלות
The attribute of truth is an unbounded inheritance; it has no upper limit [as it extends] to the highest levels,
וכל מעלות ומדרגות שלמטה הם כאין לגבי מעלות ומדרגות שלמעלה מהן
and all lower gradations and levels are as nothing compared with those superior to them.
If, then, truth is found on all levels despite their disparity, we must conclude that the standard of truth on each level is relative to the core of that level.
In support for his statement that the lower levels and grades are incomparable to the higher ones, the Alter Rebbe cites:
כידוע ליודעי ח״ן שבחינת ראש ומוחין של מדרגות תחתונות הן למטה מבחינת עקביים ורגלי מדרגות עליונות מהן
As is known to those familiar with the Esoteric Discipline (i.e., Kabbalah), the quality that is the “head and intellect” — the highest level — within lower grades, is inferior to the “soles” and “feet” — the very lowest level — within the higher grades;
וכמאמר רז״ל: רגלי החיות כנגד כולן
as our Sages say,11 “The feet of the chayyot surpass all those levels lower than them, including the highest degree within those lower levels.”)
The attribute of truth, then, is measured according to the standards of each level. We may thus conclude that the divine service of the Beinoni is considered “true” service relative to their level, although when compared with the service oftzaddikim it is not considered “true”, since it passes after prayer.
——— ● ———
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Avot 2:13. |
| 2. | Bereishit 25:23. |
| 3. | Based on a note by the Rebbe. The Rebbe explains thereby why the Alter Rebbe quotes only half of the second phrase — “When this one (referring to the divine soul) rises, that one (the animal soul) falls; and when that one (the animal soul) rises...” — without concluding the part of the quotation that deals with the divine soul. The Alter Rebbe’s purpose in quoting the second phrase is to show that the animal soul could rise once again, though it had “fallen” during prayer. The rest of the phrase is thus irrelevant here. |
| 4. | Tehillim 109:22. |
| 5. | The word חלל has two meanings: “void”, and “slain”. The Rebbe points out that the Alter Rebbe understands the חלל of this verse to mean “void”. This may be inferred from ch. 1, where he interprets the verse as meaning that “he (David HaMelech) had no Yetzer Hara.” The Alter Rebbe continues there: “for he had slain it through fasting,” only as added explanation (not in order to interpret the word חלל) — to indicate that David had not attained the level of Avraham Avinu, who had transformed his Yetzer Hara (as stated in Talmud Yerushalmi, end of Berachot ch. 9; David had merely slain it. In the case of Avraham Avinu, his heart was indeed not void, but in fact this was his virtue: his heart still housed theYetzer Hara, but that Yetzer Hara had undergone such a metamorphosis that is was now a Yetzer Tov. From Rashi’s commentary on Berachot, however, and also from the plain sense of the Yerushalmi, it appears that the meaning of חלל is “slain”. In his commentary on this verse in Tehillim, Rashi cites both interpretations. |
| 6. | Berachot 21a. |
| 7. | Mishlei 12:19. |
| 8. | Micah 7:20. |
| 9. | Zohar I, p. 1b; p. 224a. |
| 10. | Paraphrase of Shmot 26:28. |
| 11. | Chagigah 13a. |
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Wednesday, Tevet 25, 5776 · January 6, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 321
Going Beyond City Limits on Shabbat
"Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day"—Exodus 16:29.
It is forbidden on Shabbat to travel more than 2,000 cubits (approximately 3000 ft.) out of a city's parameters.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Going Beyond City Limits on Shabbat
Negative Commandment 321
Translated by Berel Bell
The 321st prohibition is that we are forbidden to travel [even by foot] on Shabbos.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1, "No man may leave his place on the seventh day."
Oral Tradition defines limit of "travel" as 2000 amos2 beyond the city limit; one may not walk even a single amoh more. However, one may walk within 2000 amos from the city limit in any direction.3
The Mechilta says: " 'No man may leave his place,' — this means beyond 2000 amos."
Our Sages said in tractate Eruvin4, "For violating the prohibition of the Shabbos limit, one receives lashes by Biblical ordinance."5
The details of this commandment are discussed in that same tractate.
FOOTNOTES
1.Shmos 16:29.
2.Approximately 3000 ft. In Mishneh Torah (Hilchos Shabbos 27:1), the Rambam rules that walking 2000 amos is prohibited only by Rabbinic law, while the Biblical prohibition is in effect only at 12 mil, or approximately 24,000 amos.
The Rambam himself explains, however, (in responsa 310, quoted in Mishneh Torah, Kapach ed., p. 575) that there is no contradiction between his two works. Sefer Hamitzvos is meant only to give a general description of the mitzvah, so he did not mention the two categories. Mishneh Torah, on the other hand, gives all the relevant halachic details. See also Introduction to Sefer Hamitzvos.
3.In Mishneh Torah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that this area is considered within the suburbs of the city (see Num. 35:5).
4.17b.
5.With this quote, the Rambam proves that this mitzvah in included in the count of the 613 mitzvos.
------------------------------------------------------------
• 1 Chapter: Terumot Terumot - Chapter 13 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• Terumot - Chapter 13
Halacha 1
Terumah becomes nullified in a mixture 101 times the size of the original quantity.1
What is implied? When a se'ah of terumah falls into 100 se'ah of ordinary produce and all the produce becomes mixed together,2 he should separate one se'ah and give it to the priest. The remainder is permitted [to be eaten by] non-priests.3
[Accordingly,] whenever the terumah is a substance which the priests do not care about, e.g., terumah from wild figs, carobs, Edomite barley and the like, it is not necessary to separate [a hundredth for the priest]. Instead, since it fell into a 100 times its amount, it is nullified because of its minimal size and the entire mixture is permitted to non-priests.
Halacha 2
If a se'ah of terumah fell into less than 100 [se'ah of ordinary produce], the entire mixture becomes miduma.4 It should be sold to a priest at the price ofterumah5 with the exception of that se'ah.6
When does the above apply? When produce becomes mixed with its own kind. If, however, produce becomes mixed with produce of another type, [the ruling is dependent on whether] the flavor [of the terumah] is recognizable or not. If the entire mixture has the flavor of terumah, it is all considered asmiduma and should be sold to the priests with the exception of the value of theterumah. If the flavor of the entire mixture is that of the ordinary produce, the entire mixture is permitted to non-priests.7
Halacha 3
When a se'ah of terumah falls into 100 se'ah and one se'ah was removed from the mixture8, if that se'ah fell into other produce, the question whether the mixture is considered as miduma is determined according to the proportion [ofterumah in the first mixture].9Similarly, if a se'ah of terumah fell into less than one hundred se'ah [of ordinary produce] and the entire mixture becamemiduma and then some of this mixture fell into other [produce], the question whether the mixture is considered as miduma is determined according to the proportion [of terumah in the first mixture].
What is implied? Ten se'ah of terumah fell into 90 se'ah of ordinary produce and the entire mixture became miduma. If ten se'ah from this mixture fell into less than 100 se'ah of ordinary produce, the mixture is considered miduma, because in the ten se'ah of the [original] mixture, there was at least one se'ahof terumah.10 If less than ten se'ah [of terumah] fell into [the original mixture], the [second] mixture is not considered as miduma [when one se'ah of the first mixture fell into 100 se'ah].
Halacha 4
When does the above apply? With regard to substances that do not become blended together, e.g., wheat kernels with wheat kernels or flour with flour.11When, however, substances blend together, e.g., oil that is terumah mixes with ordinary oil or wine that is terumah mixes with ordinary wine, we follow the majority. If the majority is terumah, should the mixture fall into other produce, the ruling is the same as if [the first mixture] was [entirely] terumah.12If the majority of the [first] mixture is ordinary produce, should that mixture fall into other produce, [the entire first mixture] is considered as ordinary produce and there is never a difficulty concerning a mixture of terumah.13Nevertheless, in all instances, the entire [first] mixture is forbidden to non-priests.
Halacha 5
When a se'ah of terumah falls into 100 se'ah, [a se'ah of the mixture] was removed, another [se'ah of terumah] fell in, [another se'ah] was removed, and another fell in, the ordinary produce is permitted14 until there is a majority ofterumah [in the mixture]. Thus if more than 100 se'ah of terumah fell into 100se'ah of ordinary produce, se'ah after se'ah [in above manner], the entire mixture is considered as miduma.15
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply when] a se'ah of terumah fell into 100 [se'ah of ordinary produce] and before one se'ah was removed, another se'ah ofterumah fell [into the mixture]. If [the owner] was aware of the first se'ah before the second se'ah fell, [the mixture] does not become miduma. Instead, he should remove two se'ah and the remainder is permitted. [The rationale is that] since it should have been taken out,16 we consider it as if it was taken out. If, however, he did not become aware of the first se'ah until after the second fell in, the mixture is considered miduma. It is as if both se'ah fell in at the same time.17
Halacha 7
The waste products of terumah are not combined with it [a mixture of it and ordinary produce] to cause the ordinary produce to be forbidden. The waste products of ordinary produce, by contrast, are combined with it to causeterumah to be nullified in a mixture.
What is implied? A se'ah of high quality wheat that is terumah fell into 100se'ah of wheat of low quality that is ordinary produce. The owner ground the entire quality. Even though there is much bran in the ordinary produce and a small amount in the terumah and thus the flour from the terumah is more than one hundredth of the flour from the ordinary produce,18 it is nullified. For we measure the flour with the bran and [together,] it is 101 times [the original amount of terumah]. If, however, a se'ah of low quality wheat that is terumahfalls into [slightly] less 100 se'ah of high quality wheat that is ordinary produce and [the owner] ground the entire quantity, [the weight of] the flour that isterumah will be one hundredth of [the weight of] the flour that is ordinary produce. Hence it is nullified because the mixture is 101 times the original amount [of terumah], for the weight of the ordinary produce increased and that of the terumah decreased.19
Halacha 8
When a log20 of clear wine that is terumah fell into 100 lugin of cloudy wine21that is ordinary produce, we do not remove the dregs from the wine [and only then calculate whether the ordinary wine is 100 times the terumah]. Instead, we nullify the log of terumah.22 Similarly, if a log of cloudy wine [that isterumah] fell into a 100 log of clear wine, we do not remove the dregs in [the wine that is terumah].23
Halacha 9
When a log of water fell into 99 lugim of wine and then a log of wine that isterumah fell into the mixture, the entire mixture is considered as miduma, because water does not nullify [the existence of] wine.24
Halacha 10
[The following rules apply when] a se'ah of terumah fell into less than 100se'ah of ordinary produce and then other ordinary produce fell into the mixture so that there was more than 100 times [the weight of the terumah]. If [the second batch of produce was added] unknowingly, [the terumah] is nullified because there is 101 [times the original weight]. If he mixed it intentionally, the entire mixture is considered as miduma, because we do not nullify the existence of substances prohibited by Scriptural Law as an initial preference.25
Halacha 11
It is, however, permitted to nullify terumah from the Diaspora [by mixing it] with a majority of permitted substances26 and eat it during the time when one is ritually impure.27 Not only that, if a person possesses wine that is terumahfrom the Diaspora, he should take one log of this wine and mix it with twolugim of ordinary [wine]. Thus there are three lugim.28 Afterwards, he can add another log of the terumah wine into the three lugim and then take one log from the four and drink it.29 He may then add another log [of terumah wine] and take out a log and drink it. Similarly, he may continue adding a log of terumahand removing a log until all the wine that is terumah is completed. Thus he can nullify several lugim [of terumah] in two lugim of ordinary produce.
Halacha 12
When one sows terumah next to ordinary produce and cannot identify which produce is terumah and which is ordinary produce, the entire batch is permitted even if there were 100 rows of terumah and [only] one row of ordinary produce.30
When does the above apply? With regard to produce whose seed decomposes in the earth, e.g., wheat, barley, and the like.31 If, however, the seeds do not decompose, e.g., garlic and onions,32 even if 100 rows are ordinary produce and one row is terumah, the entire mixture is miduma. 33 If the entire crop is harvested,34 terumah can be nullified in a mixture of 100 times its weight, but, as an initial and preferred option, one should not harvest the crop.35
Halacha 13
When there are two containers of produce, one containing terumah and one containing ordinary produce and it is not known [which contains the ordinary produce and which contains the terumah], if [the contents of] one of these containers falls into ordinary produce, [the mixture] is not considered asmiduma.36 [This same law applies if produce that is] terumah fell into one of two containers [of ordinary produce], but one does not know which one and afterwards, one of those containers fell into ordinary produce.
Similarly, if one sowed [the grain from] one of the two containers, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce with regard to all matters.37 [The produce in] the remaining container is considered as terumah.38 If [the contents of] the second container fell into other produce, [the mixture] is not considered as miduma.39 Similarly, if another person sowed [the contents of] the second container, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce.40
If [the contents of] both containers fall into one mixture of other produce, the mixture is considered miduma according to the amount of produce in the smaller container.41 If one person sowed both of them,42 if the produce is a species where the seed decomposes, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce.43If the seed does not decompose, the produce that grows is miduma.44
When does the above apply? When one sowed [the contents of] the second container before the first batch of produce was harvested.45 If, however, he harvested the first batch of produce before sowing the second, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce even when the seed does not decompose. [The rationale is that] produce that has been reaped and produce that is growing are not considered as indicators of each other's status.
Halacha 14
When there are two containers [of produce], one containing ordinary produce and the other, containing terumah and two se'ah, one of ordinary produce and one of terumah, and both se'ah fall into these containers, [one into each], the produce is permitted. We assume that the ordinary produce fell into [the container of] ordinary produce and that the terumah fell into [the container of]terumah. [This applies] even though the weight of the ordinary produce is not greater than that of the terumah.46
Halacha 15
Halacha 16
If there were two grainheaps before a person and he said: 'The terumah for both grainheaps is in one of them," they are both considered miduma.53
If there were two se'ah of grain and one grainheap before a person and he said: "One of these se'ah is considered terumah for this grainheap," one of them is terumah and he does not know which.54 If there were two grainheaps and one se'ah before him and he said: "This is terumah for one of the grainheaps," [the se'ah] is terumah and [terumah has been separated from] one of the grainheaps, but he does not know which one is no longer tevel.55
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:16, the Rambam explains:
Nevertheless, from Halachah 13-14, it appears that according to Scriptural Law, terumah is nullified when mixed with a majority of ordinary produce and the verse is cited merely as a support.
|
| 2. |
Obviously, if the produce which is terumah is distinct, it is sufficient for him to remove it.
|
| 3. |
In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:15, the Rambam explains: "Why is it necessary to separate [a measure of] terumah and not a measure of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard? Becauseterumah is the property of the priests." I.e., from a ritual perspective, it is not necessary to remove the se'ah, for the existence of the terumah has been nullified. Nevertheless, from a financial perspective, it is necessary to give the priest his due. This is the explanation of the concluding clause.
|
| 4. |
And it is forbidden for a non-priest to partake of it.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 1:3), the Rambam explains that Exodus 22:23 uses the term dima as a synonym for terumah. Hence our Sages referred to a mixture of terumah and ordinary produce in this manner.
|
| 5. |
Which is far less than the price of ordinary produce. Since the terumah is not nullified, we have to consider the possibility that every kernel is terumah.
|
| 6. |
Which is given to him without cost.
|
| 7. |
Since the flavor of the terumahis not recognizable, it is considered as nullified. This principle applies with regard to all the Torah's prohibitions [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 2:7)].
|
| 8. |
As required by Halachah 1.
|
| 9. |
Even though the se'ah was taken out to be given to the priest, it is not considered as terumah. Instead, we calculate the proportion of terumah in the first mixture, on that basis, determine how much of the se'ah that fell is considered to be terumah and then see if that amount is one hundredth of the new mixture or not. For example, if one se'ah fell in one hundred se'ah, we consider the se'ah that was removed as slightly less than 1/100th terumah. Thus if it fell into ase'ah or more of ordinary produce, the second mixture is permitted [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 5:5)].
|
| 10. |
And thus a se'ah of terumah is being mixed with less than 100 se'ah of ordinary produce.
|
| 11. |
In this instance, every entity remains discrete. It's only that an observer cannot distinguish between the terumah and the ordinary produce (see Radbaz).
|
| 12. |
I.e., instead of calculating the percentage of terumah alone in the new mixture, we consider the first mixture as if it were terumah. Only if the second mixture is 100 times as large as the first is it permitted.
|
| 13. |
We do not calculate the percentage of terumah in the second mixture. Even if the terumah is more than one hundredth of the second mixture, that mixture is permitted.
|
| 14. |
Since the mixture was permitted, it is considered as if the se'ah of terumah that fell into it does not exist. We do not consider it as existing within the mixture, so that were it to be combined with otherterumah, the entire mixture would be considered miduma.
|
| 15. |
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this figure, maintaining that the mixture is considered as miduma if 51 se'ah of terumah fall into the ordinary produce in the above manner. His rationale is that since a se'ah is removed from the mixture, it is possible that he is removing ase'ah of ordinary produce. Hence, after 51 se'ah fell and 50 se'ah were removed, it is possible that there is a majority of terumah in the mixture. The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that it is logical to assume that each se'ah that is removed has an proportionate amount ofterumah and ordinary produce.
|
| 16. |
And thus the entire mixture would be considered as permitted.
|
| 17. |
The Ra'avad comments on the Rambam's ruling, noting that he is following what appears to be the minority opinion in Terumot 5:8. The Kessef Mishneh questions the intent of the Ra'avad's comments and asserts that according to the Tosefta, the majority opinion also accepts the distinction the Rambam makes here. This interpretation is borne out by the Rambam's Commentary to that mishnah.
|
| 18. |
For high quality grain produces more flour and less bran than lower quality grain. Thus more of the lower quality grain is bran and more of the higher quality grain is flour.
|
| 19. |
The Ra'avad notes that the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 5:9) goes even further and says that the bran in the terumah, since it is considered waste and not food, can be considered as part of the ordinary produce and if there is 100 times the weight of the flour from the terumah when this bran is added to the ordinary produce, the terumah is nullified. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishnehsuggest that the Rambam does not mention this point, because he feels that the Babylonian Talmud - according to which halachah is decided - does not accept it. Nevertheless, it appears that the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 99:1) follows the Ra'avad's view, although the Rama states that as a stringency, the Rambam's perspective should be followed.
|
| 20. |
A measure of liquid weight of the Talmudic period.
|
| 21. |
I.e., the dregs had been removed from the wine that is terumah, but had not been removed from the wine which was ordinary produce.
|
| 22. |
Counting the dregs of the ordinary produce as part of the mixture.
|
| 23. |
The Rambam is apparently saying that in this instance, the dregs of the terumah wine are counted and unless the ordinary wine is 100 times the amount of that wine including its dregs, it is considered as miduma. See Chapter 11, Halachah 13, which states that the dregs are considered as terumah.
The Ra'avad differs and maintains that in this instance, like the one described in the previous halachah, the dregs of the terumah are not counted, because they are wastes. The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that wine dregs are different than the wastes mentioned in the previous halachah, because they have the flavor of wine and can produce wine.
|
| 24. |
The Ra'avad explains the rationale for this ruling as follows: The water is not considered as the same type as wine. Hence, it cannot nullify it unless the flavor of the wine is no longer noticeable. The wine, by contrast, is considered its type and it requires 100 times the weight of the terumah. The Kessef Mishneh explains that this can be understood as the Rambam's intent.
|
| 25. |
The Radbaz notes that in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:25, the Rambam writes:
In the present instance, however, it appears that the produce is considered as miduma, not only for the person who mixed together, but for everyone. The Radbaz differentiates between the two situations, explaining that in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, the Rambam is speaking about a forbidden substance. Hence, if it was considered forbidden, it would have no value entirely. In our halachah, even if the mixture is considered miduma, it can be sold to priests and thus, it will not be wasted entirely.
|
| 26. |
I.e., since the prohibition is of Rabbinic origin, one may nullify it as an initial preference, as stated inHilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:26.
|
| 27. |
The Radbaz explains that the mixture may be eaten by a priest even when he is ritually impure or by a non-priest.
|
| 28. |
And the wine that is terumah is nullified, because it is mixed with a majority of ordinary produce.
|
| 29. |
The Ra'avad differs, maintaining that once there is no longer a majority of ordinary produce, the mixture is forbidden. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that once theterumah is nullified, it does not become a factor again if other terumah is added.
|
| 30. |
The rationale is that the produce that grows from terumah is not terumah and is forbidden to non-priests only as a stringency (Chapter 11, Halachot 21-22). Hence, if there is any confusion about which produce is terumah, it is all permitted.
|
| 31. |
For then there is no trace of the original plant.
|
| 32. |
In which instance, the new plant grows from a bulb of the original one and that original plant never decomposes entirely.
|
| 33. |
For the terumah is distinct and has not become mixed with the ordinary produce [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 9:5)].
|
| 34. |
Without paying attention to the prohibition.
|
| 35. |
For as stated above, as an initial preference, a prohibited substance should not be nullified. It must, however, be emphasized, the Rambam's intent is not to let the produce remain in the ground forever. Instead, it should be harvested as produce which is miduma and sold to priests at the price of terumah.
|
| 36. |
Since we are unsure of the identity of the produce that fell into the mixture, we do not rule it forbidden because of the doubt. Instead, we say that the ordinary produce fell into it.
This halachah involves produce that is forbidden as terumah according to Rabbinic decree, e.g.,terumah from the Diaspora or a mixture of terumahand a majority of ordinary produce. These principles are also applied in other contexts, see Chapter 10, Halachah 14, and Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 111:1).
|
| 37. |
Even if the original was terumah
|
| 38. |
Because of the doubt applying to its status.
|
| 39. |
The same principle applies here. Since we are unsure if the identity of the produce which fell into the mixture, we do not rule that it is forbidden because of the doubt.
|
| 40. |
Since each person asks concerning the status of the produce that he sowed individually, both are permitted, because in each instance, there is a doubt.
|
| 41. |
I.e., if the larger container contained one se'ah and the smaller container contained half a se'ah, we require the mixture to contain 50 ½ se'ah to be permitted, not 101 se'ah.
|
| 42. |
And thus the same person is asking about both plantings of produce. Hence, there is more room for stringency.
|
| 43. |
Since no trace of the original produce remains, we rule leniently.
|
| 44. |
Since the produce concerning which a doubt arose originally continues to exist, stringency is called for.
|
| 45. |
For then it is considered as if he sowed them both together.
|
| 46. |
But rather they are of the same weight. Were there to be a majority of ordinary produce, according to Scriptural Law, the existence of the terumah would already be nullified and thus there would be greater room for leniency. Nevertheless, as the Rambam continues to explain, even when there is not a majority, since the entire question is one of Rabbinic Law, we allow leniency. If, however, there is a majority of terumah, even when it is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law, the mixture is forbidden.
|
| 47. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 26.
|
| 48. |
In such an instance, the existence of the terumah would already be nullified and thus there would be greater room for leniency, since then the question is one of Rabbinic Law. The above leniency applies only with regard to such questions and not to questions involving Scriptural Law.
|
| 49. |
From which terumah and the tithes have not been separated.
|
| 50. |
Though in and of itself, the amount of terumah which fell in the grainheap would not disqualify it, when it is combined with the terumah that was designated it does.
The Ra'avad appears to have had a different version of the Jerusalem Talmud, Terumot 3:3, the Rambam's source. Hence he differs with the Rambam's ruling..
|
| 51. |
This law applies even if no terumah has fallen into the grainheap.
|
| 52. |
Because there is less than one hundred times the weight of the terumah in that corner.
|
| 53. |
The one which contains the terumah is certainly miduma. Since we do not know which one that is, they are both considered as miduma.
|
| 54. |
Hence he must observe the restrictions of terumah with regard to both of them.
|
| 55. |
Hence terumah must be separated in a conditional manner. One must bring other produce and say: "If terumah has not been separated for this grainheap, than this is terumah for it. But if it is the other grainheap from which terumah has not been separated, it is terumah for that."
|
---------------------
• 3 Chapters: Eruvin Eruvin - Chapter Six, Eruvin Eruvin - Chapter Seven, Eruvin Eruvin - Chapter Eight • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Eruvin - Chapter Six
• 3 Chapters: Eruvin Eruvin - Chapter Six, Eruvin Eruvin - Chapter Seven, Eruvin Eruvin - Chapter Eight • English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download• Eruvin - Chapter Six
Halacha 1
When a person leaves a city on Friday afternoon and deposits food for two meals at a distance from the city,1 but within its Sabbath limits,2 and by doing so establishes this as his place for the Sabbath, it is considered as if his base for the Sabbath is the place where he deposited the food for two meals, even if he returns to the city [before the commencement of the Sabbath] and spends the night in his home. This is called an eruv t'chumin.3
Halacha 2
On the following day, the person may walk two thousand cubits4 from [the place of] his eruv in all directions.5 Accordingly, when a person walks two thousand cubits from his eruv on the following day within his city, he may walk only to the end of his limit. If, however, the entire city is included within his limit, the city is considered as if it were only four cubits, and he may continue to the end of his limit beyond the city.6
Halacha 3
What is implied? When a person places his eruv one thousand cubits to the east of his house in a city, he may walk two thousand cubits eastward from the place of his eruv on the following day. He may also walk two thousand cubits to the west, one thousand from the eruv to his house, and one thousand from his house westward. He may not walk to the end of the city [limits, if they are] beyond the thousand cubits.
If there are less than one thousand cubits from his house to the boundaries of the city7 - even if his Sabbath limits end one cubit outside the city - the entire city is considered to be four cubits, and he may proceed 996 cubits beyond it to complete [his Sabbath limits of] two thousand [cubits].
Halacha 4
According [to this principle], if a person placed his eruv two thousand cubits [towards the east] of his house in a city, he would lose [the possibility of walking] throughout the entire [area of] the city [to the west]. Thus, he would be permitted [to walk] two thousand cubits from his house to his eruv and from his eruv two thousand cubits further. He may not walk even one cubit to the west of his house in the city.8
When a person places his eruv in a private domain - even if it is a metropolis like Nineveh, the ruins of a city, or a cave that is fit to be used as a dwelling - he is permitted to walk throughout its entire area and two thousand cubits beyond it in all directions.9
Halacha 5
If a person deposits his eruv within the city in which he is spending the Sabbath, his actions are of no consequence and his [Sabbath limits] should not be measured from his eruv.10 Instead, he is like the other inhabitants of the city, and may proceed two thousand cubits in all directions outside the city.
If a person deposits his eruv in the outlying areas that are included within the city's boundaries, and the calculation of [the city's] Sabbath limits begins beyond these areas,11 it is as if he had deposited it within the city [proper].
If a person deposits his eruv beyond the city's Sabbath limits, it is not considered to be a [valid] eruv.12
Halacha 6
Halacha 7
All foods that may be used for a shituf may also be used for an eruv t'chumin.17 Similarly, all foods that may not be used for a shituf are also unacceptable for an eruv t'chumin.
What is the minimum measure of food acceptable for an eruv t'chumin? The [amount of] food [sufficient] for two meals for every individual.18 When the food in question is a side dish,19 the minimum measure is an amount sufficient to accompany two meals - [i.e., it is governed by] the same [laws] as a shituf.
Halacha 8
It is necessary for [the place where] a person [intends to spend the Sabbath]20 and his eruv to be in the same domain, so that it is possible for him to partake of it beyn hash'mashot.21
Therefore, if the person intends to spend the Sabbath in a public domain and places his eruv in a private domain, or if he [intends to spend the Sabbath in a] private domain and places his eruv in a public domain, the eruv is not valid. For it is impossible to transfer articles from a private domain to a public domain without performing a transgression.
Halacha 9
If, however, a person intends to spend the Sabbath in a private domain or in a public domain, and he places his eruv in a carmelit, or he intends to spend the Sabbath in a carmelit, and he places his eruv in a private domain or in a public domain, the eruv is acceptable. For during beyn hash'mashot, the time when the eruv is established, it is permitted to transfer articles from either of these domains to a carmelit for the sake of a mitzvah.
Halacha 10
[The following rule applies when a person] places his eruv in a closet, locks it, and then loses the key: If he can remove his eruv without performing a labor that is forbidden by the Torah, it is valid.24
Halacha 11
Whenever a person deposits an eruv, he is granted four cubits [in which to carry] at the place of the eruv. Thus, if a person places an eruv t'chumin at the end of the Sabbath limits, and then the eruv rolled two cubits beyond the Sabbath limits,27 the eruv is valid; it is not considered to have left its [original] place.
If, however, the eruv rolls more than two cubits [beyond the Sabbath limits], it is not valid, for it is beyond the Sabbath limits. And [as stated previously,]28when an eruv is placed beyond a person's Sabbath limits, it is invalid, since the person is unable to reach his eruv.
Halacha 12
The following rules apply when] an eruv rolled [more] than two cubits beyond the Sabbath limits,29 it became lost or burned, or it contained terumah and it became impure:30 If this occurred before the commencement of the Sabbath, the eruv is invalid. If it occurred after nightfall, it is valid. For an eruv is established beyn hash'mashot.31
If one is in doubt [when the above occurred], the eruv is valid, for when there is a doubt [with regard to the validity of] an eruv, it is considered acceptable.32Therefore, if the eruv was eaten beyn hash'mashot, it is acceptable.
Halacha 13
[The above rules are relevant in the following situation:] Two individuals told a person,33 "Go and establish an eruv on our behalf." He established an eruv for one before the commencement of the Sabbath, and for the other, beyn hash'mashot. The eruv that was established before the commencement of the Sabbath was eaten beyn hash'mashot, and the eruv that was establishedbeyn hash'mashot was eaten after nightfall.34
[The ruling is that] both eruvin are valid.35 For [the halachic status of] beyn hash'mashot is a matter of doubt,36 and when there is a doubt [with regard to the validity of] an eruv, it is considered acceptable.37 Nevertheless, if there is a question whether or not it is past nightfall, at the outset one should not proceed to establish an eruv.38 [After the fact,] if one established an eruv, it is valid.
Halacha 14
Although an avalanche falls on an eruv before the commencement of the Sabbath, it remains acceptable provided it can be removed without performing a [forbidden] labor. For it is permissible to remove it beyn hash'mashot,39, which is the time when the eruv is established.
If the avalanche fell on it after nightfall, it is also valid, even if it cannot be removed without performing a [forbidden] labor.40 If there is a doubt whether [the avalanche] fell before the commencement of the Sabbath or after nightfall, it is acceptable, because when there is a doubt [with regard to the validity of] an eruv, it is considered acceptable.
Halacha 15
If, however, one established an eruv with terumah concerning which there was a doubt about its ritual purity,41 the eruv is invalid, for the meal is not fit to be eaten.42
[Similarly, an eruv is invalid in the following situation]: A person possessed two loaves of bread that were terumah. One of them was pure and one was impure, but he did not know which was pure and which was impure. Although he said, "The [loaf] that is pure, whichever it is, will serve as my eruv," theeruv is invalid, for the meal is not fit to be eaten.43
Halacha 16
If a person said: "This loaf of bread is not consecrated today, but it will be consecrated tomorrow," [and uses the loaf for an eruv,] the eruv is valid. Forbeyn hash'mashot, it had not as yet become definitely consecrated, and thus it was fit to be eaten before commencement of the Sabbath.
If, however, he said, "Today it is consecrated, and tomorrow it is not consecrated," it may not be used for an eruv, for it is fit [to be eaten] only after nightfall.44
Similarly, if one set aside terumah and made a stipulation that it will not become terumah until nightfall, it may not be used for an eruv. For throughoutbeyn hash'mashot it is tevel45 [which may not be eaten], and it is necessary for the meal [set aside as the eruv] to be fit to be eaten before the commencement of the Sabbath.46
Halacha 17
Halacha 18
[These rules should be followed when] many desire to join together in an eruv t'chumin: They should each contribute enough food for two meals52 and place [the food] in a single container in [whichever] place they choose.53
If one person desires to make an eruv on behalf of many others, he must grant them a share by means of another person54 and notify them. [This is necessary because] an eruv t'chumin may not be established on a person's behalf unless he consents,55 since it is possible that he will not desire to have the eruv made in the direction chosen by the other person.
Halacha 19
All the individuals entitled to take possession of [a share in an eruv for another person] with regard to an eruv chatzerot58 are also entitled to take possession of [a share in an eruv for another person] with regard to an eruv t'chumin.
Conversely, all the individuals who are not entitled to take possession of [a share in an eruv for another person] with regard to an eruv chatzerot are also not entitled to take possession of [a share in an eruv for another person] with regard to an eruv t'chumin.
Halacha 20
A person may give a ma'ah to a homeowner with the intent that [the latter] buy a loaf of bread for him and establish an eruv t'chumin on his behalf.59 [And we assume that the eruv has been established.] If, however, he gives [money] to a storekeeper or a baker, and tells him: "[Have someone] acquire a share on my behalf," we [do not assume that] an eruv has been established.60
[Even with regard to a storekeeper,] if he tells him: "Establish an eruv for me with this ma'ah," [we assume that the storekeeper] will buy bread or other foodstuffs with the money and establish an eruv on his behalf.61 If the person gave [a storekeeper] a utensil, and told him: "Give me food in exchange for this and establish an eruv [with that food] on my behalf," [we assume that he] will purchase the food and establish the eruv on his behalf.62
Halacha 21
A person may establish an eruv t'chumin on behalf of his sons and daughters who are below the age of majority63 and on behalf of his Canaanite servants and maidservants64 - with or without their knowledge.65 Therefore, if he has established an eruv for them and they have established an eruv on their own behalf, they should rely on [the eruv] established by their master.
A person may not, by contrast, establish an eruv for his sons and daughters who have passed majority, for his Hebrew servants and maidservants, or for his wife, without their consent.66 [This applies] even if they eat at his table.
If he established an eruv on their behalf, and they heard and remained silent without objecting, they may rely on the eruv that he established.67 If, however, he established an eruv for one of these people and [that person] established an eruv for himself, there can be no greater objection than this, and [that person] should rely on his own eruv.
A child of six years old or less may be taken out, relying on the eruvestablished for his mother.68 There is no need to set aside a separate amount of food equivalent to two meals for him.
Halacha 22
A person has the option of sending his eruv with an agent [whom he has instructed to] deposit it in the location that he desires to define as his place for the Sabbath.69 He should not, however, send [the eruv] with a deaf-mute, a mentally incompetent individual, or a child,70 nor with a person who does not accept the mitzvah of eruv.71 If he sends the eruv with one of these individuals, it is not acceptable.
If, however, he sent [the eruv] with one of these individuals [with instructions for them] to bring it to a person who is acceptable [to act as an agent], so that the latter would take it and deposit it in the [desired] location, [the eruv] is acceptable. Indeed, even if he sent [the eruv] via a monkey or an elephant [it would be acceptable]. [There is, however, one stipulation: the person sending the eruv] must watch from afar until he sees the person who is unfit [to serve as an agent or the animal] reach the person who is fit [to serve as an agent], whom he has instructed to deposit the eruv.72
Similarly, many individuals who have joined together in an eruv t'chumin have the option of sending their eruv via an agent if they desire.
Halacha 23
When one person or a group of people tell another person, "Go out and make an eruv on our behalf," and the person does so, choosing the direction in which to make the eruv himself, the eruv is acceptable.73 They may rely on it,74 for they did not specify the direction [they desired].
When a person says, "Establish an eruv for me with dates," and [his agent] establishes with dried figs, or he mentions dried figs, and [the agent] uses dates, the eruv is not acceptable. Similarly, if the person asked that the eruvbe placed in a closet and it was placed in a dovecote, or [he asked that it be placed] in a dovecote, and it was placed in a closet, or [he asked that it be placed] in a house, and it was placed in a loft, or [he asked that it be placed] in a loft, and it was placed in a house, the eruv is not acceptable.75
If, however, the person told [the agent], "Establish an eruv for me," without making any specifications, the eruv is acceptable regardless of whether he used dried figs or dates, or deposited it in a house or in a loft.
Halacha 24
Just as a blessing is recited [before] establishing an eruv in a courtyard or ashituf in a lane,76 so too, a blessing is recited [before establishing] an eruv t'chumin.77
[After reciting the blessing,] one should say:78 "With this eruv, it will be permissible for me to proceed two thousand cubits in every direction from this location."
If he is establishing the eruv on behalf of many individuals, he should say, "With this eruv, it will be possible for 'so and so'..." or "for the people of this community..." or "for the inhabitants of this city to proceed two thousand cubits in every direction from this location."
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Note Chapter 7, Halachah 1, which states that one may establish an eruv t'chumin by actually going on Friday afternoon to the location one desires to establish as one's place for the Sabbath. The possibility of depositing food was instituted by our Sages to expedite the process of establishing an eruv t'chumin, by allowing a person to have an agent deposit food for him.
|
| 2. |
See Halachah 5 regarding both these factors.
|
| 3. |
In his introduction to these halachot, the Maggid Mishneh questions why two seemingly separate concepts, eruv chatzerot and eruv t'chumin, are considered to be part of the same mitzvah and are described together. He explains that since both are Rabbinic ordinances that involve placing food in a specific place so that the place will be considered to be one's base for the Sabbath, they can be considered to be a single mitzvah.
|
| 4. |
A cubit is 48 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah and 57.6 centimeters according to theChazon Ish.
|
| 5. |
A person is always allowed to proceed 2000 cubits in all directions from the place where he spends the Sabbath. (See Hilchot Shabbat 27:1.) Since the place where the person's eruv is located is considered his base for the Sabbath, his 2000 cubits are calculated from this place.
|
| 6. |
The Rambam's statements here parallel his statements in Hilchot Shabbat 27:5, which explain that if a person's Sabbath limits end within a private domain, he is not entitled to proceed to the end of the domain. If, however, that domain is included within his 2000 cubits, it is considered to be only four cubits.
The Ramah (Orach Chayim 408:1) quotes the view of the Tur, the Hagahot Maimoniot, and other Ashkenazic authorities, who differ and maintain that one is allowed to proceed to the end of the private domain, even if it is further than 2000 cubits from one's eruv t'chumin. The Mishnah Berurah 408:12 mentions that many authorities support this ruling. See note 8.
|
| 7. |
The Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss on this halachah and on Hilchot Shabbat 27:5) mentions the fact that when one establishes the Sabbath limits of a city, an imaginary square is constructed around the furthermost points in the city's area, and the Sabbath limits are calculated from that square. Thus, it is possible that land that is outside the city's urban limits may still be within the square from which its Sabbath limits are calculated.
Although a leniency is used in the calculation of the city's Sabbath limits, and these outlying areas are considered to be part of the city proper, this leniency is not turned into a stringency. If a person's 2000 cubits end beyond the city's urban area, but not beyond these outlying areas, the city is considered to be included within his Sabbath limits, and thus only four cubits in length. This concept is quoted by the Ramah (Orach Chayim 408:1).
|
| 8. |
As mentioned above, the Tur and the Ramah (Orach Chayim 408:1) differ with the Rambam on this point and allow a person to walk throughout the entire city where his house is located, provided he sleeps in his home (Mishnah Berurah 408:11).
|
| 9. |
The rationale for this decision can be explained as follows: As explained in Hilchot Shabbat 27:1, the prohibition against proceeding more than 2000 cubits from one's place of residence on the Sabbath is derived from the verse (Exodus 16:29): "No man should leave his place on the seventh day." The term "his place" refers to the private domain in which he is located, regardless if it be a house, a city, or any other location.
By making an eruv t'chumin, a person redefines the location of "his place" on the Sabbath. Even if he is not located at that place at the commencement of the Sabbath or shortly thereafter, the location where he deposits his eruv is considered to be "his place" for this Sabbath. Therefore, if that location is a private domain, that entire domain is considered to be "his place," and the calculation of his Sabbath limits begins from its boundaries.
|
| 10. |
If his acts had been considered significant, he would have decreased his Sabbath limits, and not increased them. For without the eruv, he would be allowed to proceed two thousand cubits from the city limits. This follows the Rambam's conception, in contrast to that of the Tur mentioned above.
|
| 11. |
In Hilchot Shabbat 27:5 (see also note 6), it is explained that the Sabbath limits of a city are calculated from an imaginary square that may include several uninhabited areas in the city's periphery. If the eruv is placed in these outlying areas, it is as if it were placed in the city proper.
|
| 12. |
Since the eruv is beyond his Sabbath limits, i.e., over 2000 cubits from the city's periphery, he may not reach it during beyn hash'mashot, the time when the acquisition of the eruv takes effect (Mishnah Berurah 408:30). Therefore, the eruv is not valid. Instead, his Sabbath limits are defined from his home (Ramah, Orach Chayim 408:4).
|
| 13. |
The Maggid Mishneh quotes the Rashba as saying that this applies only when one establishes one's eruv by using food. If, however, one actually walks to a place beyond a city's boundariesbeyn hash'mashot, and in this manner establishes this location as one's place for the Sabbath, it is acceptable even if one's intent is not associated with a mitzvah. Although this view is not accepted by all authorities, the Mishnah Berurah 415:1 rules that in a pressing situation, one may rely on the more lenient view.
|
| 14. |
The expression "a purpose associated with a mitzvah" is used in a very extended sense in this context. As an example, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 415:1) mentions a desire to take a stroll in a pleasant orchard.
|
| 15. |
E.g., to proceed toward the end of one's Sabbath limits, so that one will be closer to a destination to which one desires to travel for business purposes after the Sabbath.
|
| 16. |
Although this is a matter of disagreement among the Rabbis, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim415:1) follows the Rambam's view.
It must be emphasized that the "fear" mentioned by the Rambam refers to a situation when there is not an obvious danger to the person's life. Were that to be the case, he would be allowed to proceed beyond the 2000 cubits even if he had not established an eruv, for a threat to life takes precedence over the observance of all the Torah's laws with the exception of idol worship, sexual immorality, and murder.
|
| 17. |
In contrast to an eruv chatzerot, for which bread alone may be used, all foods may used for aneruv t'chumin and a shituf, with the exception of water, salt, and mushrooms (Chapter 1, Halachah 8).
|
| 18. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 9. There is, however, a distinction. Regarding a shituf, even when there are thousands of inhabitants involved, it is necessary to provide two meals only for eighteen people. In contrast, regarding an eruv t'chumin, food must be set aside for every person who desires to use the eruv.
|
| 19. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 10.
|
| 20. |
This does not mean the person's home, or the place where he is standing beyn hash'mashot, but rather the place where he would partake of his eruv. There are times when it is impossible for him to partake of the eruv in the domain in which it is located - to cite the example given by the Mishnah, Eruvin 3:3: the eruv was placed in a tree more than ten handbreadths above the ground. In such instances, since it is not permissible to carry the eruv from the place where it was deposited to the place where the person would partake of it, the eruv is not valid.
|
| 21. |
This is the time when the Sabbath commences, and it is at this hour that the eruv must be established.
|
| 22. |
See Hilchot Shabbat 24:10.
|
| 23. |
And, as mentioned in Halachah 6, it is only in situations such as these that it is permissible to establish an eruv t'chumin.
|
| 24. |
If, however, he must perform a labor forbidden by the Torah to obtain the eruv, it is not valid. (See Chapter 1, Halachah 22.)
|
| 25. |
Although Rabbinic prohibitions are not normally enforced beyn hash'mashot when a mitzvah is involved, our Sages maintained their decree in this instance. For one might think that the reed has already been detached, and it is likely that one might break it (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin 3:3).
|
| 26. |
Provided that they are not implanted in the public domain and there is not a basket, four handbreadths by four handbreadths, at their top (Mishnah Berurah 409:14).
|
| 27. |
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, noting that the matter is the subject of a difference of opinion between our Sages (Eruvin 45a): Rabbi Eliezer maintains that a person is considered to be located in the midst of the four cubits he is granted. Therefore, as the Rambam states here, he is granted only two cubits in either direction. Rabbi Yehudah differs and maintains that he is granted four cubits in either direction. It is Rabbi Yehudah's view that is accepted as halachah.
The Maggid Mishneh notes that in Hilchot Shabbat 12:15 and 27:11, the Rambam follows Rabbi Yehudah's view. There is, the Maggid Mishneh maintains, a difference between the ruling regarding the laws of carrying and the ruling regarding the Sabbath limits. His distinction is explained by the Radbaz (Vol. VI, Responsum 2237), who states that for an eruv t'chumin to be effective a person must be able to reach it while standing within the Sabbath limits. If the eruv is within two cubits of the Sabbath limits, the person can bend over and reach it. If it is further away, he would have to leave his Sabbath limits to reach it. Hence, it is not valid.
The Ra'avad's decision is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 409:5).
|
| 28. |
Halachah 5.
|
| 29. |
As explained in the previous halachah.
|
| 30. |
Impure terumah may not be eaten.
|
| 31. |
If it is valid at this time, what happens to it afterwards is of no consequence (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin 3:4).
|
| 32. |
Since the eruv was acceptable when deposited, it is granted a chezkat kiyyum - i.e., we assume that the status quo remained the same and that it remained acceptable until immediately before the difficulty was discovered (ibid.).
(Although the Rambam mentions this concept in his Commentary on the Mishnah, his ruling in the following halachah implies that he does not accept this as a hard and fast rule.)
|
| 33. |
They both empowered him to act as a shaliach (agent) and establish an eruv for them.
|
| 34. |
This situation represents a paradox: If beyn hash'mashot is considered to be before the commencement of the Sabbath, the eruv that was eaten beyn hash'mashot is not valid. If beyn hash'mashot is considered to be after the commencement of the Sabbath, the eruv that was established beyn hash'mashot is not valid.
|
| 35. |
If, however, the eruv that was established beyn hash'mashot was eaten beyn hash'mashot, it is not valid. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 393:3.)
|
| 36. |
Beyn hash'mashot is the period between sunset and the appearance of three stars. There is a question if this period is considered to be part of the day or part of the night. See Hilchot Shabbat5:4.
|
| 37. |
This ruling (based on Shabbat 34a) reflects a difference of opinion among the Rabbis. As mentioned in the notes on the previous halachah, most authorities maintain that an eruv t'chumin(in contrast to an eruv chatzerot) is acceptable when there is a doubt involved, only because it possesses a chezkat kiyyum - i.e., we knew that it was acceptable beforehand, and we presume that its status remained the same until we know otherwise. (See also Halachah 15.)
Therefore, other authorities (Rabbenu Chanan'el, Rabbenu Tam, Rashba) interpret this law as referring to an eruv chatzerot. There a chezkat kiyyum is not necessary, for an eruv chatzerot is only a Rabbinic institution (in contrast to an eruv t'chumin, which involves a prohibition that has its source in the Torah itself).
Nevertheless, it is possible to justify the Rambam's decision, for the prohibition against going beyond two thousand cubits is Rabbinic in origin (Hilchot Shabbat 27:1). Accordingly, since we are sure that the food set aside for the eruv can be eaten before the commencement of the Sabbath, and the doubt is merely whether the eruv was made at the proper time, the question concerns a matter of Rabbinic law. Therefore, we follow the principle, "Whenever there is a doubt concerning a point of Rabbinic law, the more lenient opinion is followed."
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 415:3) quotes both views (although the Rambam's appears to be favored). The Mishnah Berurah 415:11 favors the other view.
|
| 38. |
Although at the outset, an eruv chatzerot may be established beyn hash'mashot (see Chapter 1, Halachah 21), the laws regarding an eruv t'chumin are more severe (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 2:6).
|
| 39. |
Although the stones are muktzeh and removing them on the Sabbath would be forbidden, since a mitzvah is involved there is no prohibition against removing them beyn hash'mashot.
|
| 40. |
For at the time the eruv was established it was valid, and what happens afterwards is of no consequence. (See also Chapter 1, Halachah 21.)
|
| 41. |
As mentioned above, it is forbidden to partake of terumah if it is ritually impure. In this instance, however, there is a doubt and we do not know if, in fact, the terumah has contracted ritual impurity or not.
|
| 42. |
With this phrase, the Rambam clarifies his position with regard to a question asked by many authorities based on the situation described in Halachah 13. As mentioned in the notes on that halachah, many authorities maintain that an eruv is considered acceptable when there is a doubt regarding its validity only when it possesses a chezkat kiyyum. As proof, they point to this law, which appears to indicate that the eruv is not considered acceptable because it was never known to be valid.
The Rambam explains that the reason why the eruv is not acceptable in this instance is not that it lacks a chezkat kiyyum, but because it may never be eaten. Because of the doubt involved, it is forbidden to partake of this loaf.
To summarize, in the instances mentioned in the previous halachot, the doubt revolves around the acceptability of the eruv. Therefore, we follow the principle, "when there is a doubt [with regard to the validity of] an eruv, it is considered acceptable." In this halachah, the doubt is whether theterumah may be eaten. This is a question of Torah law, and we are required to rule stringently (Noda BiY'hudah, Yoreh De'ah, Vol. I, Responsum 65).
|
| 43. |
Although there is a pure loaf there, since we do not know which loaf it is, the meal is not fit to be eaten.
|
| 44. |
We are not certain that the sanctity with which it had been endowed has departed until nightfall. At that time, it is too late to establish an eruv.
|
| 45. |
Food from which terumah and/or the other agricultural requirements were not separated. It is forbidden to be eaten until these separations are made.
|
| 46. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 22.
|
| 47. |
This ruling is the subject of a debate among our Sages (Eruvin 26b). The Rambam follows the more stringent view. Although other authorities accept the more lenient ruling, the Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 409:1) cites the Rambam's decision. (See Be'ur Halachah.)
|
| 48. |
The difficulty is not in the actual placement of the eruv beyn hash'mashot, for the placement of aneruv is a mitzvah and the mitzvot were not given for our personal benefit. The difficulty arises afterwards. Since the person desires that the eruv be maintained in the cemetery, he is deriving benefit from it. Hence, it is forbidden to establish an eruv in this manner (Eruvin 31a; Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin 3:1).
(See the gloss of Rabbi Akiva Eiger, who asks why the eruv is unacceptable. Although it is forbidden to derive benefit from the cemetery in this manner, the fact that a person violates this prohibition should not invalidate his eruv.)
|
| 49. |
A field or yard that was plowed despite the fact that a grave was located there. Our Sages feared that some of the bones of the corpse became strewn throughout the field. Hence, they considered it to be impure ground (Hilchot Tum'at Meit 10:1).
|
| 50. |
A compartment carried by other people or animals. Since there is a board below him, he does not contract ritual impurity when he passes above a grave or a corpse (tum'at ohel). (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, ibid..)
|
| 51. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (ibid.). Others explain that this refers to blowing away any chips of bone.
|
| 52. |
In contrast to an eruv chatzerot, the equivalent of two meals is required for every participant in theeruv, regardless of the number of the participants. The rationale is that through depositing theeruv, the person establishes the place in which he has deposited it as his "place" for the Sabbath. This must be done for every person participating in the eruv (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin 8:1).
|
| 53. |
Note the parallel to Chapter 1, Halachah 17.
|
| 54. |
As in Chapter 1, Halachah 20.
|
| 55. |
In contrast to an eruv chatzerot, which, in most circumstances, is considered to be a benefit to a person unless he explicitly objects, an eruv chatzerot is dependent on the person's consent. For by extending his Sabbath boundaries in one direction, it reduces them in the other direction.
|
| 56. |
The Mishnah Berurah 413:6 cites opinions that state that it is acceptable if one received notification beyn hash'mashot.
|
| 57. |
Eruvin 82a, explains that thisis dependent on the principle of b'reirah - i.e., when a person decides to rely on the eruv retroactively, it becomes clarified that this was his original intent.
|
| 58. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 20.
|
| 59. |
In contrast to a storekeeper or a baker, we assume a private person will fulfill the request made of him.
Generally, our Sages ordained that even when a purchaser has already paid for the item he purchased, the transaction is not finalized until he draws the item he purchased after him [(meshichah), Hilchot Mechirah 3:1]. In this instance, they allowed leniency, accepting the Torah's ruling that a sale is finalized by the purchaser's payment of money.
|
| 60. |
For it is possible that the storekeeper will forget and not have another person acquire a share in the eruv (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah). Note the Maggid Mishneh, who offers a different explanation.
See also the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 369:1), who interpret these laws as referring to an eruv chatzerot and do not mention them within the context of an eruv t'chumin.
|
| 61. |
Since the person makes an explicit statement, we assume that the storekeeper will remember to do so.
|
| 62. |
The Maggid Mishneh explains that, in contrast to a transaction made with money, a transaction made by exchanging articles is completed at the moment of the exchange. (See Hilchot Mechirah5:1.) Therefore, the bread belongs to the person and can be used for the eruv.
Based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah cited previously, Rav Kapach offers a different interpretation: that since he will have to appraise the utensil or sell it, the storekeeper will remember to establish the eruv.
|
| 63. |
Children below the age of majority do not have an independent halachic status.
|
| 64. |
Canaanite servants are obligated to fulfill all the negative commandments of the Torah (including the obligation to keep the Sabbath limits). They are not, however, granted any independent decision-making capacity, and instead are considered as their owner's property.
|
| 65. |
The Shulchan Aruch 414:1 states that this ruling applies even if they do not depend on their father or master for their sustenance.
|
| 66. |
All these individuals possess the halachic right to make their own decisions, and their relationship with their father, master, or husband is no different from that between two other individuals.
|
| 67. |
Since there is a high probability that these individuals will desire to rely on this eruv, there is no need for them to express their consent. The failure to object is sufficient. The Mishnah Berurah414:4 adds a further leniency. Even if they were not notified about the eruv until after nightfall, since it can be assumed that they will desire to rely on the eruv, it is acceptable.
|
| 68. |
In other halachic contexts as well (see Hilchot Sukkah 6:1), a child is considered to be dependent on his mother until the age of six. (See the Mishnah Berurah 414:7, which cites other opinions that require a separate eruv to be established for a child below the age of six.)
|
| 69. |
And having charged the agent with this mission, he can rely on the agent to have deposited theeruv. He need not check to see if he has, in fact, done so (Eruvin 32b).
|
| 70. |
These individuals are not considered to be responsible for their actions and may not serve as agents. There is, however, a difference regarding an eruv chatzerot, for in that context, all that is necessary is that they collect the food.
|
| 71. |
I.e., a Sadducee or a Samaritan (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin 3:2). Needless to say, a gentile may not serve in this capacity, for he can never serve as an agent.
|
| 72. |
The only reason it is necessary for him to watch is so that he knows that the eruv has in fact reached his agent (Eruvin, ibid.).
|
| 73. |
The Maggid Mishneh explains that since this is a question of Rabbinic law, the principle of b'reirahis employed. This means that retroactively, it is considered that the decision made by the agent expressed the intent of the person who charged him with establishing the eruv.
|
| 74. |
Even if they did not know the direction in which the eruv was established until after nightfall (Maggid Mishneh, Mishnah Berurah 409:52).
|
| 75. |
Because the agent did not carry out the instructions given to him. These rulings apply regardless of whether the agent establishes the eruv with food belonging to him or with food belonging to the person who sent him (Mishnah Berurah 409:53).
|
| 76. |
Chapter 1, Halachah 16. The very same blessing is recited for an eruv t'chumin. See also the notes on that halachah, which explain why a blessing is recited before the performance of a Rabbinic commandment.
|
| 77. |
Note the Ra'avad, who objects to the recitation of a blessing for this mitzvah, for in contrast to other Rabbinic mitzvot, the institution of an eruv t'chumin does not introduce any new practice. Even an eruv chatzerot makes one conscious of the prohibition against carrying in a public domain. An eruv t'chumin, by contrast, merely grants a person a leniency.
The Maggid Mishneh explains the rationale for the Rambam's ruling. In practice, as stated in theShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 415:4), the custom is to recite a blessing.
|
| 78. |
Note the Mishnah Berurah 415:15, which states that if a person fails to make a statement of this nature, the eruv is not acceptable. As mentioned in the notes on the following chapter, this applies, however, only when one has deposited food for the eruv, and not when one has actually walked there oneself.
See also the Mishnah Berurah 415:16, which mentions that in his statement the person should specify that he is establishing the eruv for the following day, or for all the Sabbaths of the coming year.
|
Eruvin - Chapter Seven
Halacha 1
When a person left his city on Friday and stood in a specific place within the Sabbath limits, or at the end of the Sabbath limits, and said,1 "This is my place for the Sabbath," although he returns to his city and spends the night there, on the following day he is permitted to walk two thousand cubits from that place in every direction.
This is the principal manner [of establishing] an eruv t'chumin - actually to go there by foot.2 [The Sages allowed] one to establish an eruv by depositing an amount of food sufficient for two meals in the place - although one did not actually go there and stand there - to expedite matters for a rich person, so that he will not have to travel by himself, and could instead send his eruv with an agent who will deposit it for him.
Halacha 2
Similarly, when a person decides to establish his place for the Sabbath in a specific location - e.g., at a tree, a house, or a fence that he can identify, and at nightfall:
a) there are two thousand cubits or less between him and that place; andb) he sets out to reach that place and establishes it to be his place for the Sabbath,
on the following day, he may proceed to that desired location and continue two thousand cubits in all directions. [Moreover, this law applies] even when he did not actually reach that place or stand there, but instead a friend had him turn back and spend the night at his home, or even if he himself decided to turn back, or was prevented [from going there by other factors].
[The rationale is that] since he made a resolve to establish [that location] as his place for the Sabbath, and set out for that purpose, it is considered as if he stood there or deposited his eruv there.
Halacha 3
When does the above apply? To a poor person, for we do not burden him [with the obligation of] depositing an eruv, or to a person who is in a distant place - e.g., a person on a journey who is afraid that soon night will fall. [This leniency is granted] provided there is enough time in the day for him to reach the designated place before nightfall - if he ran with all of his strength - and there are two thousand cubits or less between him and that place at nightfall.3
If, however, he was not far from the place in question,4 nor was he a poor man, or
there was not enough time in the day for him to reach the designated place before nightfall if he ran with all of his strength, orthere were more than two thousand cubits between him and that place at nightfall, orhe did not specify the location he intended as his place for the Sabbath,5
he is not able to designate a distant location as his place for the Sabbath. Instead, he is granted no more than two thousand cubits in all directions from the place at which he is standing at nightfall.6
Halacha 4
When a person stood in a private domain before the commencement of the Sabbath and designated it as his "place" for the Sabbath, or if he was traveling on a journey and had the intent of spending the Sabbath in a private domain that he knew and [thus] designated as his "place" for the Sabbath, he is entitled to walk throughout that domain and [continue] two thousand cubits in all directions.
If, however, this private domain was not enclosed for the purpose of habitation, or was a mound or a valley [different rules apply]: If it is the size of the area necessary to grow two se'ah [of grain] or less,7 one is entitled to walk throughout that domain and two thousand cubits in all directions.8 If it is larger than the size of the area necessary to grow two se'ah [of grain],9 [one's "place"] is considered to be only four cubits in that domain, [and one may proceed only] two thousand cubits from [this place] in all directions.
The same [law applies] when one places one's eruv in a domain that was not enclosed for the purpose of habitation.10
Halacha 5
When a person [desires to] establish a distant location as his "place" for the Sabbath, but does not specify its exact location, he is not considered to have established it as his "place."
What is implied? A person was traveling on a journey and declared, "I will spend the Sabbath in such and such a place," "...in such and such a field," "...in such and such a valley," or "...a thousand cubits..." or "...two thousand cubits away from my present place," he has not established the distant location as his place for the Sabbath. [Instead,] he is entitled to proceed only two thousand cubits in all directions from the place where he is standing at nightfall.11
Halacha 6
[The following rule applies] when a person says, "I will spend the Sabbath under this and this tree," or "...under this and this rock." If there are eight cubits or more under the tree or the rock, the person has not established [the location] as his "place" for the Sabbath, because he did not specify an exact location. For were he to spend the Sabbath in a particular four cubits, [he could be in error,] lest the other four cubits be the ones defined as his "Sabbath place."12
Halacha 7
Therefore, it is necessary for a person to have the intent of establishing [a specific portion of the space - e.g.,] at [the tree's] base, its southern side, or its northern side, as his "Sabbath place."
If there are less than eight cubits under [the tree], and he intends to spend the Sabbath under it, he acquires it [as his "Sabbath place"]. [The rationale is that] there is no room [under the tree] for two places, and at least a portion of his [Sabbath] "place" has been defined.13
[This is the course of action to follow when] two people were coming on a journey, and one is familiar with a tree, fence, or other place that he desires to establish as his place, and the other is not familiar with the place. The person who is unfamiliar [with the place] should entrust the right to establish his "Sabbath place" to the one who is familiar with the place, and the latter should have the intent that he and his colleague should spend the Sabbath in the place with which he is familiar.
Halacha 8
[The following rules apply when] the inhabitants of a city have sent a person to deposit their eruv in a specific place, he set out on his way, but a colleague had him return, and he did not deposit the eruv [on behalf of the inhabitants]: Since their eruv was not deposited in the desired location, [that location] is not established as their "Sabbath place," and they are not allowed to walk more than two thousand cubits in all directions from [the boundary of] their city.
[The person who went to deposit the eruv], by contrast, is considered to have established that location as his "place" for the Sabbath, because he had set out on the way to that location with the intent of establishing it as his "Sabbath place."14 Therefore, on the following day, he is permitted to proceed to the [desired] place and continue two thousand cubits from it in all directions.
Halacha 9
The statement made previously,15 that a person who desires to establish a location as his Sabbath place from a distance need merely set out on the way, does not mean that he must depart and begin walking through the fields. Even if he merely descended from the loft with the intent of proceeding to [the desired] place, and before he left the entrance of his courtyard, a colleague prevailed on him to return, he is considered to have set out [on his way], and may establish his "Sabbath place" in that location.16
When a person establishes a location as his "Sabbath place" from a distance, he need not make an explicit statement, "This and this location is my 'Sabbath place.' It is sufficient for him to make a resolve within his heart and to set out on the way [to] establish that location as his "Sabbath place."17
Needless to say, a person who traveled by foot and actually stood at the location that [he desired to] establish as his "Sabbath place" need not make a statement. Making a resolve within his heart is sufficient to establish [the location as his "Sabbath place"].
Halacha 10
When students who sleep in the house of study, but go and eat their Sabbath meals [in the homes of] people who live in the fields and the vineyards who show hospitality to wayfarers passing through, [the house of study is considered their "Sabbath place"] and not the place where they eat.18
They may walk two thousand cubits from the house of study in all directions. [The rationale is] that were it possible for them to eat in the house of study, they would not go to the fields at all. They consider the house of study alone as their dwelling.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
As mentioned in Halachah 9, there is no need to make an explicit statement. It is sufficient to make a mental resolve.
|
| 2. |
This point is the subject of a difference of opinion among our Sages (Eruvin 4:9). Rabbi Meir maintains that the fundamental provision for establishing an eruv t'chumin involves depositing food. An allowance was made, however, for a poor person who could not afford to deposit food; he was permitted to establish an eruv by actually going to the desired place.
Rabbi Yehudah differs and states that the fundamental provision involves actually being at the place. Our Sages granted a leniency to a rich man, however, and allowed him to employ an agent to deposit food. As the Rambam states, the halachah follows Rabbi Yehudah.
|
| 3. |
I.e., the person could not reach the intended place before nightfall if he continued at his present pace, but could reach it if he ran with all his might. We do not require him to make this effort, and allow him to establish the eruv by intent and continue walking at his normal pace (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 409:11).
|
| 4. |
I.e., if at the outset he was at home, but was simply too lax about establishing an eruv. (SeeShulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:13.)
|
| 5. |
See Halachot 5-7.
|
| 6. |
The Rambam's ruling implies that the person's intent is of no consequence whatsoever, and his "place" for the Sabbath is the place where he is standing at nightfall.
The Ra'avad differs regarding the instance when there are more than two thousand cubits between the person and the location he intended to be his "Sabbath place." The person's intent establishes that location as his "Sabbath place." Since there are more than two thousand cubits between the person and his "place," he is compared to one who has gone beyond his Sabbath limits and is entitled to walk only within a square of four cubits. (See Hilchot Shabbat 27:11.)
Although the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:11) mentions both views, it appears to favor that of the Ra'avad. The Be'ur Halachah notes that the Ra'avad's views are shared by the Rashba, Rabbenu Asher, and many others. Hence, he suggests that it be followed.
|
| 7. |
I.e., 5000 square cubits.
|
| 8. |
I.e., there is no difference between it and an ordinary private domain.
|
| 9. |
Because of its size, and the fact that it was not enclosed for the purpose of habitation, our Sages feared that it might become confused with a private domain. Hence, they applied more stringent rules. (See Hilchot Shabbat, Chapter 16.)
|
| 10. |
From the Rambam's wording in Hilchot Shabbat 27:4, the Maggid Mishneh infers that if the person stands within a large private domain that was not enclosed for the purpose of habitation on Friday and establishes it as his "Sabbath place," he may walk throughout its entire area and two thousand cubits in all directions. This opinion is not accepted by the Rashba and other authorities, and it is their view that is cited by the Shulchan Aruch 396:2.
|
| 11. |
Based on their interpretation of Eruvin 49b, the Ra'avad, the Rashba, Rabbenu Asher, and others differ with the Rambam's ruling in this instance. Rather than totally ignore the person's intent, these authorities maintain that he is allowed to consider the distant location as his "Sabbath place." There is, however, a restriction. Since he did not specify his place, he is penalized according to the size of the location.
To cite the example mentioned in the following halachah: a person desires to establish a tree as his "Sabbath place." He does not specify his place and there are 20 cubits under the tree. According to the Rambam, his intent is ignored entirely, and his Sabbath limits are measured from the place where he is standing at nightfall. According to the other authorities, his "Sabbath place" is considered to be the tree, and it is from there that his Sabbath limits are measured. Nevertheless, because he did not specify his desired location, instead of being granted two thousand cubits in all directions, he is granted only 1980 cubits [i.e., 2000 minus 20 (the size of the area under the tree)].
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 409:11) mentions both views, but appears to favor that of the other authorities. The Eliyahu Rabba states that the view of the other authorities should be followed. The Be'ur Halachah, by contrast, states that consideration should also be given to the Rambam's view.
|
| 12. |
We are not concerned with which of the eight cubits the person will use while under the tree, for all these eight cubits are within the person's Sabbath limits. The question is which four of these eight cubits will be considered to be one's "Sabbath place" regarding the determination of the Sabbath limits. For this, the precise determination of one's "Sabbath place" is the matter of focus (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin 4:7.)
|
| 13. |
I.e., regardless of the side from which one measures the two thousand cubits of the Sabbath limits, a portion of the four cubits that a person is granted will be included in the four cubits from which the Sabbath limits are measured. This must be so, for there are less than eight cubits under the tree (ibid.).
|
| 14. |
See Halachah 2. However, Rashi (Eruvin 52a), Rabbenu Yehonatan, the Rashba and many other authorities maintain that the leniency mentioned in Halachah 2 applies only when a person is on a journey, but not when the entire purpose for his setting out is to deposit an eruv. Their views are cited in the Mishnah Berurah 410:2.
|
| 15. |
Halachah 2.
|
| 16. |
Eruvin 52a relates that Rav Yehudah bar Ishtata brought Rav Natan bar Oshaya a basket of fruit for the Sabbath. Although it was late on Friday afternoon, Rav Yehudah turned to leave so that he could establish an eruv t'chumin to enable himself to return home on the following day. Rav Natan let him descend a single step and then told him to stay.
|
| 17. |
Rashi (Eruvin 52a) and other authorities differ, and state that this leniency applies only when a person has two homes whose Sabbath limits are adjoining. In this instance, it is clear that even though a colleague prevailed upon him to return, his intent was to establish his "Sabbath place" at the desired location so that he could proceed to his other home.
When, however, a person does not own a home in the adjoining area, and a colleague is able to prevail upon him to return, he is not able to establish a "Sabbath place" in a distant location, unless he makes an explicit statement to that effect. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 410:2) quotes the Rambam's view, while the Mishnah Berurah 410:7 mentions the other opinions.
|
| 18. |
This applies even if during beyn hash'mashot they are at the homes of their hosts (Mishnah Berurah 409:39).
|
Eruvin - Chapter Eight
Halacha 1
One may not deposit two eruvin - one in the west and one in the east - so that one will be able to walk for a portion of the day [in the direction of] one of theeruvin, and to rely on the second eruv for the remainder of the day. [The rationale is that] one may not make two eruvin for a single day.1
If a person erred, and established two eruvin in two different directions, because he thought that this was permitted, or he told two people to establish an eruv for him, and one established an eruv to the north and one established an eruv to the south, he may walk only in the area common to both of them.
Halacha 2
What is meant [by the expression], "he may walk only in the area common to both of them"? That he may walk only in the area that is within [the Sabbath limits] of both of these locations. [For example,] if one [of his agents] deposited an eruv 1000 cubits to the east [of his city's periphery] and the other deposited an eruv 500 cubits to the west, the person for whom the eruvinwere deposited may walk only 1000 cubits to the west, as would be permitted [the agent] who established the eruv in the east, and 1500 cubits to the east, as would be permitted [the agent] who established the eruv in the west.
Therefore, if one established an eruv 2000 cubits to the east and the other established an eruv 2000 cubits to the west, the person may not move from his place.
Halacha 3
It is permissible for a person to establish two eruvin in two opposite directions and make the [following] stipulation: "If tomorrow there is a mitzvah or a necessity that arises and requires me to walk in this direction, then it is thiseruv that I am relying upon, and the other eruv is of no consequence. If, by contrast, it is necessary that I go to the other direction, the eruv [in that direction] is the one on which I will rely, and the first eruv is of no significance.2
"If I am required to go in both directions, I may rely on whichever of the eruvinI desire, and thus go in whichever direction I desire. If nothing [out of the ordinary] arises, and I am not required to go in either direction, neither of theeruvin is of consequence, nor do I rely on them. Instead, my situation is the same as that of any other inhabitant of my city, and I may proceed two thousand cubits in all directions from the city's wall."
Halacha 4
Just as it is forbidden to proceed beyond a city's [Sabbath] limits on the Sabbath, so too, it is forbidden to proceed beyond those limits on the holidays and on Yom Kippur.3
Just as a person who transfers an article from one domain to another on the Sabbath is liable, so too, a person who transfers an article from one domain to another on Yom Kippur is liable.4 On the holidays, by contrast, it is permitted to transfer articles from one domain to another.5
Therefore, eruvin should be established in courtyards and shitufim should be established in lanes for Yom Kippur, as they are established for the Sabbath.6Similarly, eruvei t'chumin may be established for Yom Kippur and the holidays as they are established for the Sabbath.
Halacha 5
[The following rules apply to] a holiday that occurs next to the Sabbath - whether before it or after it - or to the two days of a holiday as observed in the diaspora: A person may establish two eruvin in two opposite directions and rely on either for the first day, and the other for the second day.7 Similarly, he may establish a single eruv in one direction and rely on it for one of the two days, and on the other day consider himself like the other inhabitants of the city8 - i.e., it is as if he did not made an eruv, and thus he is entitled to proceed two thousand cubits in all directions [from the city's periphery].
Halacha 6
Similarly, a person who [deposits] an eruv [t'chumin] may make [any of the following] stipulations: "On this Sabbath, my eruv shall be in effect, but not on another Sabbath," or "On another Sabbath [my eruv shall be in effect],11 but not on this Sabbath."
[Similarly, he may stipulate that the eruv shall be in effect] on the Sabbaths but not on holidays, or on holidays and not on Sabbaths.
Halacha 7
When a person tells five others, "I am establishing an eruv on behalf of one of you, whom I will choose [later]. If I choose, that person will be able to go. If I do not choose, he will not be able to go." Even if this person chooses [a companion] after nightfall, he may go. For the principle of b'reirahapplies12regarding a matter of Rabbinic law.13
Similarly, a person may establish an eruv for all the Sabbaths of the year and stipulate, "If I desire [to rely on the eruv], I may go, and if I do not desire [to rely on it], I may not go - and I will be [governed by the same rules] as the other inhabitants of my city." He may go on whichever Sabbaths he desires, even if he does not make the decision to go until after nightfall.
Halacha 8
[The following rule applies] when a person establishes an eruv for the two days of a holiday as observed in the diaspora or for a Sabbath and a holiday [that are celebrated consecutively]: Even when the person establishes a single eruv in one direction for both days, the eruv must be accessible14 in its [designated] location on both the first and second nights throughout [the period of] beyn hash'mashot.
What should he do? He should take [the eruv to the desired place] on the eve of the Sabbath or on the eve of the holiday, and wait until nightfall. He may then take it in his hand and carry it away, if it is a holiday.15 On the following day, he should take it16 to the same location,17 deposit it there until nightfall and eat it18 if it is Friday night, or take it with him if it is the night of a holiday.
[This is necessary, for] they are two different expressions of holiness, and are not considered to be a single [extended] day with regard to which it would be possible to say on the first night that one established the eruv for both days.19
Halacha 9
[In the situation described in the previous halachah,] were the eruv to be eaten on the first day, it is effective for the first day, but the person [may not establish] an eruv [with food] for the second day.
If he established an eruv by walking [to the desired location] on the first day, he may establish an eruv for the second day only by walking to the same location20 and making the resolution21 that he is establishing this as his "place" for the day.
If he established an eruv with bread on the first day [he has two options]: If he desires to establish an eruv by walking [to the desired location] on the second day, the eruv is acceptable. If he desires to establish an eruv by depositing a loaf of bread, [he may,] provided he uses the same loaf of bread that he used the first day.22
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
The statement made previously27 that a person may establish two differenteruvin in two directions for two days applies only when it is possible for the person to reach both of the eruvin on the first day [without departing from his Sabbath limits]. If, however, it is impossible on the first day for him to reach the eruv for the second day, the eruv for the second day is invalid.28
[The rationale is that] the mitzvah of eruv [can be fulfilled only] with a meal that is fit to be eaten while it is still day. Since the person may not reach the eruv[intended for the second day] on the first day [because it is beyond his Sabbath limits], it is not considered to be a meal that is fit to be eaten while it is still day.
Halacha 12
What is implied? If a person deposited an eruv two thousand cubits eastward of his home and relied on it for the first day [he is forbidden to walk westward at all].29 [Therefore,] if he deposited an eruv one cubit, one hundred cubits, or one thousand cubits to the west and relied on it for the second day, the second eruv is invalid.
[The rationale is that] the second eruv is not fit for him on the first day, for he may not reach it, since he is not able to proceed toward the west at all.
Halacha 13
If, however, he deposited his eruv one thousand five hundred cubits eastward of his home and relied on it for the first day, and deposited a second eruvwithin five hundred cubits to the west of his house and relied upon it for the second day, the eruv is valid. For it is possible for him to reach it on the first day.
Halacha 14
When a holiday falls on a Friday, it is forbidden to establish an eruv [for the Sabbath] on the holiday: neither an eruv chatzerot nor an eruv t'chumin.30Instead, one should establish the eruv on Thursday, the day prior to the holiday.
If the two days celebrated as a holiday in the diaspora fall on a Thursday and a Friday, one should establish both an eruv chatzerot and an eruv t'chumin on Wednesday. If a person forgot, and did not establish an eruv beforehand, he may establish an eruv chatzerot in a conditional manner on Thursday and Friday.31 He may not, however, do this with regard to an eruv t'chumin.32
Halacha 15
What is implied? On Thursday, the person should make the following stipulation:33 "If today is a holiday, my statements are of no consequence. But if not, this should be [accepted as] an eruv."
On the following day, he should again establish the eruv34and say, "If today is a holiday, I have established my eruv yesterday, and my statements today are of no consequence. If, however, yesterday was the holiday, this should be [accepted as] an eruv."
When does the above apply? To the two days observed as holidays in the diaspora. The two days of Rosh HaShanah, by contrast, are considered to be one [extended] day. Therefore, with regard to them, it is possible to establish an eruv only on the day prior to the holiday.
(Blessed be God who grants assistance.)
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
This principle is based on the following concept: Since an eruv t'chumin establishes a particular location as a person's place for the Sabbath, only one such place can be established, and not two.
|
| 2. |
As the Maggid Mishneh mentions, this halachah is dependent on the concept that in cases of Rabbinic law, the principle of b'reirah applies. Thus, retroactively it is considered that at the commencement of the Sabbath, the person had the intent of establishing an eruv in the direction that he was eventually required to proceed.
|
| 3. |
See Tzafenat Paneach (in his gloss on Hilchot Shabbat 27:1), who states that the Rambam considers the limits on travel on the holidays and on Yom Kippur as Rabbinic in origin. In support, he cites the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Sanhedrin, Chapter 19, regarding the negative commandments punishable by lashing: "A person who goes beyond the [Sabbath] limits on the Sabbath, a person who performs a forbidden labor on a holiday."
|
| 4. |
The liability incurred by the violator is somewhat different. A person who willfully performs any of the Sabbath labors is liable for execution, while one who violates a forbidden labor on Yom Kippur is liable only for karet. (See Hilchot Sh'vitat Asor 1:2.)
|
| 5. |
See Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 1:4, which states that since the prohibition against the forbidden labor of transferring articles was lifted on the holidays regarding the preparation of food, it was lifted entirely.
|
| 6. |
See Maggid Mishneh and the Mishnah Berurah 416:31, which mention opinions that see a benefit in the establishment of eruvin in courtyards on the holidays as well.
|
| 7. |
Although for a single Sabbath one may not establish eruvin in two opposite directions, this rule does not apply when the Sabbath and a holiday follow one another. The Sabbath and the holidays represent two different expressions of holiness (Eruvin 38b). Therefore, the location defined as one's "place" - and thus an eruv established - for one does not necessarily apply regarding the other.
Similarly, regarding the two days of the holidays observed in the diaspora: in essence, the holidays were to be observed for only one day. The observance of a second day was instituted only because of uncertainty regarding the calendar. (See Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 5:4-5.) Therefore, the two days are also considered to be separate entities.
The Ra'avad suggests qualifying the Rambam's statements. The Rambam, however, appreciated the problem that he raised and clarified the issue in Halachah 12.
|
| 8. |
This also involves a redefinition of one's place. Instead of its being considered to be the location of the eruv, it is considered to be one's home.
|
| 9. |
Since these two days were observed as a holiday even in Eretz Yisrael when the moon was sanctified on the basis of the testimony of witnesses (Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 5:7), they are considered to be a single expression of holiness. Eruvin 39b refers to them as "one long day," and the halachic requirements that apply to one day apply also to the other.
|
| 10. |
See the notes on Halachah 8 with regard to whether or not it is necessary for the eruv to remain in its place for both nights of the holiday.
|
| 11. |
The food deposited for the eruv must exist at beyn hash'mashot and be fit to eat. This is particularly important in the summer months, when it is possible that the eruv has become stale or has been eaten by vermin (Mishnah Berurah 416:9).
|
| 12. |
Ordinarily, a person must establish his eruv before nightfall. Nevertheless, since he made a stipulation beforehand, we rely on the principle of b'reirah, and we say that retroactively it is considered to be as if he decided to rely on the eruv before nightfall (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 13. |
For other examples of the Rambam's rulings concerning this matter, see Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov5:20, Hilchot Terumah 1:21, Hilchot Ma'aser 7:1, and Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 4:15.
|
| 14. |
If the eruv is not accessible - even if it is present in its designated location - it is not acceptable, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachot 8 and 12.
|
| 15. |
The Maggid Mishneh explains that the removal of the eruv is merely a suggestion offered, lest a person leave the eruv in its place, and it be destroyed by vermin or the like. In a place where theeruv will surely be preserved, there is no point in removing it. Needless to say, on the Sabbath, when it is forbidden to carry, and it is forbidden to remove the eruv, this suggestion does not apply.
If one leaves the eruv in the designated place and there is a possibility that it will be destroyed, one is required to go to that place on the following day to check that it still exists (Mishnah Berurah416:14).
|
| 16. |
The Be'ur Halachah 416 asks: Since it is possible to establish the eruv by walking to the designated location (as stated in the following halachah), of what value is it that the person carried the food with him? The Be'ur Halachah explains that in this instance, we are speaking about a person who has an agent establish the eruv for him. Therefore, it is necessary for him to use food.
|
| 17. |
The eruv must be deposited in the same location; otherwise, this is forbidden. Were one to change either the location (or the food used for the eruv), one would have been considered as either preparing on the Sabbath for a holiday, or on a holiday for the Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 416:2).
|
| 18. |
There is no obligation to eat it. The Rambam's intent is merely that from this time onward, there is no obligation that the eruv remain intact (Mishneh Berurah 416:15).
|
| 19. |
The Rambam's statement implies that on Rosh HaShanah, it is necessary to establish an eruvonly on the first night of the holiday. Even if the eruv is consumed before the beginning of the second day, it is acceptable, just as it would be acceptable for the entire Sabbath, even if it had been consumed after beyn hash'mashot.
The Ra'avad objects to this ruling. He maintains that the distinction of the two days of Rosh HaShanah as a single "extended" day applies only as a stringency, but not as a leniency. Therefore, the eruv established before the first night must remain in its place on the second night as well.
The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's view, bringing supports that indicate that our Sages' definition of these two days as "one long day" brings about a leniency as well as a stringency. TheMishnah Berurah 416:11 follows the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 20. |
He may not establish the eruv by depositing food, for this would involve the performance of an activity on either the Sabbath or the holiday for the benefit of the other. As mentioned, it is forbidden to prepare on the Sabbath for a holiday or on a holiday for the Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 416:2).
|
| 21. |
He may not make a verbal statement, for this would be considered to be preparation for the coming day (ibid.).
|
| 22. |
Since he uses the same loaf, he is not considered to be performing a new activity; this location had already been established as his "place," and he is merely perpetuating the existing situation. If he brought a different loaf, it would be considered to be preparing for the coming day (ibid.).
|
| 23. |
According to the fixed calendar we follow at present, it is impossible for Yom Kippur to fall on either Sunday or Friday. (See Rosh HaShanah 20a.)
|
| 24. |
This expression implies a ruling for which the Rambam has no explicit source in the Talmud, but which he arrived at through a process of deduction.
|
| 25. |
Rabbi Akiva Eiger explains that this also implies a leniency. As indicated by the conclusion of Halachah 8, there is no need to establish an eruv on the second day.
|
| 26. |
The rationale is that all the prohibitions that apply on the Sabbath also apply on Yom Kippur (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 27. |
In Halachah 5.
|
| 28. |
Note the gloss of the Sefer HaKovetz on Halachah 5, which discusses whether the law in this halachah applies only with regard to a holiday and a Sabbath that follow consecutively, or also with regard to the two days of a holiday that are observed in the diaspora. The Magen Avraham 416:3 rules that the restrictions apply with regard to the two days observed in the diaspora as well.
|
| 29. |
See Chapter 6, Halachah 4.
|
| 30. |
For it is forbidden to prepare for the Sabbath on a holiday. (See the Mishnah Berurah 393:1, which questions whether or not an eruv established on a holiday in error is acceptable.)
Note also the Or Sameach, which explains that, according to the Rambam, it is forbidden to establish an eruv t'chumin on the first day of a holiday for the second day. (This ruling runs contrary to a decision of the Noda BiY'hudah (Vol. II, Responsum 48).
|
| 31. |
In Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 6:14-15, when discussing the establishment of an eruv tavshilin and other similar matters, the Rambam states that in the present era, we may not make such a conditional arrangement. This leniency was granted only in the era when the establishment of the calendar was dependent on the testimony of witnesses, and the second day of a holiday was observed because of a doubt concerning the day on which the holiday should be celebrated. At present, there is no such doubt, and the second day is celebrated because of a Rabbinic decree requiring us to preserve the previous custom. (See Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 5:5.)
Other authorities (see the gloss of the Ra'avad on Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov) take issue with the Rambam on this point; it is their view that is accepted as halachah in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 393:1).
|
| 32. |
Beitzah 17a explains why a distinction is made between these two types of eruvin. By establishing an eruv t'chumin, a person designates a place as his home for the Sabbath, and our Sages would not permit this to be done on a holiday. In contrast, the establishment of an eruv chatzerotnegates one's ownership. Therefore, greater leniency is shown.
|
| 33. |
Note the Birkei Yosef (Orach Chayim 528), which states that a blessing should not be recited.
|
| 34. |
The Mishnah Berurah 393:6 suggests using the same loaf of bread. Otherwise, it would be necessary to keep both loaves until the Sabbath.
|
---------------------
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Wednesday, Tevet 25, 5776 · 06 Wednesday, 2016
"Today's Day"
Shabbat Tevet 25 5703
Bless Rosh Chodesh Sh'vat. Say the entire Tehillim in the early morning. Day of farbrengen.
Haftora: Haba'im yashreish.
Torah lessons: Chumash: Sh'mot, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 119, 1-96.
Tanya: Inasmuch as (p. 53)...measure up to all." (p. 59).
From my father's sichot: Exodus from Egypt means leaving limitations and bounds, and Chassidus is to enable man to leave the restrictions of the material world.
There is a difference: The Egyptian Exodus means shattering and then departure, which is why they went away from Egypt. The Chassidic exodus means purification and correction, stepping out of worldly limitations and bounds while remaining in the world. This means, while functioning within the world we must transcend its limitations. We are to remove the limitations and bounds, and perceive the truth - that the world per se is truly good, since, after all, the natural world is what G-d intended. This is attained through the avoda of Chassidus.1
FOOTNOTES
1. When society and environment ("world" in chassidic usage) conflict with Torah, there may be a reaction of withdrawal from "world" and its affairs. Extreme monastic withdrawal is rejected by Torah. Chassidus advocates being "within world," involvement in the normal routines of family and occupation for example, but refusing subservience to the values and principles of "world." The Jew's values are to be Torah's while he functions in the marketplace or laboratory. He utilizes the opportunities and challenges of "world" to subordinate and use worldly affairs for Torah ideals, values and goals. He will do this intellectually when confronting concepts that appear not to be consonant with Torah, and also by observing mitzvot in inhospitable circumstances. While functioning in this environment he is apart from it, refusing to be dominated or intimidated by it.---------------------• Daily Thought:
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Wednesday, Tevet 25, 5776 · 06 Wednesday, 2016
"Today's Day"
Shabbat Tevet 25 5703
Bless Rosh Chodesh Sh'vat. Say the entire Tehillim in the early morning. Day of farbrengen.
Haftora: Haba'im yashreish.
Torah lessons: Chumash: Sh'mot, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 119, 1-96.
Tanya: Inasmuch as (p. 53)...measure up to all." (p. 59).
From my father's sichot: Exodus from Egypt means leaving limitations and bounds, and Chassidus is to enable man to leave the restrictions of the material world.
There is a difference: The Egyptian Exodus means shattering and then departure, which is why they went away from Egypt. The Chassidic exodus means purification and correction, stepping out of worldly limitations and bounds while remaining in the world. This means, while functioning within the world we must transcend its limitations. We are to remove the limitations and bounds, and perceive the truth - that the world per se is truly good, since, after all, the natural world is what G-d intended. This is attained through the avoda of Chassidus.1
FOOTNOTES
1. When society and environment ("world" in chassidic usage) conflict with Torah, there may be a reaction of withdrawal from "world" and its affairs. Extreme monastic withdrawal is rejected by Torah. Chassidus advocates being "within world," involvement in the normal routines of family and occupation for example, but refusing subservience to the values and principles of "world." The Jew's values are to be Torah's while he functions in the marketplace or laboratory. He utilizes the opportunities and challenges of "world" to subordinate and use worldly affairs for Torah ideals, values and goals. He will do this intellectually when confronting concepts that appear not to be consonant with Torah, and also by observing mitzvot in inhospitable circumstances. While functioning in this environment he is apart from it, refusing to be dominated or intimidated by it.---------------------• Daily Thought:
What Is Love?
Two people live together, care for each other, weather the storms together
—and one day they discover they cannot live without each other.
Fall in love and you can fall out of love.
Create love and it will last forever.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment