Terumah: Exodus 25:1 Adonai said to Moshe, 2 “Tell the people of Isra’el to take up a collection for me — accept a contribution from anyone who wholeheartedly wants to give. 3 The contribution you are to take from them is to consist of gold, silver and bronze; 4 blue, purple and scarlet yarn; fine linen, goat’s hair, 5 tanned ram skins and fine leather; acacia-wood; 6 oil for the light, spices for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense; 7 onyx stones and other stones to be set, for the ritual vest and breastplate.
8 “They are to make me a sanctuary, so that I may live among them. 9 You are to make it according to everything I show you — the design of the tabernacle and the design of its furnishings. This is how you are to make it.
10 “They are to make an ark of acacia-wood three-and-three-quarters feet long, two-and-a-quarter feet wide and two-and-a-quarter feet high. 11 You are to overlay it with pure gold — overlay it both inside and outside — and put a molding of gold around the top of it. 12 Cast four gold rings for it, and attach them to its four feet, two rings on each side. 13 Make poles of acacia-wood, and overlay them with gold. 14 Put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark; you will use them to carry the ark. 15 The poles are to remain in the rings of the ark; they are not to be removed from it. 16 Into the ark you are to put the testimony which I am about to give you.
(ii) 17 “You are to make a cover for the ark out of pure gold; it is to be three-and-three-quarters feet long and two-and-a-quarter feet high. 18 You are to make two k’ruvim of gold. Make them of hammered work for the two ends of the ark-cover. 19 Make one keruv for one end and one keruv for the other end; make the k’ruvim of one piece with the ark-cover at its two ends. 20 The k’ruvim will have their wings spread out above, so that their wings cover the ark, and their faces are toward each other and toward the ark-cover. 21 You are to put the ark-cover on top of the ark.
“Inside the ark you will put the testimony that I am about to give you. 22 There I will meet with you. I will speak with you from above the ark-cover, from between the two k’ruvim which are on the ark for the testimony, about all the orders I am giving you for the people of Isra’el.
23 “You are to make a table of acacia-wood three feet long, eighteen inches wide and eighteen inches high. 24 Overlay it with pure gold, and put a molding of gold around the top of it. 25 Make around it a rim a handbreadth wide, and put a molding of gold around the rim. 26 Make four gold rings for it, and attach the rings to the four corners, near its four legs. 27 The rings to hold the poles used to carry the table are to be placed close to the rim. 28 Make the poles of acacia-wood, overlay them with gold, and use them to carry the table.
29 “Make its dishes, pans, bowls and pitchers of pure gold. 30 On the table you are to place the bread of the presence in my presence always.
(S: iii) 31 “You are to make a menorah of pure gold. It is to be made of hammered work; its base, shaft, cups, ring of outer leaves and petals are to be of one piece with it. 32 It is to have six branches extending from its sides, three branches of the menorah on one side of it and three on the other. 33 On one branch are to be three cups shaped like almond blossoms, each with a ring of outer leaves and petals; likewise on the opposite branch three cups shaped like almond blossoms, each with a ring of outer leaves and petals; and similarly for all six branches extending from the menorah. 34 On the central shaft of the menorah are to be four cups shaped like almond blossoms, each with its ring of outer leaves and petals. 35 Where each pair of branches joins the central shaft is to be a ring of outer leaves of one piece with the pair of branches — thus for all six branches. 36 The rings of outer leaves and their branches are to be of one piece with the shaft. Thus the whole menorah is to be a single piece of hammered work made of pure gold.
37 “Make seven lamps for the menorah, and mount them so as to give light to the space in front of it. 38 Its tongs and trays are to be of pure gold. 39 The menorah and its utensils are to be made of sixty-six pounds of pure gold. 40 See that you make them according to the design being shown you on the mountain.
26:1 (A: iii) “You are to make the tabernacle with ten sheets of finely woven linen and with blue, purple and scarlet yarn. You are to make them with k’ruvim worked in, that have been crafted by a skilled artisan. 2 Each one is to be forty-two feet long and six feet wide; all the sheets are to be the same size. 3 Five sheets are to be joined one to another, and the other five sheets are to be joined one to another. 4 Make loops of blue on the edge of the outermost sheet in the first set, and do the same on the edge of the outermost sheet in the second set. 5 Make fifty loops on the one sheet, and make fifty loops on the edge of the sheet in the second set; the loops are to be opposite one another. 6 Make fifty fasteners of gold, and couple the sheets to each other with the fasteners, so that the tabernacle forms a single unit.
7 “You are to make sheets of goat’s hair to be used as a tent covering the tabernacle; make eleven sheets. 8 Each sheet is to be forty-five feet long and six feet wide — all eleven sheets are to be the same size. 9 Join five sheets together and six sheets together, and fold the sixth sheet double at the front of the tent. 10 Make fifty loops on the edge of the outermost sheet in the first set and fifty loops on the edge of the outermost sheet in the second set. 11 Make fifty fasteners of bronze, put the fasteners in the loops, and join the tent together, so that it forms a single unit. 12 As for the overhanging part that remains of the sheets forming the tent, the half-sheet remaining is to hang over the back of the tabernacle; 13 and the eighteen inches on the one side and the eighteen inches on the other side of that remaining in the length of the sheets forming the tent is to hang over the tabernacle to cover it on each side.
14 “You are to make a covering for the tent of tanned ram skins and an outer covering of fine leather.
(iv) 15 “Make the upright planks for the tabernacle out of acacia-wood. 16 Each plank is to be fifteen feet long and two-and-a-quarter feet wide. 17 There are to be two projections on each plank, and the planks are to be joined one to another. That is how you are to make all the planks for the tabernacle.
18 “Make the planks for the tabernacle as follows: twenty planks for the south side, facing southward. 19 Make forty silver sockets under the twenty planks, two sockets under one plank for its two projections and two sockets under another plank for its two projections. 20 “For the second side of the tabernacle, to the north, make twenty planks 21 and their forty silver sockets, two sockets under one plank and two under another. 22 “For the rear part of the tabernacle, toward the west, make six planks. 23 For the corners of the tabernacle in the rear, make two planks; 24 these are to be double from the bottom all the way to the top but joined at a single ring. Do the same with both of them; they are to form the two corners. 25 Thus there will be eight planks with their silver sockets, sixteen sockets, two sockets under one plank and two under another.
26 “Make crossbars of acacia-wood, five for the planks of the one side of the tabernacle, 27 five crossbars for the planks of the other side of the tabernacle, and five crossbars for the planks at the side of the tabernacle at the rear toward the west. 28 The middle crossbar, halfway up the planks, is to extend from end to end. 29 Overlay the planks with gold, make gold rings for them through which the crossbars will pass, and overlay the crossbars with gold.
30 “You are to erect the tabernacle according to the design you have been shown on the mountain.
(v) 31 “You are to make a curtain of blue, purple and scarlet yarn and finely woven linen. Make it with k’ruvim worked in, that have been crafted by a skilled artisan. 32 Hang it with gold hooks on four acacia-wood posts overlaid with gold and standing in four silver sockets. 33 Hang the curtain below the fasteners. Then bring the ark for the testimony inside the curtain; the curtain will be the divider for you between the Holy Place and the Especially Holy Place. 34 You are to put the ark-cover on the ark for the testimony in the Especially Holy Place.
35 “You are to put the table outside the curtain and the menorah opposite the table on the side of the tabernacle toward the south; put the table on the north side.
36 “For the entrance to the tent, make a screen of blue, purple and scarlet yarn and finely woven linen; it should be in colors, the work of a weaver. 37 For the screen, make five posts of acacia-wood; overlay them with gold; and cast for them five sockets of bronze.
27:1 (vi) “You are to make the altar of acacia-wood, seven-and-a-half feet long and seven-and-a-half feet wide — the altar is to be square and four-and-a-half feet high. 2 Make horns for it on its four corners; the horns are to be of one piece with it; and you are to overlay it with bronze.
3 “Make its pots for removing ashes, and its shovels, basins, meat-hooks and fire pans; all its utensils you are to make of bronze. 4 Make for it a grate of bronze netting; and on the four corners of the netting, make four bronze rings. 5 Put it under the rim of the altar, so that the netting reaches halfway up the altar. 6 Make poles of acacia-wood for the altar and overlay them with bronze. 7 Its poles are to be put into the rings; the poles are to be on both sides of the altar for carrying it. 8 The altar is to be made of planks and hollow inside. They are to make it just as you were shown on the mountain.
(vii) 9 “Here is how you are to make the courtyard of the tabernacle. On the south side, facing southward, are to be tapestries for the courtyard made of finely woven linen, 150 feet for one side, 10 supported on twenty posts in twenty bronze sockets; the hooks on the posts and the attached rings for hanging are to be of silver. 11 Likewise, along the north side are to be tapestries 150 feet long, hung on twenty posts in twenty bronze sockets, with silver hooks and rings for the posts. 12 Across the width of the courtyard on the west side are to be tapestries seventy-five feet long, hung on ten posts in ten sockets. 13 The width of the courtyard on the east side, facing east, will be seventy-five feet. 14 The tapestries for one side [of the gateway] will be twenty-two-and-a-half feet long, hung on three posts in three sockets; 15 for the other side there will be tapestries twenty-two-and-a-half feet long on three posts in three sockets.
16 “For the gateway of the courtyard there is to be a screen thirty feet made of blue, purple and scarlet yarn and finely woven linen. It should be in colors, the work of a weaver. It is to be on four posts in four sockets. (Maftir) 17 All the posts all the way around the courtyard are to be banded with silver and to stand in sockets of bronze. 18 The length of the courtyard is to be 150 feet and the width seventy-five feet everywhere; with the height seven-and-a-half feet. The tapestries and screen are to be of finely woven linen, and the sockets are to be of bronze.
19 “All the equipment needed for every kind of service in the tabernacle, as well as the tent pegs for the tabernacle and for the courtyard, are to be of bronze.
I Kings 5:26 (12) Adonai gave Shlomo wisdom, as he had promised him; and there was peace between Hiram and Shlomo — the two of them formed an alliance together.
27 (13) King Shlomo conscripted 30,000 men from all Isra’el for forced labor. 28 (14) He sent them to the L’vanon in monthly relays of 10,000; they would stay a month in the L’vanon and two months at home. Adoniram was in charge of the forced labor.
29 (15) Shlomo had 70,000 men to carry loads and another 80,000 stonecutters in the hills, 30 (16) besides Shlomo’s 3,300 supervisors who were in charge of the people doing the work. 31 (17) The king gave orders; and they quarried large stones, expensive stones, to lay the foundation of the house with cut stone. 32 (18) Shlomo’s and Hiram’s builders, along with the men from G’val, worked the stones and prepared the timber and stones for building the house.
6:1 It was in the 480th year after the people of Isra’el had left the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Shlomo’s reign over Isra’el, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of Adonai. 2 The house which King Shlomo built for Adonai was 105 feet long, thirty-five feet wide and fifty-two-and-a-half feet high. 3 The hall fronting the temple of the house was thirty-five feet long, the same as the width of the house itself, so that its seventeen-and-a-half-foot width extended frontward from the house. 4 The windows he made for the house were wide on the inside and narrow on the outside. 5 Against the wall of the house he built an annex all the way around; it went all the way around the walls of the house, including both the temple and the sanctuary. 6 The lowest floor of the annex was eight-and-three-quarters feet wide, the middle floor ten-and-a-half feet wide and the third floor twelve-and-a-quarter feet wide; for he had made the outer part of the wall of the house step-shaped, so that the beams of the annex would not have to be attached to the house walls. 7 For the house, when under construction, was built of stone prepared at the quarry; so that no hammer, chisel or iron tool of any kind was heard in the house while it was being built. 8 The entrance to the lowest floor was on the south side of the house; a spiral staircase went up to the middle floor and on to the third. 9 So he built the house, and after finishing it, he put its roof on — cedar planks over beams. 10 Each floor of the annex surrounding the house was eight-and-three-quarters feet high and was attached to the house with beams of cedar.
11 Then this word of Adonai came to Shlomo: 12 “Concerning this house which you are building: if you will live according to my regulations, follow my rulings and observe all my mitzvot and live by them, then I will establish with you my promise that I made to David your father — 13 I will live in it among the people of Isra’el, and I will not abandon my people Isra’el.”
27 (13) King Shlomo conscripted 30,000 men from all Isra’el for forced labor. 28 (14) He sent them to the L’vanon in monthly relays of 10,000; they would stay a month in the L’vanon and two months at home. Adoniram was in charge of the forced labor.
29 (15) Shlomo had 70,000 men to carry loads and another 80,000 stonecutters in the hills, 30 (16) besides Shlomo’s 3,300 supervisors who were in charge of the people doing the work. 31 (17) The king gave orders; and they quarried large stones, expensive stones, to lay the foundation of the house with cut stone. 32 (18) Shlomo’s and Hiram’s builders, along with the men from G’val, worked the stones and prepared the timber and stones for building the house.
6:1 It was in the 480th year after the people of Isra’el had left the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Shlomo’s reign over Isra’el, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of Adonai. 2 The house which King Shlomo built for Adonai was 105 feet long, thirty-five feet wide and fifty-two-and-a-half feet high. 3 The hall fronting the temple of the house was thirty-five feet long, the same as the width of the house itself, so that its seventeen-and-a-half-foot width extended frontward from the house. 4 The windows he made for the house were wide on the inside and narrow on the outside. 5 Against the wall of the house he built an annex all the way around; it went all the way around the walls of the house, including both the temple and the sanctuary. 6 The lowest floor of the annex was eight-and-three-quarters feet wide, the middle floor ten-and-a-half feet wide and the third floor twelve-and-a-quarter feet wide; for he had made the outer part of the wall of the house step-shaped, so that the beams of the annex would not have to be attached to the house walls. 7 For the house, when under construction, was built of stone prepared at the quarry; so that no hammer, chisel or iron tool of any kind was heard in the house while it was being built. 8 The entrance to the lowest floor was on the south side of the house; a spiral staircase went up to the middle floor and on to the third. 9 So he built the house, and after finishing it, he put its roof on — cedar planks over beams. 10 Each floor of the annex surrounding the house was eight-and-three-quarters feet high and was attached to the house with beams of cedar.
11 Then this word of Adonai came to Shlomo: 12 “Concerning this house which you are building: if you will live according to my regulations, follow my rulings and observe all my mitzvot and live by them, then I will establish with you my promise that I made to David your father — 13 I will live in it among the people of Isra’el, and I will not abandon my people Isra’el.”
Daily Study
Chitas and Rambam for today:Chumash: Terumah, 7th Portion Exodus 27:9-27:19 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class
• Exodus Chapter 27
9And you shall make the courtyard of the Mishkan on the southern side [there shall be] hangings for the courtyard of twisted fine linen, one hundred cubits long on one side. טוְעָשִׂ֕יתָ אֵ֖ת חֲצַ֣ר הַמִּשְׁכָּ֑ן לִפְאַ֣ת נֶֽגֶב־תֵּ֠ימָ֠נָה קְלָעִ֨ים לֶֽחָצֵ֜ר שֵׁ֣שׁ מָשְׁזָ֗ר מֵאָ֤ה בָֽאַמָּה֙ אֹ֔רֶךְ לַפֵּאָ֖ה הָֽאֶחָֽת:
hangings: Heb. קְלָעִים. Made like the sails of a ship, with many holes, braided, and not the work of a weaver. Its Aramaic translation is סְרָדִין [a sieve], like the Aramaic translation of מִכְבָּר, which is סְרָדָא, because they were [both] perforated like a sieve. קלעים: עשויין כמין קלעי ספינה נקבים נקבים מעשה קליעה ולא מעשה אורג ותרגומו סרדין כתרגומו של מכבר המתורגם סרדא לפי שהן מנוקבין ככברה:
on one side: Heb. לַפֵּאָה הָאֶחָת. The entire side is called פֵּאָה. — [from targumim] [Although פֵּאָה usually means a corner, in this case it refers to the entire side.] לפאה האחת: כל הרוח קרוי פאה:
10And its pillars [shall be] twenty and their sockets twenty of copper; the hooks of the pillars and their bands [shall be of] silver. יוְעַמֻּדָ֣יו עֶשְׂרִ֔ים וְאַדְנֵיהֶ֥ם עֶשְׂרִ֖ים נְח֑שֶׁת וָוֵ֧י הָֽעַמֻּדִ֛ים וַֽחֲשֻֽׁקֵיהֶ֖ם כָּֽסֶף:
And its pillars [shall be] twenty: Five cubits between [one] pillar and [another] pillar. ועמדיו עשרים: חמש אמות בין עמוד לעמוד:
and their sockets: [I.e., the sockets] of the pillars were copper. The sockets rested on the ground and the pillars were inserted into them. He [Bezalel] made a sort of rod, called pals in Old French. [It was] six handbreadths long and three [handbreadths] wide, with a copper ring affixed to it [each rod] in the middle. He would wrap the edge of the hanging around it [the rod] with cords [placed] opposite every pillar. He would hang [each] rod by its ring from the hook that was on [each] pillar. [The hook was] made resembling a sort of “vav” (ו) its end upright and one end inserted into the pillar, like those [hooks] made to hold up doors, which are called gons, hinges in Old French. The width of the hanging hung below [the hooks], and this was the height of the partitions of the courtyard. — [from Baraitha Melecheth HaMishkan, ch. 5] וא-דניהם: של העמודים נחשת, הא-דנים יושבים על הארץ והעמודים תקועים לתוכן היה עושה כמין קונדסין שקורין פל"ש בלעז [יתידות] ארכן ששה טפחים ורחבן שלשה וטבעת נחשת קבועה בו באמצעו, וכורך שפת הקלע סביביו במיתרים כנגד כל עמוד ועמוד, ותולה הקונדס דרך טבעתו באונקליות שבעמוד העשוי כמין וי"ו, ראשו זקוף למעלה וראשו אחד תקוע בעמוד, כאותן שעושין להציב דלתות שקורין גונזי"ש בלעז [צירים] ורחב הקלע תלוי מלמטה, והיא קומת מחיצות החצר:
the hooks of the pillars: Heb. וָוֵי הָעַמֻּדִים. They are the hooks. ווי העמודים: הם האונקליות:
and their bands: Heb. וַחִשֻׁקֵיהֶם. The pillars were encircled all around with silver threads. I do not know whether [they were encircled] on their entire surface, [or only] at their top or in their middle, but I do know that חִשׁוּק is an expression of girding [or belting], for so we find in [the episode of] the concubine in Gibeah: “And with him was a team of saddled (חֲבוּשִׁים) donkeys” (Jud. 19:10), which is translated into Aramaic [by Jonathan] as חִשִׁיקִין. וחשקיהם: מוקפין היו העמודים בחוטי כסף סביב. ואיני יודע אם על פני כולן, אם בראשם, אם באמצעם. אך יודע אני שחשוק לשון חגורה, שכן מצינו בפילגש בגבעה (שופטים יט יז) ועמו צמד חמורים חבושים, תרגומו חשוקים:
11And so for the northern end in the length hangings one hundred [cubits] long, its pillars twenty, and their sockets twenty of copper; the hooks of the pillars and their bands of silver. יאוְכֵ֨ן לִפְאַ֤ת צָפוֹן֙ בָּאֹ֔רֶךְ קְלָעִ֖ים מֵ֣אָה אֹ֑רֶךְ וְעַמּוּדָ֣יו (כתיב ועמדו) עֶשְׂרִ֗ים וְאַדְנֵיהֶ֤ם עֶשְׂרִים֙ נְח֔שֶׁת וָוֵ֧י הָֽעַמֻּדִ֛ים וַֽחֲשֻֽׁקֵיהֶ֖ם כָּֽסֶף:
12The width of the courtyard on the western side, hangings fifty cubits, their pillars ten and their sockets ten. יבוְרֹ֤חַב הֶֽחָצֵר֙ לִפְאַת־יָ֔ם קְלָעִ֖ים חֲמִשִּׁ֣ים אַמָּ֑ה עַמֻּֽדֵיהֶ֣ם עֲשָׂרָ֔ה וְאַדְנֵיהֶ֖ם עֲשָׂרָֽה:
13The width of the courtyard on the eastern side, fifty cubits. יגוְרֹ֣חַב הֶֽחָצֵ֗ר לִפְאַ֛ת קֵ֥דְמָה מִזְרָ֖חָה חֲמִשִּׁ֥ים אַמָּֽה:
on the eastern side: Heb. לִפְאַתקֵדְמָה מִזְרָחָה. The eastern side is called קֶדֶם, a word meaning the face [or front], and אָחוֹר signifies the back. Therefore, the east is called קֶדֶם, which is the face, and the west is called אָחוֹר, as it is said: “the back (הָאַחִרוֹן) sea” (Deut. 11:24, 34:2), [which is translated into Aramaic as] יַמָּא מַעַרְבָא, the western sea. לפאת קדמה מזרחה: פני המזרח קרוי קדם, לשון פנים. אחור לשון אחורים, לפיכך המזרח קרוי קדם שהוא פנים, ומערב קרוי אחור, כמו דתרגם אונקלוס (דברים יא כד) הים האחרון ימא מערבא:
fifty cubits: These fifty cubits were not all closed off with hangings, because the entrance was there, but [there were] fifteen cubits of hangings for [one] shoulder of the entrance from here [from one side] and similarly for the second shoulder. There remained the width of the space of the entrance in between, [which was] twenty cubits. This is what is said [in verse 16]: “And at the gate of the courtyard shall be a screen of twenty cubits,” [i. e.,] a screen for protection opposite the entrance, twenty cubits long, which equaled the width of the entrance. חמשים אמה: אותן חמשים אמה לא היו סתומים כולם בקלעים, לפי ששם הפתח, אלא חמש עשרה אמה קלעים לכתף הפתח מכאן, וכן לכתף השנית, נשאר רחב חלל הפתח בינתים עשרים אמה וזהו שנאמר (פסוק טז) ולשער החצר מסך עשרים אמה, וילון למסך כנגד הפתח עשרים אמה ארך כרחב הפתח:
14The hangings on the shoulder [shall be] fifteen cubits, their pillars three and their sockets three. ידוַֽחֲמֵ֨שׁ עֶשְׂרֵ֥ה אַמָּ֛ה קְלָעִ֖ים לַכָּתֵ֑ף עַמֻּֽדֵיהֶ֣ם שְׁלשָׁ֔ה וְאַדְנֵיהֶ֖ם שְׁלשָֽׁה:
their pillars three: Five cubits between [one] pillar and [another] pillar. Between the pillar that is at the beginning of the south, which stands at the southeastern corner, until the pillar that is [one] of the three in the east, there were five cubits. And from it [this pillar] to the second one [there was a space of] five cubits, and from the second to the third [were] five cubits, and likewise for the second [i.e., the northeastern] shoulder, and four pillars for the screen. Thus, there were ten pillars on the east, corresponding to the ten pillars on the west. עמדיהם שלשה: חמש אמות בין עמוד לעמוד, בין עמוד שבראש הדרום העומד במקצוע דרומית מזרחית עד עמוד שהוא מן השלשה שבמזרח חמש אמות וממנו לשני חמש אמות, ומן השני לשלישי חמש אמות, וכן לכתף השנית, וארבעה עמודים למסך, הרי עשרה עמודים למזרח כנגד עשרה למערב:
15And on the second shoulder [there shall be] fifteen hangings, their pillars three and their sockets three. טווְלַכָּתֵף֙ הַשֵּׁנִ֔ית חֲמֵ֥שׁ עֶשְׂרֵ֖ה קְלָעִ֑ים עַמֻּֽדֵיהֶ֣ם שְׁלשָׁ֔ה וְאַדְנֵיהֶ֖ם שְׁלשָֽׁה:
16And at the gate of the courtyard shall be a screen of twenty cubits, [made] of blue, purple, and crimson wool, and twisted fine linen, the work of an embroiderer; their pillars four and their sockets four. טזוּלְשַׁ֨עַר הֶֽחָצֵ֜ר מָסָ֣ךְ | עֶשְׂרִ֣ים אַמָּ֗ה תְּכֵ֨לֶת וְאַרְגָּמָ֜ן וְתוֹלַ֧עַת שָׁנִ֛י וְשֵׁ֥שׁ מָשְׁזָ֖ר מַֽעֲשֵׂ֣ה רֹקֵ֑ם עַמֻּֽדֵיהֶ֣ם אַרְבָּעָ֔ה וְאַדְנֵיהֶ֖ם אַרְבָּעָֽה:
17All the pillars around the courtyard [shall have] silver bands, silver hooks, and copper sockets. יזכָּל־עַמּוּדֵ֨י הֶֽחָצֵ֤ר סָבִיב֙ מְחֻשָּׁקִ֣ים כֶּ֔סֶף וָֽוֵיהֶ֖ם כָּ֑סֶף וְאַדְנֵיהֶ֖ם נְחֽשֶׁת:
All the pillars around the courtyard, etc.: Since [the text] explained only [that there were to be] hooks, bands, and copper sockets for the north[ern] and the south[ern sides], but for the east[ern] and the west[ern sides] no hooks, bands, or copper sockets were mentioned, therefore [the text] teaches it here. [Lit., it comes and teaches here.] כל עמודי החצר סביב וגו': לפי שלא פירש ווין וחשוקים וא-דני נחשת אלא לצפון ולדרום, אבל למזרח ולמערב לא נאמר ווין וחשוקים וא-דני נחשת, לכך בא ולמד כאן:
18The length of the courtyard [shall be] one hundred cubits and the width fifty by fifty [cubits]. The height [of the hangings] shall be five cubits of twisted fine linen, and their sockets [shall be of] copper. יחאֹ֣רֶךְ הֶֽחָצֵר֩ מֵאָ֨ה בָֽאַמָּ֜ה וְרֹ֣חַב | חֲמִשִּׁ֣ים בַּֽחֲמִשִּׁ֗ים וְקֹמָ֛ה חָמֵ֥שׁ אַמּ֖וֹת שֵׁ֣שׁ מָשְׁזָ֑ר וְאַדְנֵיהֶ֖ם נְחֽשֶׁת:
The length of the courtyard: the north[ern] and the south[ern sides] from east to west were one hundred cubits. ארך החצר: הצפון והדרום שמן המזרח למערב מאה באמה:
and the width fifty by fifty: The courtyard in the east was fifty [cubits] by fifty [cubits] square-for the Mishkan was thirty [cubits] long and ten [cubits] wide. He [Moses] placed its entrance on the east, at the edge of the outer fifty [cubits] of the length of the courtyard. Thus, it [the Mishkan] was all in the inner fifty [cubits of the courtyard], and its length ended at the end of thirty [cubits of the inner fifty]. Hence, there was a space of twenty cubits behind it, between the hangings in the west and the curtains of the rear of the Mishkan. The Mishkan was ten cubits wide in the center of the width of the courtyard. Thus, it had twenty cubits of space to the north and to the south- from the hangings of the courtyard to the curtains of the Mishkan-and similarly to the west. And [there was] a courtyard of fifty by fifty [cubits] in front of it [These are the outer fifty cubits, which faced the entrance of the Mishkan.] -[from Eruv. 23b, Baraitha Melecheth HaMishkan, ch. 5] ורחב חמשים בחמשים: חצר שבמזרח היתה מרובעת חמשים על חמשים, שהמשכן ארכו שלשים ורחבו עשר, העמיד מזרח פתחו בשפת חמשים החיצונים של אורך החצר נמצא כלו בחמשים הפנימים, וכלה ארכו לסוף שלשים נמצאו עשרים אמה ריוח לאחוריו בין הקלעים שבמערב ליריעות של אחורי המשכן, ורוחב המשכן עשר אמות באמצע רוחב החצר, נמצאו לו עשרים אמה ריוח לצפון ולדרום מן קלעי החצר ליריעות המשכן, וכן למערב, וחמשים על חמשים חצר לפניו:
The height…five cubits: [I.e.,] the height of the partitions of the courtyard, which was the width of the hangings. וקמה חמש אמות: גובה מחיצות החצר, והוא רוחב הקלעים:
and their sockets [shall be of] copper: [This is mentioned] to include the sockets of the screen, so that you would not say [that] copper sockets were mentioned only in regard to the pillars of the hangings, but the sockets of the [pillars of the] screen were of another kind [i.e., a different material]. So it appears to me that for this [reason], they [the copper sockets] were repeated. וא-דניהם נחשת: להביא א-דני המסך, שלא תאמר לא נאמרו א-דני נחשת אלא לעמודי הקלעים, אבל א-דני המסך של מין אחר היו. כך נראה בעיני, שלכך חזר ושנאן:
19All the implements of the Mishkan for all its labor, and all its pegs and all the pegs of the courtyard [shall be] copper. יטלְכֹל֙ כְּלֵ֣י הַמִּשְׁכָּ֔ן בְּכֹ֖ל עֲבֹֽדָת֑וֹ וְכָל־יְתֵֽדֹתָ֛יו וְכָל־יִתְדֹ֥ת הֶֽחָצֵ֖ר נְחֽשֶׁת:
All the implements of the Mishkan: that were required for its assembling and its disassembling, e.g., sledge hammers to drive in the pegs and the pillars. לכל כלי המשכן: שהיו צריכין להקמתו ולהורדתו, כגון מקבות לתקוע יתדות ועמודים:
the pegs: [These were] like copper bars, made for the curtains of the tent and for the hangings of the courtyard, tied with cords all around [them] at their bases [i.e., at the bases of the curtains and the hangings], so that the wind would not lift them up. But I do not know whether they [the pegs] were driven into the ground or whether they were tied [with cords] and hung-their [heavy] weight weighted down the bottoms of the curtains so that they would not move in the wind. I say, however, that their name [i.e., pegs] indicates that they were driven into the ground. Therefore, they were called יְתֵדוֹת, and this verse supports me [my assertion]: “a tent that shall not fall, whose pegs (יְתֵדֹתָיו) shall never be moved” (Isa. 33:20). יתדות: כמין נגרי נחשת עשויין ליריעות האהל ולקלעי החצר, קשורים במיתרים סביב סביב בשפוליהן, כדי שלא תהא הרוח מגביהתן. ואיני ידוע, אם תחובין בארץ או קשורין ותלויין וכובדן מכביד שפולי היריעות, שלא ינועו ברוח. ואומר אני ששמן מוכיח עליהם שהם תקועין בארץ, לכך נקראו יתדות, ומקרא זה מסייעני (ישעיה לג כ) אהל בל יצען בל יסע יתדותיו לנצח:
---------------------
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 23 - 28
• Hebrew text
• English text
• Chapter 23
When King David was in the forest of Cheret and nearly died of starvation, God provided nourishment for him with a taste of the World to Come. David then composed this psalm, describing the magnitude of his trust in God.
1. A psalm by David. The Lord is my shepherd, I shall lack nothing.
2. He lays me down in green pastures; He leads me beside still waters.
3. He revives my soul; He directs me in paths of righteousness for the sake of His Name.
4. Though I walk in the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff-they will comfort me.
5. You will prepare a table for me before my enemies; You have anointed my head with oil; my cup is full.
6. Only goodness and kindness shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the House of the Lord for many long years.
Chapter 24
If the fulfillment of one's prayer would result in the sanctification of God's Name, he should pray that God act for the sake of the holiness of His Name. One should also invoke the merit of his ancestors, for we know that "the righteous are greater in death than in life"
1. By David, a psalm. The earth and all therein is the Lord's; the world and its inhabitants.
2. For He has founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the rivers.
3. Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord, and who may stand in His holy place?
4. He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who has not used My Name in vain or sworn falsely.
5. He shall receive a blessing from the Lord, and kindness from God, his deliverer.
6. Such is the generation of those who search for Him, [the children of] Jacob who seek Your countenance forever.
7. Lift up your heads, O gates, and be lifted up, eternal doors, so the glorious King may enter.
8. Who is the glorious King? The Lord, strong and mighty; the Lord, mighty in battle.
9. Lift up your heads, O gates; lift them up, eternal doors, so the glorious King may enter.
10. Who is the glorious King? The Lord of Hosts, He is the glorious King for all eternity.
Chapter 25
The verses in this psalm are arranged according to the alphabet, excluding the letters Bet, Vav, and Kuf, which together equal the numerical value of Gehenom (purgatory). One who recites this psalm daily will not see the face of purgatory.
1. By David. To You, Lord, I lift my soul.
2. My God, I have put my trust in You. May I not be put to shame; may my enemies not gloat over me.
3. Indeed, may all who hope in You not be put to shame; let those who act treacherously without reason be shamed.
4. O Lord, make Your ways known to me; teach me Your paths.
5. Train me in Your truth and teach me, for You are the God of my salvation; I yearn for You all day.
6. O Lord, remember Your mercies and Your kindnesses, for they have existed for all time.
7. Do not recall the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions; remember me in accordance with Your kindness, because of Your goodness, O Lord.
8. Good and upright is the Lord, therefore He directs sinners along the way.
9. He guides the humble with justice, and teaches the humble His way.
10. All the paths of the Lord are kindness and truth for those who observe His covenant and testimonies.
11. For the sake of Your Name, O Lord, pardon my iniquity, for it is great.
12. Whoever is a God-fearing man, him will He teach the path that he should choose.
13. His soul will abide in well-being, and his descendants will inherit the earth.
14. The secret of the Lord is to those who fear Him; He makes His covenant known to them.
15. My eyes are always turned to the Lord, for He releases my feet from the snare.
16. Turn to me and be compassionate to me, for I am alone and afflicted.
17. The sufferings of my heart have increased; deliver me from my hardships.
18. Behold my affliction and suffering, and forgive all my sins.
19. See how numerous my enemies have become; they hate me with a violent hatred.
20. Guard my soul and deliver me; may I not be put to shame, for I place my trust in You.
21. Let integrity and uprightness guard me, for my hope is in You.
22. Redeem Israel, O God, from all its afflictions.
Chapter 26
In this psalm King David inundates God with prayers and acts of piety, because he envies those who are his spiritual superiors, saying, "If only I were on their level of piety and virtue!"
1. By David. Judge me, O Lord, for in my innocence I have walked, and in the Lord I have trusted-I shall not falter.
2. Try me, O Lord, and test me; refine my mind and heart.
3. For Your kindness is before my eyes, and I have walked constantly in Your truth.
4. I did not sit with men of falsehood, and with hypocrites I will not mingle.
5. I detested the company of evildoers, and with the wicked I will not sit.
6. I wash my hands in purity, and circle Your altar, O Lord,
7. to give voice to thanks, and to recount all Your wonders.
8. I love the shelter of Your House, O Lord, and the place where Your glory resides.
9. Gather not in my soul with sinners, nor my life with men of bloodshed,
10. In whose hands are schemes, and whose right hand is filled with bribes.
11. But I walk in my innocence; redeem me and show me favor.
12. My foot stands on level ground; in assemblies I will bless the Lord.
Chapter 27
King David acknowledges and praises God, placing his trust in Him because of his victories in war. "Nevertheless, it is not wars that I desire, for I cannot gain perfection with them. Only one thing do I ask: to abide day and night in the study hall studying Torah, to gain perfection so that my soul may merit the life of the World to Come."
1. By David. The Lord is my light and my salvation-whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life-whom shall I dread?
2. When evildoers approached me to devour my flesh, my oppressors and my foes, they stumbled and fell.
3. If an army were to beleaguer me, my heart would not fear; if war were to arise against me, in this I trust
1
4. One thing I have asked of the Lord, this I seek: that I may dwell in the House of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the pleasantness of the Lord, and to visit His Sanctuary.
5. For He will hide me in His tabernacle on a day of adversity; He will conceal me in the hidden places of His tent; He will lift me upon a rock.
6. And then my head will be raised above my enemies around me, and I will offer in His tabernacle sacrifices of jubilation; I will sing and chant to the Lord.
7. Lord, hear my voice as I call; be gracious to me and answer me.
8. In Your behalf my heart says, "Seek My countenance"; Your countenance, Lord, I seek.
9. Do not conceal Your countenance from me; do not cast aside Your servant in wrath. You have been my help; do not abandon me nor forsake me, God of my deliverance.
10. Though my father and mother have forsaken me, the Lord has taken me in.
11. Lord, teach me Your way and lead me in the path of righteousness, because of my watchful enemies.
12. Do not give me over to the will of my oppressors, for there have risen against me false witnesses, and they speak evil.
13. [They would have crushed me] had I not believed that I would see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living.
14. Hope in the Lord, be strong and let your heart be valiant, and hope in the Lord.
FOOTNOTES
1.I trust that “the lord is my light and salvation” etc. (Rashi)
Chapter 28
A prayer for every individual, entreating God to assist him in walking the good path, to prevent him from walking with the wicked doers of evil, and that He repay the wicked for their wickedness and the righteous for their righteousness.
1. By David. I call to You, O Lord; my Strength, do not be deaf to me; for should You be silent to me, I will be like those who descend to the pit.
2. Hear the sound of my pleas when I cry out to You, when I raise my hands toward Your holy Sanctuary.
3. Do not draw me along with the wicked, with evildoers who speak of peace with their companions, though evil is in their heart.
4. Give them according to their deeds, and the evil of their endeavors; give them according to their handiwork, render to them their just desserts.
5. For they pay no heed to the acts of the Lord, nor to the work of His hands; may He destroy them and not rebuild them.
6. Blessed is the Lord, for He has heard the voice of my pleas.
7. The Lord is my strength and my shield; in Him my heart trusted and I was helped; my heart exulted, and with my song I praised Him.
8. The Lord is a strength to them; He is a stronghold of deliverance to His anointed.
9. Grant salvation to Your people and bless Your heritage; tend them and exalt them forever.
---------------------
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 27
• Lessons in Tanya
• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Shabbat, Adar I 4, 5776 · February 13, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 27
ובכל דחיה ודחיה שמדחהו ממחשבתו, אתכפיא סטרא אחרא לתתא
With every repulsion of this thought from his mind, the sitra achra is suppressed here below in This World,
ובאתערותא דלתתא אתערותא דלעילא
and, since “the arousal from below (in our case, the initiative of the Beinoniin suppressing the sitra achra) produces a corresponding arousal above,”
ואתכפיא סטרא אחרא דלעילא המגביה עצמה כנשר
the sitra achra above in the supernal worlds (the root of the sitra achra of this world) which soars like an eagle, is also suppressed,
לקיים מה שכתוב: אם תגביה כנשר וגו׳ משם אורידך נאם ה׳
thus realizing the verse, 1 “Though you soar aloft like the eagle…I will yet bring you down from there, says G‑d.”
וכמו שהפליג בזהר פרשת תרומה דף קכח בגודל נחת רוח לפניו יתברך כד אתכפיא סטרא אחרא לתתא
Indeed the Zohar, in Parshat Terumah (p. 128), extolls the Divine satisfaction that occurs when the sitra achra is subdued here below,
דאסתלק יקרא דקודשא בריך הוא לעילא על כולא יתיר משבחא אחרא, ואסתלקותא דא יתיר מכולא וכו׳
for “thereby G‑d’s glory rises above all, more than by any other praise, and this ascent is greater than all else, etc.”
Thus, it is the evil thoughts which enter the mind of the Beinoni that enable him to fulfill G‑d’s command in averting his attention from them, thereby subduing the sitra achra.
ולכן אל יפול לב אדם עליו ולא ירע לבבו מאד
Therefore one should not feel depressed or very troubled at heart (— he ought to be somewhat troubled by the occurence of these thoughts, otherwise he may become indifferent to them and will cease to wage war against them; but he ought not to be sorely troubled by them),
גם אם יהיה כן כל ימיו במלחמה זו
even if he be engaged all his days in this conflict with the thoughts which will always enter his mind.
Though he may never rise to the level which precludes their occurence, yet he should not be depressed.
כי אולי לכך נברא, וזאת עבודתו: לאכפיא לסטרא אחרא תמיד
For perhaps this is what he was created for, and this is the service demanded of him — to subdue the sitra achra constantly.
ועל זה אמר איוב: בראת רשעים
Concerning this Job said to G‑d: 2 “You have created wicked men,” as though it were preordained that one man be wicked, and another righteous.
In the first chapter, the Alter Rebbe pointed out that this is contradicted by the statement in the Gemara that before a child is born, G‑d decrees whether he shall be wise or foolish, strong or weak, and so on, but does not determine whether he will be righteous or wicked — this is left to one’s own choice. The meaning of Job’s statement becomes clear, however, in light of the above discussion. True, G‑d does not ordain whether man will act wickedly, but He does “create wicked men,” in the sense that their minds work like the mind of the rasha, with evil thoughts constantly occuring to them. G‑d created them in this way so that they will engage in battle with these thoughts, and thereby subjugate the sitra achra — as the Alter Rebbe now goes on to say.
ולא שיהיו רשעים באמת, חס ושלום
The implication of Job’s statement is not that they were created to actually be wicked, G‑d forbid, i.e., sinful in thought, speech and action,
אלא שיגיע אליהם כמעשה הרשעים במחשבתם והרהורם בלבד
but that there should occur to them, in their thoughts and musings alone, that which occurs to the wicked, 3 i.e., that evil thoughts should enter their mind, as they do in the mind of the wicked,
והם יהיו נלחמים תמיד להסיח דעתם מהם כדי לאכפיא לסטרא אחרא
and they shall eternally wage war to avert their minds from them in order to subjugate the sitra achra,
ולא יוכלו לבטלה מכל וכל, כי זה נעשה על ידי הצדיקים
yet they will never be able to annihilate the sitra achra in their soulscompletely, for this is accomplished by tzaddikim.
A tzaddik subjugates his animal soul to such a degree that it is unable to arouse temptation in his heart. His mind is therefore untroubled by evil thoughts. Those, however, of whom Job said that they were “created wicked,” cannot rise to this level. It is always possible for evil thoughts to enter their minds; their task is not to give them free rein.
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Shabbat, Adar I 4, 5776 · February 13, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 105
Frankincense on the Suspected Adulteress' Meal Offering
"Nor shall he put frankincense upon it"—Numbers 5:15.
It is forbidden to add frankincense to the suspected adulteress' meal offering [as is done by almost all other meal offerings].
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Frankincense on the Suspected Adulteress' Meal Offering
Negative Commandment 105
Translated by Berel Bell
The 105th prohibition is that we are forbidden from putting frankincense into the meal offering brought for a sotah.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "he shall not place frankincense on it."
The Sifra2 says, "This verse comes to teach you that if one put in either oil or frankincense, he would be transgressing a prohibition. Just as adding oil is a transgression, so too adding frankincense."3 Therefore, even one who transgresses this prohibition receives lashes.4
The Mechilta5 says, "the verse, 'he shall not place oil on it; he shall not place frankincense on it' teaches that these count as two separate punishments."
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid.
2.. Kapach, 5731 says that this actually refers to the Sifri.
3.The Rambam's intention in quoting the Sifra (and the Mechilta) is evidently to point out that these count as two separate and distinct mitzvos.
4.Since it is a separate mitzvah.
5.Kapach, 5731 says that this actually refers to the Sifri Zuta.
-------------------------------------
Negative Commandment 330
Incest with a Mother
"She is your mother, do not uncover her nakedness"—Leviticus 18:7.
It is forbidden to have incestuous relations with one's mother.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Incest with a Mother
Negative Commandment 330
Translated by Berel Bell
The 330th prohibition is that one is forbidden from having relations with one's mother.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "She is your mother; you must not commit incest with her."
The punishment for violating this prohibition is kares.2 If there were witnesses, and the act was intentional, the punishment is execution by stoning.3 If the act was unintentional, he must bring a sin-offering.4
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 18:7.
2.See note to N320.
3.Ibid.
4.Ibid.
---------------------------------------
Negative Commandment 331
Incest with a Step-Mother
"Do not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife"—Leviticus 18:8.
It is forbidden to have incestuous relations with one's step-mother.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Incest with a Step-Mother
Negative Commandment 331
Translated by Berel Bell
The 331st prohibition is that one is forbidden from having relations with one's father's wife.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "You must not commit incest with your father's wife."
The punishment for violating this prohibition is kares.3 If there were witnesses, and the act was intentional, the punishment is execution by stoning.4 If the act was unintentional, he must bring a sin-offering.5
It is therefore clear that one who commits incest with his mother is culpable both for incest with one's mother [N330] and with one's father's wife [N331]. This is true both during the father's lifetime and after his death, as explained in Sanhedrin.6
FOOTNOTES
1.. Even if she is not his mother.
2.Lev. 18:8.
3.See note to N320.
4.Ibid.
5.Ibid.
6.54a.
-------------------------------------
Negative Commandment 332
Incest with a Sister
"The nakedness of your sister, [whether] your father's daughter . . . you shall not uncover their nakedness"—Leviticus 18:9.
It is forbidden to have incestuous relations with one's sister.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Incest with a Sister
Negative Commandment 332
Translated by Berel Bell
The 332nd prohibition is that one is forbidden from having relations with one's sister.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not commit incest with your sister, your father's daughter."
The punishment for violating this prohibition intentionally is kares.2 If the act was unintentional, he must bring a sin-offering.3
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 18:9.
2.See N320, note 9.
3.Ibid. note 12.
-------------------------------------
Negative Commandment 333
Incest with a Paternal Half-Sister
"The daughter of your father's wife born to your father, she is your sister: you shall not uncover her nakedness"—Leviticus18:11.
It is forbidden to have incestuous relations with one's paternal half-sister.
[Incest with a maternal half-sister is also forbidden—it is included in Negative Commandment 332. But one who engages in incestuous relations with a paternal half-sister is also transgressing this prohibition.]
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Incest with a Paternal Half-Sister
Negative Commandment 333
Translated by Berel Bell
The 333rd prohibition is that one is forbidden from having relations with the daughter of one's father's wife, if she is also a sister.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "Do not commit incest with a daughter that your father's wife has borne to your father. She is your sister."
This prohibition comes to single out the daughter of your father's wife as a separate incestual prohibition. The proof that the daughter of your father's wife is a distinct prohibition is from the following law: if a man has relations with his sister, and her mother is married to his father,3 he has transgressed two prohibitions — incest with his sister and with the daughter of his father's wife. This is like one who has relations with his mother, who has transgressed two prohibitions — incest with his mother and with his father's wife, as explained above.4
This is how our Sages expressed this idea in the second chapter of Yevamos5: "Our Sages taught, 'One who has relations with his sister, and she is also the daughter of his father's wife is culpable for committing incest with one's sister and for committing incest with the daughter of one's father's wife.' Rabbi Yossi the son of Rabbi Yehuda said, 'He is only culpable for the prohibition of incest with one's sister.' What is the reasoning of the Sages? They say, let us examine [the verses]: it is already written,6 '[Do not commit] incest with your sister, your father's daughter.' Why do we need the verse,7 '[Do not commit] incest with a daughter that your father's wife has borne to your father'? This verse makes him guilty on two counts: incest with one's sister and with the daughter of one's father's wife."
The punishment for violating this prohibition — i.e. incest with one's sister, the daughter of one's father's wife — is solely8 kares9 if done intentionally. If the act was unintentional, he must bring a sin-offering.10
FOOTNOTES
1.This excludes one's stepmother's daughter from a man other than one's father. Such a woman is not related (she has a different father and mother), and is permitted. See Kapach, 5731, note 55.
2.Lev. 18:11.
3.To exclude a case where she was born out of wedlock, for example.
4.N331.
5.. 22b.
6.Lev. 18:9.
7.Lev. 18:11.
8.However, the Beth Din does not execute him. See Kapach, 5731, note 58. Chavel translation, Soncino, 1967.
9.See note to N320.
10.Ibid.
------------------------------------
Negative Commandment 334
Incest with a Son's Daughter
"The nakedness of your son's daughter . . . you shall not uncover"—Leviticus 18:10.
It is forbidden to have incestuous relations with one's son's daughter.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Incest with a Son's Daughter
Negative Commandment 334
Translated by Berel Bell
The 334th prohibition is that one is forbidden from having relations with one's son's daughter.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not commit incest with your son's daughter."
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 18:10.
--------------------------------------
• 1 Chapter: Bikkurim Bikkurim - Chapter 11
• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Bikkurim - Chapter 11
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment1 for every Jewish man2 to redeem his son who is the firstborn of his Jewish mother, as [Exodus 34:19] states: "All first issues of the womb are mine" and [Numbers 18:15] states: "And you shall surely redeem a firstborn man."
Halacha 2
Halacha 3
If it is necessary to redeem both the person himself and his son, he should redeem himself first and then his son.7 If he only has enough [money] for one redemption, he should redeem himself.
Halacha 4
If [a father] had to redeem his son and the time arrived for him to make a festive pilgrimage [to Jerusalem] and he does not have the resources for both, he should redeem his son and then make the pilgrimage. [This is alluded to inExodus 34:20:] which states: "You shall redeem all your firstborn sons" and afterwards [continues]: "Do not behold My countenance8 emptyhanded."9
Halacha 5
A person who redeems his son should recite the blessing: "[Blessed are You...] who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the redemption of a son."10 Afterwards, he recites the blessingShehechiyanu11 and then gives12 [the money for] the redemption to the priest. If [a son] redeems himself, he should recite the blessing: "[Blessed... who commanded us] to redeem the firstborn"13 and he should recite the blessingShehechiyanu.
Halacha 6
This mitzvah is practiced in every place and at all times.14 For how much should the son be redeemed? Five selaim,15 as [Numbers 18:16] states: "And those to be redeemed: from one month you shall redeem [according to the valuation of five silver shekalim]." [The redemption may be paid] in silver16 or in articles worth silver, i.e., movable property that is of financial worth like theshekalim are. Therefore one may not redeem [a firstborn] with landed property or with servants. Nor may promissory notes [be used], because they are not of inherent worth.17 If one redeemed a firstborn with these, he is not redeemed.18
Halacha 7
When a father writes to a priest that he is obligated to give him five selaim, the obligation takes effect,19 but the son is not redeemed.20If he gives him a utensil that is not worth five selaim in the market, but the priest accepts it as if he was given five selaim, the son is redeemed.21 If he divides the five selaimamong ten priests,22 whether at once or one after the other, he fulfils his obligation.23
Halacha 8
If the priest desires to return [what was given for] the redemption to [the father], he may. He should not, however, give it to him with the intent that he return it. If he did so, and [the priest] returned it, his son is not redeemed.24[Instead,] he must give it to him with the resolution that he is giving him a present without any reservations. Afterwards, if the priest desires to return it, he may return it.25 Similarly, if he gives it to him as a present with the stipulation that it be returned, his son is redeemed.26
Halacha 9
The priests and the Levites are exempt from the redemption of their firstborn, as evident from a logical deduction: If they served as the redemption of the Israelites firstborn in the desert,27 certainly, they themselves are exempt.
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
When a priest fathers a son who is a challal33 and the father dies within 30 days [of the son's birth], the son is obligated to redeem himself,34because the father did not acquire the redemption.35 If [the father] dies after 30 days [have passed], the son is not obligated to redeem himself, because the father acquired the redemption.36
Halacha 13
If a maidservant was freed - or a gentile woman converted - while she was pregnant and then she gave birth,37 since he was born in holiness,38 [the child] is obligated [to redeem himself] even though he was not conceived in holiness, as [indicated by] the phrase:39 "the first issue of the womb in Israel." For this child is the first issue of a womb in Israel. If it is not known whether the woman gave birth before she converted or afterwards,40 [we follow the principle:] When one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him.41
Halacha 14
When a gentile woman or a maidservant gave birth and then converted or was freed and then gave birth again, [the second child] is exempt,42 as [indicated by] the phrase "the first issue of the womb," and this is not [the woman's] first issue of the womb.43
Similar concepts apply when a son is born after a nefal.44 Whenever the mother is ritually impure due to birth because of a nefal,45a son born afterwards is not considered the first issue of the womb. Whenever a nefaldoes not cause the mother to be ritually impure due to birth,46 e.g., a woman who miscarries and the issue resembles a fish or a grasshopper,47 a woman who miscarries on the fortieth day [after conception],48 or the like, a son born afterwards is [under obligation] to the priesthood and must be redeemed.
Halacha 15
When a fetus in a woman's womb was cut up and removed limb by limb, a son born afterwards is not considered to be "the first issue of her womb."49When the head of a fetus that was carried for eight months emerged alive50and then was withdrawn back to the womb where it died - or the head of a stillborn fetus that was carried for nine moths emerged and then was withdrawn - and afterwards the [twin] brother [of the fetus] emerged as [a viable] birth, the viable birth is not considered the first issue of the womb, for [all subsequent births] became exempt with the [emergence of] the head of the first [fetus]. As soon as its forehead emerged, it exempted those born afterwards.51
Halacha 16
Halacha 17
When does the obligation for redemption take effect? When the baby completes 30 days of life,54 as [Numbers 18:16] states: "And those to be redeemed should be redeemed from the age of a month." If the son died within the thirty days - even on the thirtieth day - or it became mortally ill,55 there is no obligation [to pay the priest] five selaim.56 If he gave the priest [the money for] the redemption beforehand, he should return it.57 If the baby died after its thirtieth day, the father is obligated to redeem him.58 If he did not give [the money to the priest], he should.
Halacha 18
[The following rules apply when] one redeems his son within 30 days of his birth: If he tells [the priest]: "I am redeeming him at this time," his son is not redeemed.59 If he tells him that [the gift should take effect] after 30 days, his son is redeemed even if the coins no longer exist after 30 days.60
Halacha 19
If there is a doubt whether a son is obligated to be redeemed or not, he is exempt. [The rationale is that when] one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him.61 If a father dies within 30 days [of his son's birth], we operate under the assumption that the son was not redeemed unless he brings proof from his father that he redeemed him62before he died. If the father died after 30 days [following the son's birth], we operate under the assumption that he was redeemed63 unless he informed us that he was not redeemed.64
Halacha 20
When a person's wife has never given birth and she gives birth to a male and a female, but it is not known which emerged first,65 there is no obligation to give the priest anything.66
If she gave birth to two males, even if it is not known which is the firstborn, [the father] must give five selaim to the priest.67 If one of them dies within 30 days, [the father] is exempt, [based on the principle, when] one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him].68 If the father died - whether he died within 30 days of the birth of his sons or afterwards, whether the sons divided his estate69 or not - five selaim should be given from the estate to the priest, because an obligation was already established upon the estate.
Halacha 21
[The following rules apply when a man has] two wives who have not yet given birth and they give birth to two sons and [the father] gives ten selaim to the priest [within 30 days of their birth].70 If one dies within 30 days and he had given [the ten selaim] to one priest, he should return five selaim to him.71 If he gave the money to two priests,72 he cannot expropriate the money from them, since he did not specify which son he is redeeming and each can tell him: "Have my colleague refund you."73
Halacha 22
When a man has two wives who have not given birth yet and they give birth to a male and a female or two males and a female [and it is not known which mother gave birth to which child and which is the order of the children's births], he should give five selaim to a priest. [The rationale is that] it is impossible that among them there will not be one male who is the first issue of the womb.74
Halacha 23
[In the above situation, if the women] give birth to two females and a male or two males and two females and it is not known which was born first, the priest is not entitled to anything. For [with regard to each mother], it is possible to say a female was born first and then a male.75
Halacha 24
[When a man has] two wives, one who has already given birth and one who has not yet given birth, and they give birth to two sons who become mixed together, he must give five selaim to a priest.76 If one of the sons dies within thirty days, the father is exempt.77 If the father died,78 five selaim should be paid from his estate.79
Halacha 25
[In the above situation, if the two wives] gave birth to a male and a female or two males and a female, the priest is not entitled to anything. For it is possible to say that the woman who did not give birth yet gave birth to a female first and then a male and the one who had given birth already gave birth to a male.80
Halacha 26
When there are two men who have wives who had not yet given birth and they both gave birth to males and they became mixed together,81 each father must give five selaim.
[The following rules apply if] they both gave [that amount] within thirty days and then one of the sons died within that time. If they gave the money to two priests, they cannot expropriate it from them.82 If they both gave it to the same priest, one should write a document giving power of attorney to the other and then the one with power of attorney should expropriate five selaim from the priest.83
Halacha 27
[In the above situation, if the women] gave birth to a male and a female and they became mixed together, the fathers are exempt84 and the son is obligated to redeem himself.85 Similar [laws apply when] a woman who has not given birth previously does not wait after [being divorced from] her [first] husband three months [before marrying] and gives birth [to a child, whose lineage is doubtful]. It is not known whether he is the first [husband's] son having been born after nine months or the last husband's son, having been born after seven. Both fathers are exempt86 and the son is obligated to redeem himself.87
Halacha 28
[In the above situation, if the women] gave birth to two females and a male or two females and two males, the priest is not entitled to anything.88
Halacha 29
[The following laws apply when] there are two wives of two men and one gave birth previously and one did not [and they gave birth and the infants became mixed together]. If they gave birth to two males, the father whose wife had not given birth previously must give five selaim to a priest.89 If they gave birth to a male and a female, the priest does not receive anything.90
Halacha 30
[In the above situation, if the women] gave birth to two males and a female, the man whose wife had not given birth previously should give five selaim. The rationale is that his exemption implies a compounded doubt. For if his wife gave birth to a male only, he is obligated. And if she gave birth to a male and a female, he is obligated unless she gave birth to the female first. Since the probability of this is distant, he should give the money for the redemption.91
FOOTNOTES
1.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 80) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 392) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. This obligation was established in commemoration of the slaying of the Egyptian firstborn before the Exodus.
2.
I.e., the obligation is incumbent on the baby's father, not his mother, as stated in the following halachah.
3.
The P'nei Meivin, Yoreh De'ah, Responsum 226, infers from the wording "a woman is not obligated," that she may do so if she desires. Eidut LiYisrael states that this is the common custom if the child does not have a father.
4.
The Rambam's wording implies that the obligation is incumbent on the son. Nevertheless, as a newborn, the son cannot fulfill it and so, the obligation becomes his father's. See the Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 392), the Siftei Cohen 305:11, Likkutei Sichot, Vol. XI, p. 44ff., and others who debate whether the mitzvah is primarily the father's or the son's. This difference is not merely theoretical. Among the practical question that result is: If the father did not redeem the son until the son was thirteen, who has the fundamental responsibility to observe the mitzvah, the father or the son?
5.
13, at which age he is obligated to observe the mitzvot. See Minchat Chinuch, loc. cit., who discusses a situation where the son redeemed himself beforehand.
6.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 305:15) states that a silver plaque should be placed around the child's neck as a reminder that he has not been redeemed. See also Halachah 11. TheSifei Cohen 305:20 states that this is not practical. In many instances, the silver plaque will become lost before the child comes of age and he will not be aware of the responsibility incumbent upon him. Instead, it is preferable that the redemption be performed by the Jewish court. Eidut LiYisrael also mentions that if the child's grandfather is alive, there are opinions that he should perform the redemption.
7.
For the mitzvah incumbent on his own person takes precedence (Kiddushin 29a,b).
8.
I.e., make a pilgrimage to the Temple to behold the Divine presence.
9.
Even though he could possibly redeem his son afterwards, and he will not be able to make this pilgrimage again, the redemption of his son takes precedence.
10.
This follows the Rambam's rulings in Hilchot Berachot 11:11 where he writes that a person who performs a mitzvah involving his own person should praise God who "commanded us to...." If the mitzvah involves others, by contrast, the blessing should conclude "commanded us concerning...." The commentaries, however, note that in ibid.:12 and in Hilchot Milah 3:1, the Rambam writes that one who circumcises his own son should recite the blessing concluding "to circumcise...," for the mitzvah is incumbent on his own person. Seemingly, this should also apply with regard to the redemption of a son.
It is possible to resolve the question as follows: The mitzvah of redeeming the son is primarily the child's/ Hence, the father uses the form "concerning...." The mitzvah of circumcision, by contrast, is primarily the father's. Hence he uses the form "to...."
11.
This blessing is recited as an expression of thanks whenever one performs a mitzvah infrequently (Hilchot Berachot 12:9). Even though one recited this blessing at the child's circumcision, it should be recited again at his redemption, for the two are separate mitzvot to be performed at separate times (Radbaz). Similarly, as an expression of thanks, it is customary to mark the redemption with a celebratory feast. This feast is considered aseudat mitzvah, a feast associated with a mitzvah.
12.
For the blessing should precede the observance of the mitzvah.
13.
For he is certainly performing a mitzvah involving himself. The Rambam's ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah305:10). The Tur and the Rama rule that even in such a situation, the conclusion of the blessing should be "...concerning the redemption of the firstborn."
14.
I.e., its observance is not limited to Eretz Yisrael, nor to the time when the Temple is standing.
15.
Shiurei Torah defines this as 101 or 96 grams of pure silver.
16.
We have translated kessef as "silver" and not "money" to allude to the concepts stated below.
17.
This includes not only promissory notes given by a particular individual, but also the fiat currencies of the present day, for such currency does not have any inherent value. In practice, silver coins are almost always used for the redemption of the firstborn.
18.
And he must be redeemed again.
19.
As stated in Hilchot Mechirah 11:15, when a person undertakes a financial obligation, even though according to law he was not liable, he is bound by his commitment.
20.
This applies even if he actually pays him the five selaim, for that money is being paid to satisfy the obligation he voluntarily undertook and not to discharge the obligation the Torah placed upon him (Bechorot 49b).
The Turei Zahav 305:2 and the Siftei Cohen305:3 explain that according to Scriptural Law, the commitment is effective in redeeming the son. Nevertheless, our Sages ruled that it is unacceptable lest a person attempt to redeem his son with promissory notes from other people.
21.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro debates this ruling at length and in hisShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 305:5), he rules that the utensil must be worth fiveselaim to a person in a given situation. If, however, there is no way that it would be considered as worth five selaim, the son is not redeemed. The Turei Zahav 305:5 and the Siftei Cohen 305:5, however, maintain that the Rambam's words should be understood simply.
22.
Giving each a half-sela.
23.
The Pitchei Teshuvah 305:10 states that it is not desirable to redeem one's son in this manner. As an initial preference, one should give all five selaim to one priest, at one time.
24.
Since the father expected the present to be returned, it is as if he never really intended to give it to the priest (Bechorot, loc. cit., Radbaz). This applies only when the priest actually returns what he was given, for if he does not return it, we assume that after the fact, the father consents that the priest retain possession and as a result, the son is redeemed.
25.
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 305:8) states that the priest should not frequently return what is given to him for the redemption. It should only be done occasionally, when the father is poor.
26.
A present given with the intent that it be returned is considered as a valid present (Kiddushin 6b). Thus the father's gift was within the limits of law. Hence, it is acceptable. In the first instance, by contrast, since the present was not given wholeheartedly, it is as if it was never given. Nevertheless, receiving the redemption as a present with the stipulation that it be returned is frowned upon by our Rabbis. TheShulchan Aruch describes a priest who does so as having "transgressed."
27.
See Numbers 3:45 which commands "Take the Levites in place of all the firstborn of the children of Israel."
28.
I.e., the father is an Israelite and thus the son is an Israelite.
29.
The commentaries have noted that there is no exact verse in the Torah that corresponds to the Rambam's wording. Similar phrases are found in Exodus 13:2and Numbers 3:12.
30.
The identity of the father does not change the status of the mother or the child and it is just as if the child was from a Jewish father. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 15:3.
31.
I.e., he is obligated to redeem himself when he comes of age, for as stated in Halachah 2, there is no obligation for a woman to redeem her son. There are authorities who maintain that, in the present age, the Jewish court should redeem such children, for it is possible that when the child comes of age, he will not be aware of the mitzvah and will fail to observe it.
32.
Such relations - even if she is raped - caused her to be deemed a zonah and she is disqualified from the priestly family. Her children do not bear its holiness, nor does she have any of the rights granted to its members (Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:1).
33.
The children born from relations between a priest and a woman forbidden because of the unique prohibitions incumbent upon the priests, as explained in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah19:3-6.
34.
I.e., if the son is the first issue of his mother's womb.
35.
I.e., were the father to have lived until the son was 30 days old, there would have been an obligation to redeem the child. Nevertheless, since the father was a priest - and the fact that he entered into a forbidden relationship does not disqualify him from the priesthood - it is considered as if he paid himself and the child was redeemed (Turei Zahav 305:17).
36.
Because he died after the obligation took effect, as indicated by Halachah 17.
37.
For the first time, as obvious from the following halachah.
38.
I.e., as a Jew.
39.
I.e., the father is an Israelite and thus the son is an Israelite.
40.
Implied is that we do not rely on her word alone.
41.
The priest is considered as if he desires to expropriate property - the five selaim of the redemption - from the child. Since the priest cannot prove that the child was born as an Israelite, the child is not obligated. See parallels in Chapter 9, Halachah 13, and Chapter 10, Halachah 12.
42.
As the Radbaz mentions, this child may be considered as the father's firstborn and receive a double share of his inheritance. Nevertheless, in this context, he is not considered as a firstborn.
43.
Even though it is her first Jewish child.
44.
A stillborn, aborted, or miscarried fetus.
45.
See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 10:1 which states: "Every woman who gives birth is impure like a niddah, even if she did not suffer uterine bleeding. [This applies whether] a woman gives birth to a living child or one which is stillborn, and even if she miscarries [and discharges a fetus]." The remainder of that chapter mentions different questionable circumstances involving such miscarriages.
46.
In the instances mentioned, the embryo that was miscarried is not given the halachic status of a fetus and none of the laws applying to childbirth apply.
47.
See ibid. 5:15.
48.
ibid. 10:2.
49.
Even though it was removed from the womb piece by piece, the mother is considered impure as if she gave birth (Ibid.:6) and the subsequent child is not considered as a firstborn.
50.
From the Rambam's wording, the commentaries have inferred that if the baby emerges dead, a boy born next is considered as the mother's firstborn. The rationale is that a baby born in the eighth month is considered as if it would never be a viable birth. This ruling is quoted by theShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 305:23).
51.
For the emergence of the forehead is considered as birth in several halachic contexts (e.g., Hilchot Nachalot 2:2).
52.
And the Torah obligated only the first issue of a woman's womb.
53.
These concepts also apply with regard to the definition of a firstborn with regard to the inheritance (ibid.:11).
54.
I.e., as soon as the thirty-first day begins. These days are counted from sunset to sunset and not from hour to hour. It is customary to redeem the son on his thirty-first day of life, because one should not delay the observance of a mitzvah. If, however, the thirty-first day is the Sabbath or a festival, the redemption is performed at the earliest possible opportunity afterwards.
55.
Treifah, the Hebrew term used by the Rambam, is interpreted as referring to an ailment that will cause the person to die within a year.
56.
For the obligation to redeem the child never took effect.
57.
For that gift is not effective in redeeming the child, as stated in the following halachah.
58.
When quoting this law, the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 305:12) states that the father must also recite the blessing for the redemption. He does not, however, recite the blessingShehechiyanu.
59.
Because the obligation to redeem him has not taken effect. This ruling applies even if the coins remain in the priest's possession until after the thirtieth day. For the redemption to take effect, the priest must return the money to the father and then he must give it to him again. See Siftei Cohen305:18.
60.
There is a difference of opinion concerning this issue in the Talmud (Bechorot 49a,b). The Rambam's ruling follows the position of Shmuel, even though Rav differs and rules that the son is not redeemed. Although ordinarily, in such differences of opinion, the halachah follows Rav with regard to questions involving Torah prohibitions, in this instance, the Talmud explicitly states that the halachah follows Shmuel. There is, however, a question regarding the proper version of the Talmudic text and the Rambam's ruling does not follow the standard published version (Radbaz). TheShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 305:13) quotes the Rambam's ruling, while the Rama rules that if the money no longer exists, the redemption is not effective.
61.
As explained above, the priest is considered as if he desires to expropriate property - the five selaim of the redemption - from the father. The rationale is based on the fact that the money is presently in possession of the father. There are commentaries who maintain that if the priest would seize the fiveselaim, he would be entitled to retain possession of them, because the father would now have to prove that he is not obligated and that is likewise impossible. They support this conclusion with the Rambam's ruling in Hilchot Bechorot 5:3 that if there is an animal whose status is unclear and there is a doubt whether it is a firstborn, should a priest seize possession of it, we do not expropriate it from his property. Others, however, differentiate between the two instances, explaining that in Hilchot Bechorot, the priest has seized a specific entity concerning which an unresolved doubt exists. In this halachah, by contrast, although there is a question whether the father is under obligation to the priest, the money that the priest seizes definitely belongs to the father. Hence, it must be returned (Machaneh Ephrayim, Hilchot Zechiyah, sec. 8; see also Radbaz to Halachah 21).
62.
In the manner described at the conclusion of the previous halachah. This is an uncommon occurrence. Hence, unless there is specific knowledge that the father redeemed him in this manner, we assume he did not.
63.
For we assume that the person fulfilled the mitzvah incumbent upon him at the earliest possible opportunity.
64.
I.e., he made such statements on his deathbed [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah305:14)].
65.
Thus there is a question whether the son must be redeemed or not, for if the female emerged first, the son need not be redeemed.
66.
Since there is a doubt concerning the obligation, the burden of proof is on the priest, as stated in Halachah 19. Not only does this apply with regard to the father, the son is under no obligation to redeem himself when he comes of age. This is the underlying principle governing many of the situations described in the following halachot.
67.
For one of his sons is certainly a firstborn and hence, he is required to redeem him. Although the father does not know which of his sons he is redeeming, he is obligated to perform the redemption (Radbaz).
68.
For the father can claim that the son who died was the firstborn and since he died within 30 days of his birth, there is no obligation to redeem him, as stated in Halachah 17.
69.
In which case, each of the sons could argue that perhaps the other was in fact the firstborn and hence, he is not required to give toward the redemption. This ruling represents a reversal of the Rambam's opinion from his ruling in his final version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot8:3). [Apparently, the issue was one that the Rambam debated back and forth, because his earlier version of that text does not mention an exemption.] The Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 305:265) quotes the Rambam's ruling here. The Tur and the Siftei Cohen 305:30 rule that the sons are exempt if the father died before the passage of the 30 days. The rationale they give is that each of the sons can claim that the obligation is on the other.
70.
For their redemption in the maaner stated in Halachah 18.
71.
For there is no obligation to redeem a son who died before he reaches the age of 30 days.
72.
Giving each five selaim for one of the sons, without specifying which one.
73.
I.e., each priest can maintain that he received the redemption for the son that is alive and it is the other priest who is required to return the funds.
74.
In the second instance, however, he need not redeem both sons, because it is possible that his daughter's birth preceded the birth of one of them. Thus with regard to that child, we follow the principle stated in Halachah 19.
75.
Although two mothers and two pairs of children are involved, the situation is abstractly the same as that described in Halachah 20.
76.
For the woman who had not given birth previously obviously gave birth to a firstborn son. The fact that his identity is unknown is not significant.
77.
Because it is possible that the firstborn died and therefore, there is no obligation if he dies within thirty days of his birth.
78.
Whether within 30 days of the sons' birth or afterwards, as in Halachah 20. See, however, note 68.
79.
Although the entire sum could not be expropriated from either of the sons - for each one could claim that it is the other who is liable - it can be expropriated from the estate. For the father was certainly obligated and that obligation is transferred to his estate.
80.
The commentaries question the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that seemingly the instance here is analogous to the case described in Halachah 30. What difference does it make if the two women mentioned are the wives of one man or two? The Radbaz explains that since we are speaking about one man with two wives and one is exempt, we assume that the exemption will continue unless it is indicated otherwise.
81.
So that it was not known which woman was the mother of which child.
82.
For, as in Halachah 21, each priest can claim that he received the redemption for the son who is presently alive.
83.
The priest owes one of the two five selaim, but there is no way of determining which one. Thus if each approached him and demanded money individually, he could avoid paying, claiming that the father must prove that it was his son that died. When, however, he is approached by the two fathers in a single claim, he has no recourse other than to pay [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 8:5)].
84.
Because there is no way it can be proven who is the father of the male and thus responsible for his redemption.
85.
I.e., when he attains majority. For there is no question that he is a firstborn (Turei Zahav305:23).
86.
The priest owes one of the two five selaim, but there is no way of determining which one. Thus if each approached him and demanded money individually, he could avoid paying, claiming that the father must prove that it was his son that died. When, however, he is approached by the two fathers in a single claim, he has no recourse other than to pay [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 8:5)].
87.
Because there is no way it can be proven who is the father of the male and thus responsible for his redemption.
88.
Because it is impossible to prove that a male was born first. See Halachah 23. From the Rambam's wording, it could be inferred that different rules apply when the women gave birth to two males and one female. It would appear that according to the Rambam, each of the males would have to redeem himself when he comes of age. The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 305) rules that in such a situation, the sons are exempt. See Turei Zahav 305:24.
89.
Even though the identity of his son is not firmly established, his wife definitely gave birth to a firstborn son and he is obligated to redeem him.
90.
For there is no way of proving that the woman who had not given birth previously was the mother of the male. Hence, the exemption is granted not only to the father, but also to the son when he comes of age.
91.
More specifically, there are five possibilities regarding this situation:
a) the woman who had not given birth before gave birth to one male (and the other woman gave birth to a male and a female);
b) she gave birth to two males (and the other woman gave birth to a female);
c) she gave birth to a male and then a female (and the other woman gave birth to a male);
d) she gave birth to a female and then a male (and the other woman gave birth to a male);
e) she gave birth to a female (and the other woman gave birth to two males).
Since her husband would be obligated in the first three of this situations, he is considered as obligated, because of the higher probability.
As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 25, there is a difference of opinion among the commentaries with regard to the rulings in the two halachot. The Ra'avad reverses the Rambam's ruling in both instances, maintaining that here, the father is exempt and there, he is obligated. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 305:31) rule that he is exempt in both instances. These differences of opinion depend on textual differences in the versions ofBechorot 49a and differences in the interpretation of that passage.
• 3 Chapters: Sotah Sotah - Chapter Four, Issurei Biah Issurei Biah - Chapter One, Issurei Biah Issurei Biah - Chapter Two
• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download• Sotah - Chapter Four
Halacha 1
On the fifteenth of Adar, the court attends to the needs of the community at large.1 [At that time,] they check which women should be compelled to drink, so that they can compel them to drink,2 and to which should be given a warning so that they are divorced without receiving [the money due them by virtue of] their ketubah.
A sotah can, [however,] be compelled to drink at any time of the year.3
Halacha 2
Halacha 3
When a sotah says, "I will not drink [the bitter water]," because she is overcome by fear, she has the option of retracting and saying that she will drink the waters. If, however, she says that she will not drink when she is healthy and not affected by fear, she may not change her mind and say that she will drink [the bitter water].6
Halacha 4
If she says, "I will not drink," before the scroll [with God's name] written for her is blotted out, the scroll is entombed. It is not fit to be used for another sotah.7Her meal offering is scattered on the ash heap.8
If she says, "I will not drink [the water]," after the scroll has been blotted out, we take hold of her and force her to drink the water.
Halacha 5
We intimidate her so that she will drink, and we tell her: "My daughter. If you are certain that you are innocent, stand firm. Drink [the water] without fear. For the water can be compared to the powder of a drug placed on the skin. If there is a wound, it will penetrate and descend. If there is no wound, it will have no effect."
Halacha 6
Halacha 7
When the scroll for a sotah is written at night, it is unacceptable, as [implied byNumbers 5:22-25], which states: "[The priest] shall write,... he shall give to drink,... and he shall offer," [establishing an equivalence between these different activities]. Just as the sacrifice must be offered during the daytime,11so too the writing of the scroll and making the woman drink must be performed during the day.12
If [the scroll] is written in non-sequential order, it is not acceptable, [as implied by Numbers 5:23, which] states: "[The priest shall write] these [curses]" - i.e., in sequence.
If he wrote the scroll before she accepted the oath, it is unacceptable, [as implied by ibid.:21-23, which] state: "And he will administer the oath... and he will write."13
Halacha 8
If he wrote it as a letter,14 it is unacceptable, for the verse states "on a scroll." If he writes it on two sheets [of parchment], it is unacceptable, for the verse states "on a scroll" - i.e., one and not two or three.
It may not be written on paper or on untreated parchment,15 but rather on a parchment scroll, [as implied by] the use of the term: "on a scroll." If it is written on paper or on untreated parchment, it is unacceptable.
Halacha 9
If the scroll is written by an Israelite,16 or a priest who is a minor, it is unacceptable, for [Numbers 5:23] states: "And the priest shall write...."
He should not write it with kumos, kankantum,17 or with any other substance that leaves a permanent mark. Instead, he should use ink18 withoutkankantum, for the verse states: "And he will write and he will blot out." [Implied is that one must] write [with a substance] that can be blotted out. If one writes with a substance that leaves a permanent impression, it is unacceptable.
Halacha 10
If [when the writing of the scroll is being blotted out] any trace of the writing remains, it is unacceptable until it is thoroughly blotted out.
If [the priest] writes one letter and then blots it out, and then writes another letter and blots it out, completing [the writing of the entire scroll in this manner], it is unacceptable. It must be written out completely [at one time to be acceptable].
Halacha 11
If the scroll was not written for the sake of the woman, or it was not blotted out for the sake of the woman, it is unacceptable.
If [a priest] wrote two scrolls, [one for each of] two sotot and blotted them out into the same cup or blotted them out into two cups, but [afterwards] mixed them together in one cup and gave the two women to drink from it, it is unacceptable. Neither of the women drank [only the water in which] her scroll [was blotted out].
If [two scrolls] were blotted out in two different cups, mixed together and then separated again into two different cups, the women should not be given the water to drink. If, however, they were forced to drink [this water], it is acceptable.19
Halacha 12
Halacha 13
[The priest] should not dig with a hatchet [under the floor of] the Sanctuary to remove dust, as [implied by Numbers 5:17]: "the dust that is on the earth of the Sanctuary."28 If one did dig and remove dust, it is acceptable.
Halacha 14
If [the priest] first brought her meal offering and then had her drink the water, it is acceptable.29
If her meal offering became impure before it was placed in a sacred vessel, it should be redeemed like any other meal offering that became impure before being consecrated in a sacred vessel,30 and she should bring another meal offering.31 If the meal offering became impure after being consecrated in a sacred vessel, it should be burned.32
Similarly, if a woman admitted to committing adultery before the fistful of meal was taken from the meal offering,33 she refused to drink [the water],34 her husband was unwilling to have her drink [the water], witnesses came [and testified that she] committed adultery,35 [her husband] died, or she died,36 the entire meal offering should be burned. If any of these things happened after the fistful of meal was offered, the remainder of the meal offering should not be eaten.37
Halacha 15
If [the sotah's] husband was a priest, the remainder of her meal offering should not be eaten, because he has a portion in it.38 It should not, however, be burned on the altar in its entirety, as are other meal offerings brought by male priests, because the woman also has a portion in it.39 Therefore, the fistful [of meal] is offered as a distinct entity, and the remainder is scattered on the ash heap.
Halacha 16
If a man warns his wife against [entering into privacy with] several men, and she entered into privacy with each of the men in question, she is required to bring one meal offering that includes them all when her husband requires her to drink [the bitter water].
[This is implied by Numbers 5:15, which uses a plural term when referring to "the meal offering [brought because of] the warnings" - i.e., one offering can requite several warnings.42
Halacha 17
[Based on the principle of] gilgul [sh'vuah],43 the husband may have the woman include in her oath that she did not commit adultery with the man concerning whom she was given a warning or with any other man, that she did not commit adultery during the time between her consecration and the consummation of the marriage, nor after the consummation.
He may not, however, have her include that she did not engage in relations [with another man] before she was consecrated or between the time she was divorced [and remarried], if she was in fact divorced and remarried. The rationale is that even if she engaged in relations [with other men at that time], she would not be forbidden [to her husband]. And whenever she is not forbidden to him, he cannot make any stipulations regarding her conduct.
For this reason, if a man married his yevamah, he cannot compel her to include in her oath that she did not engage in relations with others while she was waiting for him to perform yibbum.44 He may, however, compel her to include in her oath that she did not commit adultery when married to his brother. For if she committed adultery when married to his brother, she is forbidden to him.
Similarly, if [the husband] divorced his wife and remarried her, he may compel her to include in her oath that she did not commit adultery when married to him originally. Similarly, he may have her include in her oath that she will not commit adultery in the future or that she will not commit adultery if he divorces her and remarries her. [In such an instance,] if she commits adultery in the future, the waters will check her [fidelity], and [if she is guilty,] the physical phenomena [described above] will be visited upon her.
All the above is implied by [the woman's response to the oath, Numbers 5:22]: "Amen, Amen." [This can be interpreted as meaning] Amen with regard to this man; Amen with regard to others. Amen with regard to the time when I was married; Amen with regard to the time when I was consecrated. Amen with regard to the past; Amen with regard to the future.
Halacha 18
It is a mitzvah for Israelites to issue warnings to their wives,45 [as implied byNumbers 5:14] "And he shall warn his wife." [Our Sages said that] whoever issues a warning to his wife has become possessed by a spirit of purity.
A warning should not be issued in a spirit of levity, nor in the midst of conversation, nor with frivolity, nor in the midst of an argument, nor with the purpose of instilling fear.
If, however, a man transgressed and issued a warning to his wife under such circumstances, the warning is binding.
Halacha 19
It is not proper for a man to rush and at the outset issue a warning in the presence of witnesses.46 Instead, he should [first speak to his wife] privately and gently, in a spirit of purity and caution, in order to guide her to the proper path and remove obstacles.
Whenever a person is not careful regarding [the conduct of] his wife, his sons and the members of his household, warning them,47 and scrutinizing their ways at all times so that he knows that they are perfect without sin or transgression, he is himself a sinner, as [implied by Job 5:24]: "And you shall know that your tent is at peace and scrutinize your dwelling, and you shall not sin."48
FOOTNOTES
1.
See Hilchot Arachin 8:1, Hilchot Kilayim 2:15, and Hilchot Rotzeach 8:6, where reference is made to various services performed by the court at that time.
2.
The commentaries note that the court cannot actually compel a woman to drink the bitter water. All it can do is issue a warning so that she will become forbidden to her husband, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachot 10:11.
3.
I.e., although the court pays attention to this matter in Adar, it is possible for a sotah to be compelled to drink at any time of the year. See Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 7:11, which states that it was customary to have a sotahdrink the bitter water during Chol HaMo'edwhen there will be many people visiting the Temple.
4.
See Halachah 7.
5.
The commentaries note that there is no verse in the Torah that uses the wording cited by the Rambam. There are, however, several from which it could be implied that only one sotah should be compelled to drink at one time.
6.
Her original refusal to drink the waters is interpreted as an admission of guilt that cannot be retracted.
7.
For every scroll must be written for the sake of the woman who drinks its waters, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 8. See also Halachah 11 of this chapter.
8.
The "ash heap" was a place in the Temple Courtyard, east of the altar, where sacrifices that became disqualified were burned. Rashi (Sotah 20a) states that this offering also had to be burned.
9.
She is not compelled to drink them. At the outset, their purpose was to determine whether or not she was innocent. Through her admission, that determination was made (Rashi, Sotah 20a).
10.
Although God's name was blotted out in it, this does not endow it with holiness.
11.
As must all sacrifices.
12.
Significantly, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Sotah 2:4), the Rambam quotes a different proof-text as the source for this concept.
13.
I.e., in that order.
14.
The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rashi (Sotah17b) as stating that this means without having the lines of the scroll ruled (sirtut) before it is written.
15.
For a more detailed definition of the term the Rambam uses, see Hilchot Tefillin 1:6.
16.
I.e., a person other than a priest.
17.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah, Gittin2:3, the Rambam mentions Arabic terms for these words. Rav Kapach explains the meaning as follows: Kumos and kankantumare two similar substances, yellow and green powders, which when mixed with gallnut juice produce a black substance. Others translate kumos as gum or resin andkankantum as vitriol or atramentum sutorum.
18.
See Hilchot Tefillin 1:4, which describes how ink was made.
19.
Sotah 18a states that the decision in this instance resolves around the question ofbererah - i.e., the idea that retroactively it can be considered that an activity was performed originally with an intent that becomes clarified only afterwards.
There is an unresolved debate among the Sages if the principle of bererah is accepted with regard to questions of Scriptural law, and therefore, the more stringent approach is taken. In this instance, this implies that God's name should not be blotted out a second time.
Note the Minchat Chinuch, who asks how this questionable drinking of the water is considered sufficient to release a woman from the prohibition she incurred after violating her husband's warning and entering into privacy with the man in question.
Note also that Halachah 2 states that twosotot should not be forced to drink at the same time.
20.
This is not a continuation of the previous subject, but rather deals with an ordinary instance in which water was prepared for one sotah.
21.
We do not say that God's name should not be blotted out a second time because of one woman.
22.
For at the outset, the woman must drink all the water in which her scroll was blotted out.
23.
Sotah (ibid.) also leaves this as an unresolved question. Since there is no binding decision that it is acceptable, the Rambam rules as above, that one may not blot out God's name in such a situation.
24.
Since it came from the basin - and was measured in a sacred vessel - it must be used on the day on which it was taken. SeeHilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin, ch. 3.
25.
Mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachah 10.
26.
Although in some halachic contexts (seeHilchot Shechitah 14:13) ash is considered to be dust, in this instance, the phrase "from the dust that is on the earth of the Tabernacle" implies a similarity between dust and earth (Sotah 16a).
27.
Our translation follows Sotah 16b. The Meiri states that this refers to rotten wood.
28.
I.e., that it existed there previously (Sotah15b).
29.
Although this deviates from the order stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 15, Sotah 19a states that this order is also acceptable, after the fact.
30.
See Hilchot Issurei Mizbe'ach 6:5. In such an instance, although the meal has been designated for use as a sacrifice, since it has not been placed in a sacred vessel, its actual substance has not become consecrated.
31.
With the money received from redeeming the first one.
32.
Since it was placed in a sacred vessel, it became consecrated. Consequently, once it became impure it must be burned, as stated in Hilchot Pesulei Hamukdashim 19:1.
33.
The meal offering must be burned, because the offering of a sotah is acceptable only when it is being used to test the fidelity of a woman. Once she has admitted her guilt, that is unnecessary. Nor may it be offered as a voluntary offering, for a sotah's offering is of barley meal, and voluntary offerings may be brought from wheat only, but not from barley.
34.
See Halachah 4.
35.
In this instance as well, the question of the woman's fidelity has been clarified.
36.
As stated above, the purpose of the offering is to test the woman's fidelity and thus allow her to resume relations with her husband. If that objective is no longer relevant, as in the latter two instances mentioned in the halachah, the offering is not brought.
37.
Many authorities maintain that a printer's error has crept into the text and the text should read "the remainder is eaten." Nevertheless, the majority favor the version stated above.
38.
As stated in Leviticus 6:15, a meal offering brought by a priest should not be eaten, but instead burned on the altar.
39.
The meal offerings brought by priests are offered on the altar entirely, without a fistful of meal being separated. For a meal offering brought by a non-priest to be acceptable, by contrast, the fistful of meal must be separated and burned as a distinct entity. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:12.
40.
The term used by the Rambam (and his source, Sotah 6b) refers to hazamah, when the testimony of the witnesses is disqualified because others testify that they and the witnesses were together in another place at the time the witnesses say the act took place. Seemingly, the same law would apply if the witnesses' testimony was disqualified on other grounds.
41.
It need not be redeemed. The rationale is that it was consecrated based on a false premise - that the woman had entered into privacy with the man in question. Whenever an entity is consecrated on a false premise, the consecration is not binding.
42.
The commentaries have questioned why the Rambam quotes the derivation of this concept from the Midrash (Sifre Zuta), instead of citing the Talmud (Keritot 9b), which cites a different proof-text.
43.
Gilgul Sh'vuah implies that when taking an oath on one claim, a person may be required to include a variety of related claims in that oath. See Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an 1:12.
44.
For even if she did engage in relations with another man at that time, she would not be forbidden to her yavam (Hilchot Yibbum2:20).
45.
Sotah 3a records a difference of opinion regarding this matter between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva states, as the Rambam rules here, that a man is obligated to issue a warning, while Rabbi Yishmael maintains that the matter is optional. Other commentaries note that the first mishnah in the tractate of Sotahappears to indicate that it is forbidden for a husband to issue a warning. (This concept is derived as follows: The mishnah begins: "When a man issued a warning...." From this wording, our Sages infer that the mishnah is speaking after the fact. At the outset, a warning should not be given.)
Significantly, Rabbi Akiva was noted for his love of his fellow man, as he stated: "'Love your fellow man as yourself,'... this is a great general principle within the Torah." This implies - and so is evident from the continuation of the Rambam's words - that the warning is not an instrument of strife, but rather is intended to prompt love and closeness.
46.
For this is likely to cause shame and embarrassment and prevent healthy communication between husband and wife. If, however, a warning that was delivered gently and in private is not effective, then the husband should warn his wife in the presence of witnesses.
47.
I.e., giving them gentle warnings, as mentioned in the first clause of this halachah.
48.
One may infer that failing to invest oneself in such scrutiny is sinful.
Issurei Biah - Chapter One
Halacha 1
When a person voluntarily engages in sexual relations with one of the arayot1mentioned in the Torah, he is liable for kerait,2 as [Leviticus 18:29] states: "Whenever anyone performs any of these abominations, the souls will be cut off...." [The plural is used, referring to] the man and the woman.3If they transgressed unknowingly, they are liable to bring a fixed4 sin offering. There are some arayot with whom relations are punishable by execution5 in addition to kerait which is applicable in all cases.6
Halacha 2
With regard to the arayot that are punishable by execution by the court. If there were witnesses, they delivered a warning,7 and the transgressors did not cease their actions, they are executed through the means prescribed for them.
Halacha 3
Even if a transgressor was a Torah scholar neither execution or lashes is administered unless a warning was given. For [the obligation for] a warning was instituted universally only to make a distinction between a person who transgresses inadvertently and one who transgresses intentionally.8
Halacha 4
Among the arayot punishable through execution by the court are those for [which the violators are] executing by stoning, those for which they are executed by burning, and those for which they are executed by strangulation.9
Halacha 5
The following arayot are punishable by burning: a person who has relations with his wife's daughter12 during his wife's lifetime,13 with the daughter of her daughter, with the daughter of her son, with her mother, with the mother of her mother, with the mother of her father, with his own daughter, with the daughter of his daughter, or with the daughter of his son.
Halacha 6
The only instance in which forbidden sexual relations are punishable by execution by strangulation is adultery, as [derived from Leviticus 20:10]: "The adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." Whenever the Torah mentions "putting to death" without further description, the intent is strangulation.14
If [the adulteress] is the daughter of a priest, she should be executed by burning and the adulterer by strangulation, as [ibid. 21:9] states: "The daughter of a priest, when she begins to act promiscuously, she shall be burnt with fire."15 If the adulteress is a consecrated16 maiden,17 both she and the adulterer should be stoned,18 as [Deuteronomy 22:23-24] states: "When a virgin maiden.... they shall be stoned with rocks...." Whenever the Torah uses the phrase "They shall surely be put to death, they are responsible for their own blood" [Leviticus 20:11] - they are executed by stoning.19
Halacha 7
All of the other arayot are punishable by kerait alone and are not punishable by execution by the court. Therefore if there were witnesses and a warning was administered, the court punishes them with lashes, for all those who are obligated for kerait are lashed.
Halacha 8
When a person enters into relations with women who are forbidden by merely a negative commandment,20 both he and she are lashed. If they do so unknowingly, they are not liable for punishment. When a person enters into relations with one of the shniyot,21 Rabbinic Law ordains that he be given "stripes for rebellious conduct."22 When, however, a person enters into relations with a woman who is forbidden merely by a positive commandment,23he need not be punished. If, however, the court [wishes to] administer stripes for rebellious conduct to him to distance him from sin, they have that option.24
Halacha 9
A person compelled [to engage in forbidden relations] is not liable at all, not for lashes nor for a sacrifice. Needless to say, there is no obligation for capital punishment, as [reflected by Deuteronomy 22:26]: "And to the maiden, do not do anything."25
To whom does the above apply? To the victim of rape. When, by contrast, a man engages in relations, there is no concept of being compelled against his will. For an erection is always a willful act.26
When a woman is compelled into relations at the outset and afterwards, she consents, she is not liable. Once [a man] compels her to engage in relations, it is beyond her control whether to desire [or] not. For man's natural tendency and inclination is compelling her to desire.27
Halacha 10
A person who inserts the corona into [the woman's vaginal channel] is referred to as one who "uncovers" as [Leviticus 20:18] states: "He uncovered her source."28 A person who inserts the entire organ is referred to as one who completes [intercourse]. With regard to all the forbidden relations [mentioned] by the Torah, one who "uncovers" and one who "completes [intercourse] are [equally] liable for execution by the court, kerait, lashes, or stripes for rebellious conduct. Even though the man did not ejaculate and even if he withdrew and did not complete relations, [the man and the woman] both become liable.29 Whether a person engages in vaginal or anal intercourse,30when he "uncovers" [the woman], they both become liable for execution,kerait, lashes, or stripes for rebellious conduct. Whether they were lying or standing,31 liability is established by the insertion of the corona.
Halacha 11
[There is never any liability when] a man engages in forbidden relations without an erection, instead his organ was hanging loosely like the organ of the dead, e.g., one who was sick or a person with a congenital malady, i.e., he was born sexually inadequate. Even though he inserts his organ with his hand, he is not liable for kerait or lashes. Needless to say, he is not liable for execution. For this is not considered sexual intercourse. Nevertheless, [such an act] disqualifies a woman from partaking of terumah.32 And the court subjects both of them to stripes for rebellious conduct.33
Halacha 12
When a person enters into sexual relations with one of the arayot as a casual act,34 although he did not intend to do so, he is liable.35Similar concepts apply with regard to one who enters into relations with women forbidden by a negative commandment alone or with one of the shniyot.36
When, however, a man has relations with one of the arayot after she died, he is not liable at all.37 Needless to say, this applies with regard to those women with whom relations are forbidden by a negative commandment alone. When, by contrast, one has relations with a person who is trefe38 or who has relations with an animal which is trefe, he is liable. [The person or the animal] is [now] alive even though he will ultimately die from this illness. Even when the two signs39 which validate ritual slaughter were slit but [the woman or the animal] is making its last movements, if one enters into relations with [her or it] he is liable until she or it dies or is decapitated.
Halacha 13
When an adult male enters into relations with any of the women forbidden in connection with the above transgressions who is three years and one day old or more,40 he is liable for execution, kerait, or lashes and she is not liable41unless she is past majority. If she is younger than this, both participants are not liable, for the act is not considered as sexual relations.42
Halacha 14
When a man enters into relations with a male or has a male enter into relations with him, once the corona is inserted [into the anus] they should both be stoned if they are both adults. As [Leviticus 18:22] states: "Do not lie with a man," [holding one liable for the act, whether] he is the active or passive partner.
If a minor of nine years and a day or more is involved, the man who enters into relations or has the minor enter into relations with him should be stoned and the minor is not liable. If the male [minor] was less than nine years old, they are both free of liability.45 It is, however, appropriate for the court to subject the adult to stripes for rebellious conduct for homosexual relations46although his companion was less than nine years old.
Halacha 15
One is liable for anal intercourse with an androgynus47 just as one is liable for relations with another male. One who engages in vaginal intercourse with [anandrogynus] is not liable.48
There is a doubt concerning the gender of a tumtum.49 Therefore a person who has relations with a tumtum or vaginal intercourse with an androgynusshould be given stripes for rebellious conduct.50
An androgynus may marry a woman.51
Halacha 16
When a person sodomizes an animal or has an animal insert its organ in him, both the person and the animal should be stoned to death,52 as [Leviticus 18:23] states: "Do not lie down with any animal," prohibiting [such relations] whether he sodomizes the animal or has the animal enter him. All [living creatures] animals, beasts, and fowl should be stoned to death.53 The Torah did not make any distinction with regard to the age of an animal whether it is young or old. "Any animal" implies a prohibition on the day of its birth. Whether the person enters into vaginal or anal intercourse with the animal, when he inserts the corona or the animal inserts the corona within him, they are liable.
Halacha 17
When a boy nine years old sodomizes an animal or has an animal engage in relations with him, the animal should be stoned, but he is not liable.54 If the boy was less than nine years old, the animal is not stoned. Similarly, when a girl three years old or more causes an animal or a beast to have relations with her, whether it is an older animal or a younger animal, once the corona of the animal is inserted into her vagina or anus, the animal is stoned to death and she is not liable.55 If she was past majority, they both should be stoned to death. If she was less than three years old, the animal should not be stoned.56
Halacha 18
When a person lies with an animal inadvertently or a woman causes an animal to have relations with her inadvertently,57 the animal is not stoned to death even though they are past majority.58 With regard to [relations with] all the arayot, when one is an adult and the other a minor, the minor is not liable and the adult is liable, as explained. If one is awake and one is sleeping, the one who is sleeping is not liable.59 If one [transgresses] intentionally and the other inadvertently, the one who [transgresses] intentionally is liable60 and the one who transgresses inadvertently must bring a sacrifice. If one acted under duress and one acted willingly, the one who acted under duress is not liable as stated above.61
Halacha 19
The witnesses are not required to see [the precise details] of couple's intimate relations, the man inserting [his organ]as one inserts a piston into a pipe. Instead, once they see them clinging together as is the way of all who engage in relations, they may be executed on the basis of this evidence. We do not say: Maybe he did not insert the corona, because we can assume that in this position, the corona was inserted.62
Halacha 20
When an established presumption that people are close relatives has been established, we judge accordingly even though there is no clear proof that they were relatives.63 We give lashes and execute by burning, stoning, and strangulation based on such a presumption.
What is implied? If it is an accepted presumption that a particular woman is a man's sister, daughter, or mother and he had relations with her in the presence of witnesses, he is given lashes or executed by burning or stoning even though there is no clear-cut evidence that the woman is his sister, mother, or daughter, only the accepted presumption.
An incident occurred with a woman who came to Jerusalem carrying an infant on her shoulders and she raised it, [establishing] the assumption that he was her son. [After he grew older,] he had relations with her and they brought her to the court who executed her by stoning.64
A proof of this law can be drawn from the fact that the Torah speaks of the judgment of execution for one who curses his father and strikes his father65How can we find clear proof that he is his father?66 Instead, we operate according to the existing presumption. So, too, with regard to other relatives, we operate according to the existing presumption.
Halacha 21
[The following rules apply when] a man and a woman come from overseas, he says: "This is my wife," and she says: "This is my husband." If in [their new] city, he establishes the presumption that she is his wife67 for 30 days,68 we execute [an adulterer who has relations] with her. Within 30 days, however, we do not execute anyone on the presumption that she is a married woman.69
Halacha 22
When a woman is presumed to be a niddah among her neighbors,70 her husband is given lashes for [engaging in relations] with her in the niddahstate.71
[The following rule applies when] a person issues a warning [not to enter into seclusion with a specific man]72 to his wife and she enters into seclusion with him. If one witness comes and testifies that she was unfaithful,73 her husband was a priest, and he engaged in relations with her afterwards, he receives lashes because of her because he had relations with a zonah.74 Although the fundamental element of this testimony is established by one witness,75 [her conduct caused] her identity to be established as a zonah.76
Halacha 23
When a father says: "My daughter is consecrated to this person," his word is accepted77 and she must marry him.78 [Nevertheless,] if she acts unfaithfully while [consecrated] to him, she is not stoned to death79 because of her father's statements unless there are witnesses [who testify] that she was consecrated in their presence.80
Similarly, when a woman states: "I have been consecrated," [if it is discovered that she engaged in relations with another man,] she is not executed on the basis of her own statements. Instead, there must be witnesses [that she was consecrated] or she must have established a common conception [that this was the case].
FOOTNOTES
1.
In Hilchot Ishut 1:5, the Rambam defines the term arayot as "[Those women] with whom relations are forbidden by Scriptural Law and with whom relations are punishable by kereitas enumerated in Parshas Acharei Mot.
2.
Literally, the soul's being cut off. This involves premature death in this world (before the age of 50, Mo'ed Kattan 28a) and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1).
3.
The prohibition and the punishment is incumbent on them both equally.
4.
This term is used to distinguish the sacrifice from the "adjustable guilt offering" (korban olah viyoreid) that is brought for certain transgressions. See Hilchot Shegagot ch. 1 which describes the fixed sin offering , and ch. 10 which describes the adjustable guilt offering.
5.
See Halachot 4-6.
6.
Even if they cannot be executed because the court cannot find two appropriate witnesses, they are punishable by kerait.
7.
See Hilchot Sanhedrin 12:2 which describes the obligation to give a warning and states: "How is a warning administered? We tell him: 'Desist..." or 'Do not do it. It is a transgression and you are liable to be executed by the court....'.
8.
The Rambam's ruling reflects a unique instance in which he uses the wording of a Talmudic passage for the opposite intent.Sanhedrin 8b quotes Rabbi Yossi bar Rabbi Yehudah as coining the expression the Rambam employs: "A warning was instituted only to make a distinction between a person who transgresses inadvertently and one who transgresses intentionally." Rabbi Yossi, however, used this concept as support for his contention that a Torah scholar does not need a warning. Since he is knowledgeable, we assume that he is familiar with the laws. If he is transgressing, we can conclude that he is doing so as a conscious act of rebellion. Hence, he is deserving of punishment.
The Rambam differs, maintaining that even a Torah scholar might not be aware that his act violates a particular prohibition. We do not suspect that he did know the law, it was however possible that he was aware of the prohibition, but not know that it applied in this instance, e.g., he knew that adultery was forbidden, but did not know whether or not the woman was married or related to him. The warning will clarify that for him (Maggid Mishneh; Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Sanhedrin, loc. cit.).
9.
See Hilchot Sanhedrin 15:1-5 for a description of these different modes of execution.
10.
Even if she is not his mother.
11.
The wording of the Hebrew emphasizes that his son married the woman, not merely engaged in relations with her.
12.
I.e., from a previous marriage.
13.
After his wife's death, her daughter is still prohibited to him and they are punishable bykerait. There is, however, no punishment to be administered by an earthly court. As stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 8, this applies to any woman prohibited because they are closely related to the person's wife.
14.
Sanhedrin 52b explains the rationale for this statement as follows: Just as death at the hand of heaven does not leave a mark; so, too, unless another form of execution is explicitly stipulated, death at the hand of the court should not leave a sign. This alludes to strangulation in which the condemned's body is not marred at all.
15.
See Chapter 3, Halachah 3.
16.
According to Jewish law, marriage is a two-staged process involving consecration (erusin or kiddushin) and marriage (nissuin). Consecration establishes the bond between a man and a woman. From that time onward, she is forbidden to engage in relations with other men. It is not until marriage, however, that the husband and wife relationship is consummated and the couple begin their life together.
In the present era, both of these stages of marriage are completed at the same time. In the Biblical and Talmudic eras, it was customary to wait a year between these two stages.
17.
I.e., between the age of twelve and twelve and a half and she is a virgin. Otherwise, adultery is punished by strangulation.
18.
See Chapter 3, Halachah 4.
19.
Sanhedrin 53a derives this concept from the fact that this phrase is used with regard to a person who divines with a yidoni concerning whom Leviticus 20:27 explicitly states that he should be stoned to death.
20.
I.e., the punishment of kerait is not mentioned with regard to them. They include nine forbidden relationships, e.g., a mamzeror a mamzeret to an acceptable Jew or a divorcee to a priest. These nine are mentioned in Hilchot Ishut 1:7.
21.
Literally, "secondary." In Hilchot Ishut 1:6, the Rambam explains that this term refers to "women with whom relations are forbidden according to the Oral Tradition. These prohibitions are Rabbinic in origin." He continues listing 20 such women with whom our Sages forbade relations as a safeguard for the Scriptural prohibitions. For example, as a safeguard against relations with one's mother, the Sages forbade relations with both of one's grandmothers.
22.
Lashes mandated by Rabbinic decree which are given as punishment for the violation of Rabbinic commandments and for other purposes. See Hilchot Sanhedrin 16:3, 18:5, which mentions this punishment.
23.
Relationships which the Torah does not explicitly prohibit, but the prohibition can be derived from a positive commandment. For example, there is no prohibition against a High Priest marrying a non-virgin. Nevertheless, since he is commanded (Leviticus 21:13) to marry a virgin bride, we assume that it is forbidden for him to marry a woman who is not a virgin. There are two other such relationships: Egyptian and Edomite converts who cannot marry into the Jewish people until the third generation. SeeHilchot Ishut 1:8.
24.
See Hilchot Sanhedrin 24:4 which states that the court may administer punishment that is not required by Torah Law if they feel that it will lead to the moral development of the Jewish people.
25.
The verse cited speaks of the rape of a consecrated maiden in a field where even if she had called for help, there would have been none to save her. Since she was compelled to perform the transgression, she is not held responsible.
26.
The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam on this point, explaining that if a man develops an erection with the intent of having relations with his wife and while he is still erect, he is compelled to engage in forbidden relations, he is considered to have acted against his will. The Maggid Mishnehstates that even the Rambam would accept such a ruling.
The Maggid Mishneh states, however, that there are authorities who maintain that if a man is compelled to engage in relations at the pain of death, he is considered to have been compelled to act against his will.Yevamot 53b, the source for the Rambam's ruling, is speaking about a situation when a person is not compelled by forces beyond his control. Other authorities maintain that he is liable, even in such a situation. It is, however, unlikely that the Rambam would maintain that the court should actually carry out capital punishment. For in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 5:4, the Rambam writes that a person who is compelled by gentiles to engage in adulterous or incestuous sexual relations should sacrifice his life rather than do so. If, however, he fails to chose martyrdom and transgresses, he should not be punished by the court. It would be difficult to explain that ruling applies only in a situation when he had already developed an erection for a woman with whom he was permitted to engage in relations and was then compelled to engage in forbidden relations. Thus it would appear that the man is not held responsible for capital punishment engaging in relations at the threat of death. [See Bayit Chadash(Yoreh De'ah 20)].
See also the Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Sanhedrin 20:2 who states that since developing an erection comes as a result of the man's own pleasure and desire, he is considered to have acted willingly even though he was compelled to engage in the relations.
27.
Ketubot 51a states that even if the woman says: "Let him continue, for had he not taken me by force, I would have hired him," she is considered as acting under duress and freed of liability. For it was not until after she was overcome by desire that she consented.
28.
This expression is used with regard to relations with a woman in the nidah state. From that instance, Yevamot 54a derives a connection to the entire Torah.
29.
If, however, the man merely touches the entrance to the vaginal channel with his organ, he is not liable (see Beit Shmuel20:3).
30.
Based on Leviticus 19:13, Sanhedrin 54a states that both forms of intercourse are equally forbidden.
31.
Or Sameach notes that Leviticus 18:23explicitly mentions a woman standing while engaged in forbidden relates.
32.
I.e., if a priest's daughter or a priest's wife is involved in such a sexual act, she is forbidden to partake of terumah just as if she would be forbidden to do so had she engaged in ordinary relations (see Hilchot Terumah 6:6).
33.
"Stripes for rebellious conduct" is a punishment which is not dependent on the Torah's binding laws, but rather is left to the court's jurisdiction based on its conception of what is appropriate for the moral standards of the persons involved and the community. Although such an act is not formally considered as sexual relations, chastisement is necessary to prevent such behavior from continuing.
34.
The Hebrew term kimitasek literally means "as one was going about his business," i.e., he was performing other actions and without any intent, the forbidden act was performed.
35.
Since he derived pleasure from the physical act, he is liable even though originally he had no intent (Yevamot 62b).
This refers only to liability for a sin offering for inadvertent transgression. Needless to say, he is not liable for punishment by the court, because in such instances, he must acknowledge a warning (Maggid Mishneh).
The commentaries question how sexual relations can be performed "as one was going about his business." With regard to the Sabbath prohibitions, we can appreciate the use of such a term. For example, a person intended to cut produce that was not connected to the ground and in the course of doing so also cut produce that was connected to the ground. But with regard to sexual relations, how is it possible to say that a man performed the act without intention? As stated above, "an erection is always a willful act."
Based on Hilchot Shegagot 2:7, the Maggid Mishneh interprets this as referring to an instance in which a person intended to engage in relations with his wife, but accidentally engaged in relations with his sister.
36.
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's statements and the Maggid Mishneh states that this clause is a printing error, for there is no sacrifice associated with these transgressions. The Kessef Mishneh offers a resolution, explaining that although he is not punished by an earthly court, nor is he obligated to bring a sacrifice, the transgressor is liable to God. He will reckon with the transgression on His scales of judgment. Rav David Arameah states that this teaches that the person has an obligation to confess his sin.
37.
Yevamot 55b derives this concept through the techniques of Biblical exegesis.
38.
An animal or a person that is sick or wounded and will die within a year.
39.
I.e., the esophagus and the windpipe were cut.
40.
I.e., she reaches the date of her third birthday.
41.
For a minor is never liable for punishment. Even though she consented to the transgression, she is not subjected to punishment, because she is not considered as responsible for her actions (Nidah 44b). Despite the fact that the woman is not punished, the man receives the punishment mandated by the transgression.
42.
For until that age, her signs of virginity will regenerate and hence, relations are not of consequence. Nevertheless, even when the girl is below that age, it is forbidden to enter into such relations (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Sanhedrin7:4).
43.
In his commentary to the Mishnah (ibid. ), the Rambam states that the punishment ofkerait is not given until the violator is 20 years of age. Until that age, the person is considered immature and hence, not held liable by the heavenly court.
44.
For below that age, relations are not of consequence.
45.
For sexual relations with a male below the age of nine are not of consequence. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to enter into such relations (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7:4).
46.
Although he is not liable according to Scriptural Law, his act certainly warrants punishment that will discourage him from continuing this pattern of conduct.
47.
A person with male and female sexual characteristics.
48.
For there is a doubt regarding the halachic status of such an individual.
49.
A person whose genital are is covered with a mass of flesh and whose gender is impossible to detect. With regard to anandrogynus, the doubt concerns the individual's halachic status. With regard to the tumtum, the doubt concerns the actual facts: Which gender is covered by the mass of flesh?
50.
Since there is a possibility that such relations are prohibited, this punishment should be given to discourage them.
51.
I.e., although there is a question regarding the status of the androgynus, relations between him and her are permitted (Maggid Mishneh).
52.
Since the animal was the direct cause for the person's death, the animal is also executed. Alternatively, since the person was engaged in an unseemly transgression due to the animal, it is executed (Sanhedrin54a).
53.
And it is forbidden to benefit from that animal (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 4:2).
54.
For a minor is never liable for punishment.Sanhedrin 55b explains that based on the first rationale mentioned in the previous note, one might think that the animal should not be executed. Nevertheless, the person is worthy of execution because of his deed, it is only that the Torah has pity on him. And the Torah has pity on the person and not on the animal.
55.
For she is not of age.
56.
For this is not considered relations.
57.
The question how such acts can be considered inadvertent has been raised by the commentaries. Among the answers given is that the person was not aware that the act which he performed was forbidden.
58.
Since the person is not executed, according to the first of the rationales mentioned above, the animal should not be executed. Since our Sages did not conclude which of the rationales should prevail, the matter is left undecided and therefore the animal is allowed to live.
59.
The person sleeping is considered as if he performed the forbidden act under duress.
60.
For punishment by the court or at the hand of heaven.
61.
Halachah 13.
62.
This and the following halachot are based on the principle that a chazzakah, a presumption that is firmly established, is binding and considered as actual fact.
63.
I.e., as long as it is the popular conception that two individuals are related, we judge accordingly. It is not necessary for the court to bring testimony from the midwife that in fact this-and-this woman bore this-and-this child.
64.
The punishment given for relations between a mother and her son.
65.
Exodus 21:15, 17.
66.
For we have no way of establishing the fact that his father conceived him.
67.
By living together as husband and wife in a way obvious to all.
68.
We see the concept of 30 days used to establish a person's identity in another context: After that period of time, his name may be mentioned in a legal document without fear of deception (Chelkat Mechokek19:3; see Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 24:4).
Although capital punishment is not enforced in the present age, there are certain aspects of this halachah which are relevant, for there are several halachic contexts in which it is necessary to determine whether or not a woman is married. Today, with the advances in recording keeping and communication, it is customary for the Jewish community - particularly, in Eretz Yisrael and in a partial way, in certain places in the Diaspora - to keep records and to be able to verify whether or not a couple are married.
69.
The transgressors are given "stripes for rebellious conduct" for certainly there is at least a possibility that the couple who claim to be husband and wife are married (Rabbi Akiva Eiger to Halachah 15).
70.
I.e., she wore clothes that she set aside to wear while she is in her niddah state. SeeTurei Zahav 185:2 who states that even if the woman later gives an explanation for her conduct, her explanation is not accepted and we consider her status to have changed. The Siftei Cohen and others, however, differ. See Chapter 4, Halachah 10.
71.
A man is forbidden to have relations with a woman while she is in the niddah state. In this instance, although we do not know for certain that she was in the niddah state, we act according to the presumption created by her conduct.
72.
When a man issues such a warning to his wife and she violates it, he is forbidden to engage in relations with her until she drinks the sotah waters (Hilchot Sotah 1:2).
73.
In which instance, she is not given the sotahwaters to drink. Instead, her husband is required to divorce her (ibid.:14).
74.
The term zonah is halachicly defined as any woman who engages in relations with a man forbidden to her. The term literally means "a prostitute" or "a promiscuous woman." Here, however, the term is given the specific halachic meaning mentioned above. Whether she willingly or unwillingly engages in such relations, she is placed in this category. A priest is forbidden to engage in relations with such a woman. See Chapter 18, Halachah 12.
75.
One might think that it was necessary for the change in the status of the woman to be established through the testimony of two witnesses.
76.
I.e., since she violated the warning her husband gave her, we assume that she acted unfaithfully. Hence, the testimony of one witness is sufficient to bring about a change in her status.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the man is given lashes for violating a different prohibition, the prohibition against relations with a wife who has been unfaithful. The Ra'avad, however, speaks of the woman being raped and maintains that a woman is not placed in the category of azonah when only one person observes her being raped.
The Maggid Mishneh questions the Ra'avad's statements, noting that the Rambam does not mention rape at all. TheMaggid Mishneh also states that the Rambam does not require lashes when a man engages in relations with his wife after she was unfaithful. The Kessef Mishnehquestions that statement, noting that inHilchot Gerushin 11:14, the Rambam specifically rules that a man is given lashes in such a situation. See also the notes to Chapter 18, Halachah 7.
77.
We are speaking about a girl who is ana'arah between the age of twelve and twelve and a half. Her father has the right to consecrate her to whoever he desires. Therefore we accept his word when he states that he consecrated her, asDeuteronomy 22:16 states: "I gave my daughter to this man" (Kiddushin 64a).
(A father's word is also accepted with regard to consecrating his daughter is she is younger. We are, nevertheless, compelled to say that here we are speaking about ana'arah, because punishment is mentioned and a girl below the age of twelve is never punished by the court.)
78.
Or undergo formal divorce proceedings before marrying another man.
79.
The punishment given for relations with a consecrated maiden.
80.
Although the father's statement is given a certain amount of legal credibility, it is not considered as sufficient basis for capital punishment (Kiddushin 63b).
Issurei Biah - Chapter Two
Halacha 1
The [following] four women: the wife of a man's father, the wife of his son, the wife of his brother, and the wife of the brother of his father, are considered anervah1 for him forever, whether after consecration or after marriage, in the lifetime of their husbands or after their deaths, [even] if they were divorced - with the exception of the wife of one's brother who did not leave a son.2
Halacha 2
Therefore a person who engages in relations with his mother who is his father's wife is liable for two [sin-offerings], one because [the woman is] his mother and one because she is his father's wife. [This applies] both during his father's lifetime and after his father's death.5
The wives of both a person's paternal brother and his maternal brother are considered an ervah for him. [This applies regardless if he and/or his brother were conceived] in marriage or in a promiscuous relationship.6 The wife of the maternal brother of a man's father is, however, forbidden [only] as a shniyah, as explained.7 Both a person's paternal sister and his maternal sister are considered an ervah for him. [This applies regardless if he and/or his sister were conceived] in marriage or in a promiscuous relationship, e.g., his mother or his father acted promiscuously with others and his sister was conceived promiscuously, as [implied by Leviticus 18:9]: "one born at home or one born beyond [marriage]."
Halacha 3
The daughter of his father's wife who is his paternal sister is an ervah for him, [as ibid.:11] states: "the nakedness of the daughter of your father's wife, your father's offspring." If, however, a man's father marries a woman and she has a daughter from another man, that daughter is permitted to him.8 She is not "your father's offspring." Behold one is already liable for [relations] with her because she is a sister, why then [does the Torah mention]: "the daughter of your father's wife"? So that one should be liable for this prohibition as well.9
Halacha 4
Therefore a man who engages in relations with his sister who was born to his father's wife in marriage is liable for two [sin offerings]: one because of "the nakedness of your sister" and one because of "the nakedness of the daughter of your father's wife." If, however, one's father raped or seduced a woman and conceived a daughter, one is liable only for having relations with one's sister. For the daughter of the woman who was raped is not the daughter of the wife of one's father.10
Halacha 5
The sister of his mother is considered an ervah for him. [This applies to both her paternal and maternal sister and applies regardless whether she [was conceived] in marriage or in a promiscuous relationship. Similarly, his father's sister - both his paternal and maternal sister, whether she [was conceived] in marriage or in a promiscuous relationship - is considered an ervah for him.
Halacha 6
When a person has promiscuous relations with a woman and conceives a daughter with her, that daughter is considered an ervah for him.11 Although the Torah does not state: "Do not reveal the nakedness of your daughter," the prohibition is of Scriptural origin. Since [the Torah] forbade [relations] with the daughter of one's daughter, it did not mention [the prohibition against] one's daughter. This is not from the words of our Sages.12 Therefore a person who has relations with a daughter born of his wife is liable for two [sin offerings],13for [relations with] his daughter and for relations with a woman and her daughter.14
Halacha 7
When a person consecrates a woman, her close relatives - six women - become forbidden to him as an ervah forever. This applies whether he consummates [the bond through nisuin] or divorces her, in the lifetime of his wife and after her death. They are: a) her mother, b) her mother's mother, c) her father's mother, d) her daughter,15 e) her daughter's daughter, and f) her son's daughter. If he has relations with one of these women during the lifetime of his wife, both [he and she] are executed by burning.
Halacha 8
If he has relations with one of these women after his wife's death, they are liable for kerait,16 but they are not executed by the court, as [derived fromLeviticus 20:14]: "In fire, he and they shall be burnt." [This implies17 that only] when both women - his wife and the woman with whom he had relations - are alive, he and the ervah are executed by burning. When both [women] are not alive, there is no execution by burning.18
Halacha 9
Similarly, the sister of his wife is considered an ervah for him until his wife dies.19 Both her maternal sister and her paternal sister, whether conceived in marriage or promiscuously, are considered as an ervah for him.
Halacha 10
If a man transgressed and engaged in relations with one of these seven women, whether intentionally or inadvertently, although he and the woman are liable for execution by the court or kerait, he is not forbidden to engage in relations with his wife.20 The only exception is [when he engages in relations with] the sister of the woman he consecrated. In this instance, his wife is forbidden to him, as explained in Hilchot Gerushin.21
Halacha 11
When a man engages in promiscuous relations with a woman, the seven relatives mentioned above are not forbidden to him [according to Scriptural Law].22 Nevertheless, our Sages23 prohibited anyone who had promiscuous relations with a woman from marrying one of these seven relatives during the promiscuous woman's lifetime.24 [The rationale is that] the promiscuous woman will come to visit her relatives. He will thus enter into solitude with her. [Since] he is familiar with her, we fear that they will transgress and thus he will engage in relations with an ervah.25
Even if a man is merely suspected of relations with a woman,26 he should not marry one of her relatives until the woman with whom he was suspected of having relations died. If, however, he married the relative of the woman with whom he was suspected of having relations, he should not divorce her.
Halacha 12
When a person was suspected of having relations with an ervah or a rumor to that effect was circulated, he should not dwell together with her in the same lane or appear in the same neighborhood.27 An incident occurred concerning a man who was rumored [to have engaged in relations] with his mother-in-law and our Sages had him beaten28 because he passed by the entrance to her home.
Halacha 13
When a person has promiscuous relations with a woman and her daughter or a woman and her sister or the like, it is as if he had relations with two unrelated woman. One is considered an ervah because of the other only in the instance of marriage, not in an instance of promiscuity. Similarly, if a man's father, son, brother, or father's brother raped a woman or seduced her, she is permitted to him and he may marry her. [The prohibition involving these individuals] mentions "the wife of" and here there is no context of marriage.
Halacha 14
When a man's father or son marries a woman, that man may marry her daughter or her mother as we explained.29 A person may marry the wife of his brother's son.30 A man may marry a woman and her sister's daughter or her brother's daughter at the same time. It is a mitzvah from the Sages for a man to marry his sister's daughter,31 as [alluded to by Isaiah 58:7]: "Do not turn away from your own flesh." This law also applies to his brother's daughter.32
FOOTNOTES
1.
The singular of the term arayot mentioned in the first chapter.
2.
When a man dies childless, one of the brothers of the deceased is obligated to marry his widow to propagate his name. This obligation, yibbum in Hebrew, is described in Deuteronomy, ch. 25, and inHilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah.
3.
I.e., if he transgresses inadvertently. If he transgresses intentionally, he is liable for execution, by stoning for relations with his father's wife and his son's wife, and by strangulation for relations with his brother's wife and the wife of his father's brother. (For the latter two transgressions are punishable by kerait and so he receives the penalty for adultery alone.)
4.
See Chapter 17, Halachah 8, and notes where this concept is explained.
5.
Since the Rambam speaks of laws that apply after the father's death, he mentions only two prohibitions. During the father's lifetime, he is liable for a third prohibition: relations with a married woman.
6.
For the prohibition against relations with all blood relatives applies regardless of whether the person was conceived within marriage or outside of it.
7.
Hilchot Ishut 1:5. This is merely a Rabbinical prohibition.
8.
Even if they were raised in the same household like a brother and a sister, marriage between them is permitted. We are not considered with the possible impression such a union might create [Shulchan Aruch(Even HaEzer 15:11)].
9.
And thus be required to bring two sin offerings.
10.
This applies even if afterwards, the father marries the woman who he raped or seduced (Minchat Chinuch, mitzvah 196).
11.
The fact that her mother was not married to him is not significant.
12.
The Rambam's statements touch on an involved issue. In his Sefer HaMitzvot(General Principle 2), he writes that every concept derived through the principles of Biblical exegesis has the power of Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, commandments derived through these principles are not considered as part of the 613 mitzvot, but are instead "from the words of our Sages."
The prohibition against relations with one's daughter, the Rambam states, is not in that category. Although it is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah and Sanhedrin 76a uses different principles of exegesis to derive it, it is not "from the words of our Sages." Instead, it is as if it was explicitly stated in the Torah. From Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 9:2, it appears that the Rambam's intent is that since the Torah mentions the prohibition against relations with the daughter of one's daughter, the prohibition against relations with one's daughter is obvious. There is no need for the Torah to mention it. It must be mentioned that many other authorities do not follow the same understanding as the Rambam and consider concepts derived through the principles of Biblical exegesis as fully binding Scriptural Law. According to their understanding, there is no difficulty with the prohibition against relations with one's daughter being considered of Scriptural origin.
13.
From the Ra'avad's statements, it appears that he does not require a sin offering for relations with one's daughter. The parenthesis are based on the understanding of the Maggid Mishneh.
14.
As stated in the following halachah.
15.
When stating this law, Shulchan Aruch(Even HaEzer 15:13) emphasizes that if a man rapes a woman, after her death, he may marry her daughter who was conceived by another man. The Ramah adds that even if the rapist marries her daughter during her lifetime, he is not compelled to divorce her.
16.
This is based on the Rambam's understanding of Sanhedrin 76b. Rashi, the Ramban, and the Rashba differ and maintain that after the death of the man's wife, he is prohibited against relations with her close relatives, but is not liable for kerait.
17.
The use of the plural term "them" should not be interpreted to mean that the man's wife should be executed by being burnt to death. For what evil has she committed? Instead, the intent is that only in her lifetime is the death penalty applied (Rashi, Sanhedrin76b).
18.
Sanhedrin, loc. cit., speaks about relations with one's mother-in-law, stating that only when one's wife is alive are these relations punishable by death. Since, however, the prohibition against relations with all the other five women mentioned above is derived from the prohibition against relations with one's mother-in-law, they are bound by the same laws (Maggid Mishneh).
19.
For Leviticus 18:18 explicitly states that the prohibition against relations with the sister of one's wife is "in her lifetime." While the wife is alive, even if she is divorced, the man is forbidden to engage in relations with her sister [Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer15:26)]. After his wife's death, however, he may marry her sister.
20.
For his wife has not transgressed and there is no reason that she should become forbidden.
21.
The Rambam is referring to Hilchot Gerushin 10:8-10 which states:
A man consecrated a woman, she journeyed to another country, the husband heard she died, and [then] married her sister. [If,] afterwards, it was discovered that she had not died, he must divorce both women.... Why did they require that the sister of the woman whom the man consecrated be divorced? Lest people say that the [first] kiddushin were given conditionally, [the condition was not fulfilled,] and thus the law would allow marriage to her sister. Since the [first] woman's sister was divorced... the man's first wife is also forbidden to him lest people think that he married his divorcee's sister.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam maintains that a divorce is required only in such an instance. If, by contrast, he enters into promiscuous relations with the sister of the woman he consecrated, he may still marry her if she consents. This explanation resolves the protests made by the Ra'avad to the Rambam's statements.
22.
For the verses (Leviticus 18:18, 20:14) on which these prohibitions are based mention "taking," i.e., marriage.
23.
See Yevamot 97a.
24.
After her death, however, there are no restrictions on marrying her relatives (ibid., for the reason for the decree no longer applies.
25.
For since he is married to one of her close relatives, she is an ervah for him.
26.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yevamot11:1), the Rambam states that this applies when the suspicion is verified.
27.
This ruling is derived from the law stated in the following clause of the halachah. The Ra' avad questions the Rambam's deduction, stating that extra stringency is appropriate with regard to one's mother-in-law, but otherwise, there is no need to enforce such a restriction. The Maggid Mishneh states that for that reason, lashes were given only with regard to one's mother-in-law, but agrees with the Rambam's ruling, stating that curbs should be placed on any conduct that may lead to promiscuity. See also Chapter 21, Halachah 27.
28.
See Hilchot Sanhedrin 24:5 which states that a judge has the power to subject a person to lashes even if he is not liable according to Torah Law.
29.
Halachah 3.
30.
After she was widowed or divorced.
31.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that a person has a natural affection for his close relatives. Those positive feelings provide a fertile ground of support for the marriage relationship to flourish.
32.
Other Rishonim [Rashi, Rabbenu Tam (Sanhedrin 76) differ and maintain that the mitzvah applies only with regard to one's sister's daughter.
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class
• "Today's Day"
Shabbat, Adar I 4, 5776 · 13 February 2016
Tuesday 4 Adar I 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: T'ruma, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 23-28.
Tanya: And with every (p. 117)...by the tzaddikim (p. 117).
The initial preparations for delving into deep intellectual concepts, especially concepts of G-dliness, are (a) a strenuous effort of the body to be rid of one's delight in worldly matters, and (b) a strenuous effort of the soul to stimulate delight in intellectual pursuit in general, and in G-dly matters in particular.
---------------------
• Daily Thought:
Enter High
Never squeeze yourself into this place called “world” out of fear.
Enter each venture with your head high, as a soul with a lofty mission.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment