Friday, January 27, 2017

CHABAD - TODAY IN JUDAISM: Friday, 27 January 2017 - Today is: Friday, 29 Tevet, 5777 · 27 January 2017 - Candle Lighting Light Candles before sunset ––:––.

CHABAD - TODAY IN JUDAISM: Friday, 27 January 2017 - Today is: Friday, 29 Tevet, 5777 · 27 January 2017 - Candle Lighting
Light Candles before sunset ––:––.
Today in Jewish History:
• Winter
According to Rabbi Judah (cited in the Talmud, Bava Metzia 106b), Tevet 29 marks the end of winter. (As per Genesis 8:22, the year consists of six 2-month "seasons": seedtime, harvest, cold, heat, summer and winter.)
• Passing of R. Yitzchak Kaduri (2006) Rabbi Yitzchak Kaduri, known in recent years as "the eldest of the Kabbalists," in the Holy Land, was born in Baghdad, Iraq in 1898. As a youth, he studied under the great "Ben Ish Chai" (Rabbi Yosef Chaim of Baghdad, 1840-1913) and was regarded as an illu (prodigy) by the sages of the venerable Baghdad Jewish community. In 1922, Rabbi Yitzchak emigrated to the Holy Land and joined the ranks of the Jerusalem Kabbalists, even as he earned his living for many years as a bookbinder. Over the years his fame grew, and thousands flocked to him to receive his counsel and blessing.
Rabbi Kaduri passed away on the 29th of Tevet of 2006, age 108. Hundreds of thousands attended his funeral in Jerusalem.
Daily Quote:

A people is like a walled city, which needs a wall to surround it, with gates that open and close. In other words, we must protect what is best and most precious in ourselves against outside influences, and also be open to the world to give and receive, learn and teach[The Rebbe]
Today's Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Va'eira, 6th Portion Exodus 8:19-9:16 with Rashi

• Exodus Chapter 8
19And I will make a redemption between My people and your people; this sign will come about tomorrow." ' " יטוְשַׂמְתִּ֣י פְדֻ֔ת בֵּ֥ין עַמִּ֖י וּבֵ֣ין עַמֶּ֑ךָ לְמָחָ֥ר יִֽהְיֶ֖ה הָאֹ֥ת הַזֶּֽה:
And I will make a redemption: which will set apart My people from your people. ושמתי פדת: שיבדיל בין עמי ובין עמך:
20The Lord did so, and a heavy mixture of noxious creatures came to Pharaoh's house and his servants' house, and throughout the entire land of Egypt, the land was destroyed because of the mixture of noxious creatures. כוַיַּ֤עַשׂ יְהֹוָה֙ כֵּ֔ן וַיָּבֹא֙ עָרֹ֣ב כָּבֵ֔ד בֵּ֥יתָה פַרְעֹ֖ה וּבֵ֣ית עֲבָדָ֑יו וּבְכָל־אֶ֧רֶץ מִצְרַ֛יִם תִּשָּׁחֵ֥ת הָאָ֖רֶץ מִפְּנֵ֥י הֶעָרֹֽב:
The land was destroyed: the land was destroyed [as Onkelos translates] the land was destroyed תשחת הארץ: נשחתה הארץ אתחבלת ארעא:
21Thereupon, Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron, and he said, "Go, sacrifice to your God in the land." כאוַיִּקְרָ֣א פַרְעֹ֔ה אֶל־משֶׁ֖ה וּלְאַֽהֲרֹ֑ן וַיֹּ֗אמֶר לְכ֛וּ זִבְח֥וּ לֵאלֹֽהֵיכֶ֖ם בָּאָֽרֶץ:
Go, sacrifice… in the land: in your place, and do not go into the desert. זבחו לאלהיכם בארץ: במקומכם, ולא תלכו במדבר:
22But Moses said, "It is improper to do that, for we will sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to God our Lord. Will we sacrifice the deity of the Egyptians before their eyes, and they will not stone us? כבוַיֹּ֣אמֶר משֶׁ֗ה לֹ֤א נָכוֹן֙ לַֽעֲשׂ֣וֹת כֵּ֔ן כִּ֚י תּֽוֹעֲבַ֣ת מִצְרַ֔יִם נִזְבַּ֖ח לַֽיהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֵ֑ינוּ הֵ֣ן נִזְבַּ֞ח אֶת־תּֽוֹעֲבַ֥ת מִצְרַ֛יִם לְעֵֽינֵיהֶ֖ם וְלֹ֥א יִסְקְלֻֽנוּ:
the abomination of the Egyptians: Heb. ךְתּוֹעִבַתמִצְרַיִם, the deity of the Egyptians, like “and for Milcom, the abomination of the children of Ammon” (II Kings 23:13), but for the Jews, [Scripture] calls it an abomination. It may also be explained in another manner: תועבת מצרים: יראת מצרים, כמו (מלכים ב' כג יג) ולמלכום תועבת בני עמון, ואצל ישראל קורא אותה תועבה. ועוד יש לומר בלשון אחר תועבת מצרים, דבר שנאוי הוא למצרים זביחה שאנו זובחים, שהרי יראתם אנו זובחים:
the abomination of the Egyptians: Our slaughtering is a hateful thing to the Egyptians, for we are slaughtering their deity. ולא יסקלנו: בתמיה:
and they will not stone us: This is a question.
23Let us go [for] a three day journey in the desert and sacrifice to the Lord, our God, as He will say to us." כגדֶּ֚רֶךְ שְׁל֣שֶׁת יָמִ֔ים נֵלֵ֖ךְ בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר וְזָבַ֨חְנוּ֙ לַֽיהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֵ֔ינוּ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֖ר יֹאמַ֥ר אֵלֵֽינוּ:
24Pharaoh said, "I will let you go out, and you will sacrifice to the Lord, your God, in the desert, but do not go far away; entreat [Him] on my behalf." כדוַיֹּ֣אמֶר פַּרְעֹ֗ה אָֽנֹכִ֞י אֲשַׁלַּ֤ח אֶתְכֶם֙ וּזְבַחְתֶּ֞ם לַֽיהֹוָ֤ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶם֙ בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר רַ֛ק הַרְחֵ֥ק לֹֽא־תַרְחִ֖יקוּ לָלֶ֑כֶת הַעְתִּ֖ירוּ בַּֽעֲדִֽי:
25Moses said, "Behold, I am going away from you, and I will entreat the Lord, and the mixture of noxious creatures will depart from Pharaoh, from his servants, and from his people tomorrow. Only let Pharaoh not tease anymore, by not letting the people go to sacrifice to the Lord." כהוַיֹּ֣אמֶר משֶׁ֗ה הִנֵּ֨ה אָֽנֹכִ֜י יוֹצֵ֤א מֵֽעִמָּךְ֙ וְהַעְתַּרְתִּ֣י אֶל־יְהֹוָ֔ה וְסָ֣ר הֶֽעָרֹ֗ב מִפַּרְעֹ֛ה מֵֽעֲבָדָ֥יו וּמֵֽעַמּ֖וֹ מָחָ֑ר רַ֗ק אַל־יֹסֵ֤ף פַּרְעֹה֙ הָתֵ֔ל לְבִלְתִּי֙ שַׁלַּ֣ח אֶת־הָעָ֔ם לִזְבֹּ֖חַ לַֽיהֹוָֽה:
tease: Heb. הָתֵל, [like] לְהָתֵל, to tease. [The literal translation is: let Pharaoh stop teasing.] התל: כמו להתל:
26So Moses went away from Pharaoh and entreated the Lord. כווַיֵּצֵ֥א משֶׁ֖ה מֵעִ֣ם פַּרְעֹ֑ה וַיֶּעְתַּ֖ר אֶל־יְהֹוָֽה:
and entreated the Lord: Heb. וַיֶעְתַּר, he exerted himself in prayer. Similarly, if [Scripture] meant to say וַיַעְתִּיר, it could have said it, and that would mean that he increased [words] in prayer. Now, however, because it uses the וַיִפְעַל form, it means that he exerted himself to pray [devoutly]. ויעתר אל ה': נתאמץ בתפלה, וכן אם בא לומר, ויעתיר היה יכול לומר ומשמע וירבה בתפלה, וכשהוא אומר בלשון ויפעל משמע וירבה להתפלל:
27And the Lord did according to Moses' word, and He removed the mixture of noxious creatures from Pharaoh, from his servants, and from his people; not one was left. כזוַיַּ֤עַשׂ יְהֹוָה֙ כִּדְבַ֣ר משֶׁ֔ה וַיָּ֨סַר֙ הֶֽעָרֹ֔ב מִפַּרְעֹ֖ה מֵֽעֲבָדָ֣יו וּמֵֽעַמּ֑וֹ לֹ֥א נִשְׁאַ֖ר אֶחָֽד:
and He removed the mixture of noxious creatures: But they did not die as the frogs had died, for had they [the creatures] died, they [the Egyptians] would have derived benefit from the [animals’] hides. — [from Tanchuma, Va’era 14] ויסר הערב: ולא מתו כמו שמתו הצפרדעים, שאם מתו היה להם הנאה בעורות:
28But Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, and he did not let the people go. כחוַיַּכְבֵּ֤ד פַּרְעֹה֙ אֶת־לִבּ֔וֹ גַּ֖ם בַּפַּ֣עַם הַזֹּ֑את וְלֹ֥א שִׁלַּ֖ח אֶת־הָעָֽם:
this time also: Although he said, “I will let you go out,” he did not keep his promise. גם בפעם הזאת: אף על פי שאמר (פסוק כד) אנכי אשלח אתכם, לא קיים הבטחתו:
Exodus Chapter 91The Lord said to Moses, "Come to Pharaoh and speak to him, 'So said the Lord, God of the Hebrews, "Let My people go, that they may serve Me. אוַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה בֹּ֖א אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה וְדִבַּרְתָּ֣ אֵלָ֗יו כֹּֽה־אָמַ֤ר יְהֹוָה֙ אֱלֹהֵ֣י הָֽעִבְרִ֔ים שַׁלַּ֥ח אֶת־עַמִּ֖י וְיַֽעַבְדֻֽנִי:
2For if you refuse to let them go, and you still hold on to them, בכִּ֛י אִם־מָאֵ֥ן אַתָּ֖ה לְשַׁלֵּ֑חַ וְעֽוֹדְךָ֖ מַֽחֲזִ֥יק בָּֽם:
hold on to them: Heb. מַחִזִיק בָּם, hold on to them, similar to “and take hold (וְהֶחֱזִיקָה) of his private parts” (Deut. 25:11). מחזיק בם: אוחז בם, כמו (דברים כה יא) והחזיקה במבושיו:
3behold, the hand of the Lord will be upon your livestock that is in the field, upon the horses, upon the donkeys, upon the camels, upon the cattle, and upon the sheep, a very severe pestilence. גהִנֵּ֨ה יַד־יְהֹוָ֜ה הוֹיָ֗ה בְּמִקְנְךָ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ה בַּסּוּסִ֤ים בַּֽחֲמֹרִים֙ בַּגְּמַלִּ֔ים בַּבָּקָ֖ר וּבַצֹּ֑אן דֶּ֖בֶר כָּבֵ֥ד מְאֹֽד:
behold, the hand of the Lord will be: Heb. הוֹיָה. This is the present tense, for so it is said in the feminine gender: in the past הָיְתָה, in the future ךְתִּהְיֶה, and in the present הוֹיָה, like עוֹשָֹה (does), רוֹצָה (wants), רוֹעָה (pastures). הנה יד ה' הויה: לשון הוה, כי כן יאמר בלשון נקבה על שעבר היתה ועל העתיד תהיה ועל העומד הויה, כמו עושה, רוצה, רועה:
4And the Lord will make a separation between the livestock of Israel and the livestock of Egypt, and nothing of the children of Israel will die. " ' " דוְהִפְלָ֣ה יְהֹוָ֔ה בֵּ֚ין מִקְנֵ֣ה יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וּבֵ֖ין מִקְנֵ֣ה מִצְרָ֑יִם וְלֹ֥א יָמ֛וּת מִכָּל־לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל דָּבָֽר:
will make a separation: Heb. וְהִפְלָה, will set apart. והפלה: והבדיל:
5The Lord set an appointed time, saying, "Tomorrow, God will do this thing in the land." הוַיָּ֥שֶׂם יְהֹוָ֖ה מוֹעֵ֣ד לֵאמֹ֑ר מָחָ֗ר יַֽעֲשֶׂ֧ה יְהֹוָ֛ה הַדָּבָ֥ר הַזֶּ֖ה בָּאָֽרֶץ:
6God did this thing on the morrow, and all the livestock of the Egyptians died, but of the livestock of the children of Israel not one died. ווַיַּ֨עַשׂ יְהֹוָ֜ה אֶת־הַדָּבָ֤ר הַזֶּה֙ מִמָּ֣חֳרָ֔ת וַיָּ֕מָת כֹּ֖ל מִקְנֵ֣ה מִצְרָ֑יִם וּמִמִּקְנֵ֥ה בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֹא־מֵ֥ת אֶחָֽד:
7And Pharaoh sent, and behold, not even one of the livestock of Israel died, but Pharaoh's heart became hardened, and he did not let the people out. זוַיִּשְׁלַ֣ח פַּרְעֹ֔ה וְהִנֵּ֗ה לֹא־מֵ֛ת מִמִּקְנֵ֥ה יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל עַד־אֶחָ֑ד וַיִּכְבַּד֙ לֵ֣ב פַּרְעֹ֔ה וְלֹ֥א שִׁלַּ֖ח אֶת־הָעָֽם:
8The Lord said to Moses and to Aaron, "Take yourselves handfuls of furnace soot, and Moses shall cast it heavenward before Pharaoh's eyes. חוַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהֹוָה֘ אֶל־משֶׁ֣ה וְאֶל־אַֽהֲרֹן֒ קְח֤וּ לָכֶם֙ מְלֹ֣א חָפְנֵיכֶ֔ם פִּ֖יחַ כִּבְשָׁ֑ן וּזְרָק֥וֹ משֶׁ֛ה הַשָּׁמַ֖יְמָה לְעֵינֵ֥י פַרְעֹֽה:
handfuls-: Jaloynes in Old French, double handfuls. מלא חפניכם: ילויני"ש בלעז [גלונים]:
furnace soot: Heb. פִּיחַ, a substance blown (נִפָּח) from dying embers that were burned in a furnace, and in Old French [it is called] olbes, cinders from a furnace. פִּיחַ is an expression of blowing (הֲפָחָה), that the wind blows them (מְפִיחָן) and makes them fly. פיח כבשן: דבר הנפח מן הגחלים עמומים הנשרפים בכבשן, ובלעז אולבי"ש [אפר]. פיח לשון הפחה, שהרוח מפיחן ומפריחן:
and Moses shall cast it: And anything cast with strength can be cast only with one hand. Hence there are many miracles [here], one that Moses [single] handful held his own double handfuls and those of Aaron, and [another miracle was] that the dust went over the entire land of Egypt. — [from Tanchuma Va’era 14] וזרקו משה: כל דבר הנזרק בכח אינו נזרק אלא ביד אחת. הרי נסים הרבה, אחד שהחזיק קומצו של משה מלא חפנים שלו ושל אהרן. ואחד שהלך האבק על כל ארץ מצרים:
9And it will become dust upon the entire land of Egypt, and it will become boils, breaking out into blisters upon man and upon beast throughout the entire land of Egypt." טוְהָיָ֣ה לְאָבָ֔ק עַ֖ל כָּל־אֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם וְהָיָ֨ה עַל־הָֽאָדָ֜ם וְעַל־הַבְּהֵמָ֗ה לִשְׁחִ֥ין פֹּרֵ֛חַ אֲבַעְבֻּעֹ֖ת בְּכָל־אֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם:
boils, breaking out into blisters: As the Targum [Onkelos] renders: שִׁיחִנָא סַגִי אִבַעְבּוּעִין, through which blisters break out. לשחין פרח אבעבעת: כתרגומו לשחין סגי אבעבועין, שעל ידו צומחין בהן בועות:
boils: Heb. שְׁחִין, an expression of heat. There are many [examples of this word] in the language of the Mishnah: “a hot (שְחוּנַה) year” (Yoma 53b, Ta’anith 24b). שחין: לשון חמימות. והרבה יש בלשון משנה (יומא נג ב) שנה שחונה:
10So they took furnace soot, and they stood before Pharaoh, and Moses cast it heavenward, and it became boils breaking out into blisters upon man and upon beast. יוַיִּקְח֞וּ אֶת־פִּ֣יחַ הַכִּבְשָׁ֗ן וַיַּֽעַמְדוּ֙ לִפְנֵ֣י פַרְעֹ֔ה וַיִּזְרֹ֥ק אֹת֛וֹ משֶׁ֖ה הַשָּׁמָ֑יְמָה וַיְהִ֗י שְׁחִין֙ אֲבַעְבֻּעֹ֔ת פֹּרֵ֕חַ בָּֽאָדָ֖ם וּבַבְּהֵמָֽה:
upon man and upon beast: Now if you ask, “From where did they have beasts? Does it not say already, ‘and all the livestock of the Egyptians died’ (above, verse 6) ?” [I will answer that] the decree was leveled only upon those in the field, as it is said: “upon your livestock that is in the field” (above, verse 3), but he who feared the word of the Lord brought all his livestock into the houses, and so it is taught in the Mechilta (Beshallach 1) regarding “He took six hundred chosen chariots” (Exod. 14:7). — [See Rashi on that verse.] באדם ובבהמה: ואם תאמר מאין היו להם הבהמות והלא כבר נאמר (פסוק ו) וימת כל מקנה מצרים, אלא לא נגזרה גזרה אלא על אותן שבשדות בלבד, שנאמר (פסוק ג) במקנך אשר בשדה והירא את דבר ה' הניס את מקנהו אל הבתים. וכן שנויה במכילתא אצל (יד ז) ויקח שש מאות רכב בחור:
11And the necromancers could not stand before Moses because of the boils, for the boils were upon the necromancers and upon all Egypt. יאוְלֹא־יָֽכְל֣וּ הַֽחַרְטֻמִּ֗ים לַֽעֲמֹ֛ד לִפְנֵ֥י משֶׁ֖ה מִפְּנֵ֣י הַשְּׁחִ֑ין כִּֽי־הָיָ֣ה הַשְּׁחִ֔ין בַּֽחַרְטֻמִּ֖ם וּבְכָל־מִצְרָֽיִם:
12But the Lord strengthened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not hearken to them, as the Lord spoke to Moses. יבוַיְחַזֵּ֤ק יְהֹוָה֙ אֶת־לֵ֣ב פַּרְעֹ֔ה וְלֹ֥א שָׁמַ֖ע אֲלֵהֶ֑ם כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר דִּבֶּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־משֶֽׁה:
13The Lord said to Moses, "Rise early in the morning and stand erect before Pharaoh, and say to him, 'So said the Lord, the God of the Hebrews, "Let My people go so that they may worship Me. יגוַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה הַשְׁכֵּ֣ם בַּבֹּ֔קֶר וְהִתְיַצֵּ֖ב לִפְנֵ֣י פַרְעֹ֑ה וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֣ אֵלָ֗יו כֹּֽה־אָמַ֤ר יְהֹוָה֙ אֱלֹהֵ֣י הָֽעִבְרִ֔ים שַׁלַּ֥ח אֶת־עַמִּ֖י וְיַֽעַבְדֻֽנִי:
14Because this time, I am sending all My plagues into your heart and into your servants and into your people, in order that you know that there is none like Me in the entire earth. ידכִּ֣י | בַּפַּ֣עַם הַזֹּ֗את אֲנִ֨י שֹׁלֵ֜חַ אֶת־כָּל־מַגֵּֽפֹתַי֙ אֶל־לִבְּ֔ךָ וּבַֽעֲבָדֶ֖יךָ וּבְעַמֶּ֑ךָ בַּֽעֲב֣וּר תֵּדַ֔ע כִּ֛י אֵ֥ין כָּמֹ֖נִי בְּכָל־הָאָֽרֶץ:
all My plagues: We learn from here that the plague of the firstborn (מַכַּתבְּכוֹרוֹת) is equivalent to all the plagues. את כל מגפתי: למדנו מכאן שמכת בכורות שקולה כנגד כל המכות:
15For if now I had stretched forth My hand, and I had smitten you and your people with pestilence, you would have been annihilated from the earth. טוכִּ֤י עַתָּה֙ שָׁלַ֣חְתִּי אֶת־יָדִ֔י וָאַ֥ךְ אֽוֹתְךָ֛ וְאֶת־עַמְּךָ֖ בַּדָּ֑בֶר וַתִּכָּחֵ֖ד מִן־הָאָֽרֶץ:
For if now I had stretched forth My hand, etc.: For if I had so desired, when My hand was upon your livestock, when I smote them with pestilence, I could have stretched it forth and smitten you and your people along with the beasts, and you would have been annihilated from the earth; “but for this [reason] I have allowed you to stand, etc.” כי עתה שלחתי את ידי וגו': כי אלו רציתי כשהיתה ידי במקנך שהכיתים בדבר שלחתיה והכיתי אותך ואת עמך עם הבהמות ותכחד מן הארץ, אבל בעבור זאת העמדתיך וגו':
16But, for this [reason] I have allowed you to stand, in order to show you My strength and in order to declare My name all over the earth. טזוְאוּלָ֗ם בַּֽעֲב֥וּר זֹאת֙ הֶֽעֱמַדְתִּ֔יךָ בַּֽעֲב֖וּר הַרְאֹֽתְךָ֣ אֶת־כֹּחִ֑י וּלְמַ֛עַן סַפֵּ֥ר שְׁמִ֖י בְּכָל־הָאָֽרֶץ:

• Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 140 - 150
• 
Chapter 140

David composed this psalm against his slanderers, especially the chief conspirator Doeg. Anyone confronted by slanderers should recite this psalm.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. Rescue me from the evil man, protect me from the man of violence,
3. who devise evil schemes in their heart; every day they gather for wars.
4. They sharpen their tongues like a serpent; the spider's venom is forever under their lips.
5. Guard me, Lord, from the hands of the wicked, protect me from the man of violence-those who plot to cause my steps to slip.
6. Arrogant ones have hidden a snare for me, and ropes; they spread a net by my path, they set traps for me continually.
7. I said to the Lord, "You are my God!" Listen, O Lord, to the voice of my pleas.
8. God, my Lord, the strength of my deliverance, You sheltered my head on the day of armed battle.
9. Grant not, O Lord, the desires of the wicked; fulfill not his scheme, make it unattainable forever.
10. As for the head of my besiegers, let the deceit of their own lips bury them.
11. Let burning coals fall upon them; let it cast them down into the fire, into deep pits, never to rise again.
12. Let not the slanderous man be established in the land; let the evil of the man of violence trap him until he is overthrown.
13. I know that the Lord will execute judgement for the poor, justice for the needy.
14. Indeed, the righteous will extol Your Name; the upright will dwell in Your presence.
Chapter 141
This psalm teaches an important lesson: One should pray for Divine assistance that his mouth not speak that which is not in his heart. The gatekeeper only allows the gate to be opened for a purpose; let it be the same with one's lips.
1. A psalm by David. O Lord, I have called You, hasten to me; listen to my voice when I call to You.
2. Let my prayer be set forth as incense before You, the raising of my hands as an afternoon offering.
3. O Lord, place a guard for my mouth, keep watch over the door of my lips.
4. Do not incline my heart to a bad thing-to perform deeds in wickedness, with men, doers of evil; let me not partake of their delicacies.
5. Let the righteous one strike me with kindness and let him rebuke me; like the finest oil, let my head not refuse it. For as long [as I live], my prayer is [to preserve me] from their harm.
6. For their judges have slipped because of their [hearts of] rock, though they heard my words and they were pleasant.
7. As one who chops and splinters [wood] on the ground, so have our bones been scattered to the mouth of the grave.
8. For to You, God, my Lord, are my eyes; in You I take shelter; do not pour out my soul.
9. Protect me from the hands of the snare they laid for me, and from the traps of the evildoers.
10. Let the wicked fall into their own nets together, until I pass over.
Chapter 142
David composed this psalm while hiding from Saul in a cave, at which time he had cut off the corner of Saul's garment (to prove that he was able to kill him but did not wish to do so). He declared, "Where can I turn, and where can I run? All I have is to cry out to You!"
1. A maskil1 by David, when he was in the cave, a prayer.
2. With my voice I will cry out to the Lord; with my voice I will call to the Lord in supplication.
3. I will pour out my plea before Him; I will declare my distress in His presence.
4. When my spirit is faint within me, You know my path. In the way in which I walk, they have hidden a snare for me.
5. Look to my right and see, there is none that will know me; every escape is lost to me. No man cares for my soul.
6. I cried out to You, O Lord; I said, "You are my refuge, my portion in the land of the living.”
7. Listen to my song of prayer, for I have been brought very low. Deliver me from my pursuers, for they are too mighty for me.
8. Release my soul from confinement, so that it may acknowledge Your Name. Because of me, the righteous will crown [You] when You will deal graciously with me.
FOOTNOTES
1.A psalm intended to enlighten and impart knowledge(Metzudot).
Chapter 143
1. A psalm by David. O Lord, hear my prayer, lend Your ear to my supplications. With Your faithfulness answer me, and with Your righteousness.
2. Do not enter into judgment with Your servant, for no living being would be vindicated before You.
3. For the enemy has pursued my soul; he has crushed my life to the ground; he has set me down in dark places, like those who are eternally dead.
4. Then my spirit became faint within me; my heart was dismayed within me.
5. I remembered the days of old; I meditated on all Your deeds; I spoke of Your handiwork.
6. I spread out my hands to You; like a languishing land my soul yearns after You, Selah.
7. Answer me soon, O Lord, my spirit is spent; hide not Your face from me, lest I become like those who descend into the pit.
8. Let me hear Your kindness in the morning, for have I trusted in You. Let me know the way in which I should walk, for to You I have lifted my soul.
9. Deliver me from my enemies, O Lord. I have concealed [my troubles from all, save] You.
10. Teach me to do Your will, for You are my God. Let Your good spirit lead me in an even path.
11. For the sake of Your Name, O Lord, give me life; in Your righteousness, take my soul out of distress.
12. And in Your kindness, cut off my enemies and obliterate all those who oppress my soul, for I am Your servant.
Chapter 144
After triumphing in all his wars, David composed this psalm in praise of God.
1. By David. Blessed be the Lord, my Rock, Who trains my hands for battle and my fingers for war.
2. My source of kindness and my fortress, my high tower and my rescuer, my shield, in Whom I take refuge; it is He Who makes my people submit to me.
3. O Lord, what is man that You have recognized him; the son of a mortal, that You are mindful of him?
4. Man is like a breath; his days are like a passing shadow.
5. O Lord, incline Your heavens and descend; touch the mountains and they will become vapor.
6. Flash one bolt of lightning and You will scatter them; send out Your arrows and You will confound them.
7. Stretch forth Your hands from on high, rescue me and deliver me out of many waters, from the hand of strangers,
8. whose mouth speaks deceit and whose right hand is a right hand of falsehood.
9. God, I will sing a new song to You, I will play to You upon a harp of ten strings.
10. He who gives victory to kings, He will rescue David, His servant, from the evil sword.
11. Rescue me and deliver me from the hand of strangers, whose mouth speaks deceit and whose right hand is a right hand of falsehood.
12. For our sons are like plants, brought up to manliness in their youth; our daughters are like cornerstones, fashioned after the fashion of a palace.
13. Our storehouses are full, overflowing with all manner of food; our sheep increase by the thousands, growing by the tens of thousands in our open fields.
14. Our leaders bear the heaviest burden; there is none who break through, nor is there bad report, nor outcry in our streets.
15. Happy is the nation for whom this is so. Happy is that nation whose God is the Lord.
Chapter 145
One who recites this psalm three times daily with absolute concentration is guaranteed a portion in the World to Come. Because of its prominence, this psalm was composed in alphabetical sequence.
1. A psalm of praise by David: I will exalt You, my God the King, and bless Your Name forever.
2. Every day I will bless You, and extol Your Name forever.
3. The Lord is great and exceedingly exalted; there is no limit to His greatness.
4. One generation to another will laud Your works, and tell of Your mighty acts.
5. I will speak of the splendor of Your glorious majesty and of Your wondrous deeds.
6. They will proclaim the might of Your awesome acts, and I will recount Your greatness.
7. They will express the remembrance of Your abounding goodness, and sing of Your righteousness.
8. The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and of great kindness.
9. The Lord is good to all, and His mercies extend over all His works.
10. Lord, all Your works will give thanks to You, and Your pious ones will bless You.
11. They will declare the glory of Your kingdom, and tell of Your strength,
12. to make known to men His mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of His kingdom.
13. Your kingship is a kingship over all worlds, and Your dominion is throughout all generations.
14. The Lord supports all who fall, and straightens all who are bent.
15. The eyes of all look expectantly to You, and You give them their food at the proper time.
16. You open Your hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing.
17. The Lord is righteous in all His ways, and benevolent in all His deeds.
18. The Lord is close to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth.
19. He fulfills the desire of those who fear Him, hears their cry and delivers them.
20. The Lord watches over all who love Him, and will destroy all the wicked.
21. My mouth will utter the praise of the Lord, and let all flesh bless His holy Name forever.
Chapter 146
This psalm inspires man to repent and perform good deeds while still alive. Let him not rely on mortals who are unable to help themselves, and who may suddenly pass on. Rather, one should put his trust in God, Who is capable of carrying out all He desires.
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord, O my soul.
2. I will sing to the Lord with my soul; I will chant praises to my God while I yet exist.
3. Do not place your trust in nobles, nor in mortal man who has not the ability to bring deliverance.
4. When his spirit departs, he returns to his earth; on that very day, his plans come to naught.
5. Fortunate is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope rests upon the Lord his God.
6. He makes the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them; He keeps His promise faithfully forever.
7. He renders justice to the oppressed; He gives food to the hungry; the Lord releases those who are bound.
8. The Lord opens the eyes of the blind; the Lord straightens those who are bowed; the Lord loves the righteous.
9. The Lord watches over the strangers; He gives strength to orphan and widow; He thwarts the way of the wicked.
10. The Lord shall reign forever, your God, O Zion, throughout all generations. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 147
This psalm recounts God's greatness, and His kindness and goodness to His creations.
1. Praise the Lord! Sing to our God for He is good; praise befits Him for He is pleasant.
2. The Lord is the rebuilder of Jerusalem; He will gather the banished of Israel.
3. He heals the broken-hearted, and bandages their wounds.
4. He counts the number of the stars; He gives a name to each of them.
5. Great is our Master and abounding in might; His understanding is beyond reckoning.
6. The Lord strengthens the humble; He casts the wicked to the ground.
7. Lift your voices to the Lord in gratitude; sing to our God with the harp.
8. He covers the heaven with clouds; He prepares rain for the earth, and makes grass grow upon the mountains.
9. He gives the animal its food, to the young ravens which cry to Him.
10. He does not desire [those who place their trust in] the strength of the horse, nor does He want those who rely upon the thighs [swiftness] of man.
11. He desires those who fear Him, those who long for His kindness.
12. Praise the Lord, O Jerusalem; Zion, extol your God.
13. For He has strengthened the bolts of your gates; He has blessed your children in your midst.
14. He has made peace within your borders; He satiates you with the finest of wheat.
15. He issues His command to the earth; swiftly does His word run.
16. He dispenses snow like fleece; He scatters frost like ashes.
17. He hurls His ice like morsels; who can withstand His cold?
18. He sends forth His word and melts them; He causes His wind to blow, and the waters flow.
19. He tells His words [Torah] to Jacob, His statutes and ordinances to Israel.
20. He has not done so for other nations, and they do not know [His] ordinances. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 148
The psalmist inspires one to praise God for His creations-above and below-all of which exist by God's might alone.
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise Him in the celestial heights.
2. Praise Him, all His angels; praise Him, all His hosts.
3. Praise Him, sun and moon; praise Him, all the shining stars.
4. Praise Him, hea-ven of heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens.
5. Let them praise the Name of the Lord, for He comman-ded and they were created.
6. He has established them forever, for all time; He issued a decree, and it shall not be transgressed.
7. Praise the Lord from the earth, sea-monsters and all [that dwell in] the depths;
8. fire and hail, snow and vapor, stormy wind carrying out His command;
9. the mountains and all hills, fruit-bearing trees and all cedars;
10. the beasts and all cattle, creeping things and winged fowl;
11. kings of the earth and all nations, rulers and all judges of the land;
12. young men as well as maidens, elders with young lads.
13. Let them praise the Name of the Lord, for His Name is sublime, to Himself; its radiance [alone] is upon earth and heaven.
14. He shall raise the glory of His people, [increase] the praise of all His pious ones, the Children of Israel, the people close to Him. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 149
1. Praise the Lord! Sing to the Lord a new song, [recount] His praise in the assembly of the pious.
2. Israel will rejoice in its Maker; the children of Zion will delight in their King.
3. They will praise His Name with dancing; they will sing to Him with the drum and harp.
4. For the Lord desires His people; He will adorn the humble with salvation.
5. The pious will exult in glory; they will sing upon their beds.
6. The exaltation of God is in their throat, and a double-edged sword in their hand,
7. to bring retribution upon the nations, punishment upon the peoples;
8. to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with iron fetters;
9. to execute upon them the prescribed judgment; it shall be a glory for all His pious ones. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 150
This psalm contains thirteen praises, alluding to the Thirteen Attributes (of Mercy) with which God conducts the world.
1. Praise the Lord! Praise God in His holiness; praise Him in the firmament of His strength.
2. Praise Him for His mighty acts; praise Him according to His abundant greatness.
3. Praise Him with the call of the shofar; praise Him with harp and lyre.
4. Praise Him with timbrel and dance; praise Him with stringed instruments and flute.
5. Praise Him with resounding cymbals; praise Him with clanging cymbals.
6. Let every soul praise the Lord. Praise the Lord!
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 18
• Lessons in Tanya

• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Friday, 
29 Tevet, 5777 · 27 January 2017
• Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 18
• 
In the previous chapter the Alter Rebbe discussed the verse,1 “For this thing is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it” (i.e., it is simple for you to fulfill the mitzvot with your heart, with love and awe of G‑d). He explained that through contemplating G‑d’s greatness every person can come to experience such love and awe. Not every man, to be sure, is a tzaddik, with his heart under his control. But everyone’s mind is under his control, and he can focus his mind in meditation on any subject he chooses. Even if the love and awe produced by such meditation do not make themselves felt in the heart in a revealed way, they will at least appear in his mind, and in the recesses of his heart, as an attitude of love and awe. Even this detached form of love and awe is sufficient to motivate one to observe the mitzvot, and will enable the mitzvot so motivated to soar heavenward as though he had observed them with a true love and awe of G‑d actually felt in the heart.


But it cannot truly be said of love and awe which must be created by way of meditation, that their attainment is “very near” to everyone. Meditation requires knowledge of the subject at hand, and intellectual predisposition. If one’s understanding of G‑d’s greatness is scant, or if he lacks the intellectual capacity for meditation, how is it “very near” to him to observe the mitzvot with love and awe of G‑d?
In the following chapters the Alter Rebbe will therefore explain an alternative method of attaining the love and awe of G‑d, a method that may be used even by one with the aforementioned shortcomings. It consists of arousing the natural love of G‑d that lies hidden in the heart of every Jew, a love that is his birthright, his inheritance from our Patriarchs. No meditation is needed to arouse it; all that is required of him is to recall and to make himself aware of this love — and he will be motivated by this recollection to observe the mitzvot. Since no meditation is required to create them, such love and awe of G‑d are indeed “very near.” They are accessible to all.
ולתוספת ביאור באר היטב מלת מאד שבפסוק: כי קרוב אליך הדבר מאד וגו׳
To explain more clearly and more precisely the word “very” in the verse,2“For this thing is very near to you…,”
The word “very” indicates that it is an extremely simple matter to serve G‑d “with one’s heart” — with love and fear of G‑d. In the previous chapter the Alter Rebbe explained that a love of G‑d is readily attainable through meditation on G‑d’s greatness, whereby one can generate at least an “intellectual love” — tevunah. Yet it cannot be said of profound meditation that it is “very near to you.”
צריך לידע נאמנה כי אף מי שדעתו קצרה בידיעת ה׳, ואין לו לב להבין בגדולת אין סוף ברוך הוא
one should recognize with certainty that even the person who has only a limited understanding of G‑d’s greatness, so that he lacks the materials necessary for meditation, and he has no heart to comprehend the greatness of the blessed infinite G‑d — his mind and heart are not suited to meditation, so that he lacks the tools of meditation,
להוליד ממנה דחילו ורחימו, אפילו במוחו ותבונתו לבד
to produce, through meditation, a fear and love even in his mind and understanding alone — how much more so is he unable to produce a vibrant, fervent love and fear:
אף על פי כן קרוב אליו הדבר מאד לשמור ולעשות כל מצות התורה, ותלמוד תורה כנגד כולן
yet it is a “very near thing” for him to guard himself from transgressing the prohibitive commandments, through a fear of G‑d, and to practice the positive commandments, which require a love of G‑d — these together comprising all the commandments of the Torah, and in particular the study of Torah which counterbalances them all.
בפיו ובלבבו ממש, מעומקא דלבא באמת לאמיתו, בדחילו ורחימו
He can fulfill all this in his mouth and in his heart — in the true sense of “heart” — that is, not only in the superficial sense of the word “heart,” which means to say “in his thoughts”; but in the true sense of “with heart” — namely, “with feeling,” from the depths of his heart, in absolute sincerity, with love and fear, as opposed to the tevunah-emotions, which cannot properly be called love and fear; they are so designated only insofar as they motivate one’s actions.
The love and fear of which the Alter Rebbe will now speak are emotions in the fullest sense of the word. But how can one acquire a true love and fear of G‑d if he is incapable of meditation? In answer, the author continues:
שהיא אהבה מסותרת שבלב כללות ישראל שהיא ירושה לנו מאבותינו
This is the hidden love present in the heart of all Jews, which is an inheritance to us from our Patriarchs.
Since every Jew already possesses this love as an inheritance, he need not create it through meditation; all that is required of him is that he arouse it and implement it in his observance of the mitzvot. In order to explain how one goes about doing so, the author first discusses the characteristics of this love.
רק שצריך לבאר ולהקדים תחלה באר היטב שרש אהבה זו ועניינה
But we must first preface a clear and precise explanation of the origin of this love, i.e., which level of the soul it stems from, and its character, i.e., what sort of striving this love constitutes.
There is a love of G‑d which seeks a unity with G‑d while still remaining a separate entity — a soul clothed in a body; there is another kind of love which is a yearning for self-extinction; and so forth. What drive is contained in this love which is our inheritance?
ואיך היא ירושה לנו, ואיך נכלל בה גם דחילו
Also, how did this love become our inheritance? How does one inherit a love? And how is fear also incorporated in it?
For, as stated previously, observance of the prohibitive commandments requires a fear of G‑d. Therefore, the statement that the hidden love in every Jew will lead him to observe all the commandments, implies that this love also contains an element of awe.
והענין: כי האבות הן הן המרכבה
The explanation is as follows:3 The Patriarchs were truly the “chariot” of G‑d, i.e., they were completely subservient to Him and had no other will but the Divine Will, just as a chariot has no will of its own but is directed solely by the will of the rider.
ועל כן זכו להמשיך נפש רוח ונשמה לבניהם אחריהם עד עולם, מעשר ספירות דקדושה שבארבע עולמות אצילות בריאה יצירה עשיה, לכל אחד ואחד כפי מדרגתו וכפי מעשיו
Therefore, they merited the privilege of drawing down, for all subsequent generations of their descendants, forever, a Nefesh, Ruach and Neshamah from the ten holy Sefirot of the Four Worlds of Atzilut, Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah.4 In which of the Four Worlds, and from which Sefirah within these Worlds, does the soul originate? Each individual — according to his level and according to his deeds.
“His level” refers to the level of the root of his soul; “his deeds” refers to one’s efforts towards refining himself — as the Zohar states: “When one betters himself, he is given a higher order of soul.”
ועל כל פנים אפילו לקל שבקלים ופושעי ישראל נמשך בזיווגם נפש דנפש דמלכות דעשיה
At any rate, even the unworthiest and most sinful Jews draw down, by their marital union, a Nefesh from the level of Nefesh of Malchut deAsiyah (“the Attribute of Royalty in the World of Action”).
This means to say that the union of every Jewish couple, no matter how low their spiritual level, brings forth a soul from, at the very least, the lowest level of holiness. This lowest level is Nefesh deMalchut deAsiyah. For Asiyah is the lowest of the Four Worlds, and Malchut is the lowest Sefirah within that World. Malchut itself is further composed of three levels — Nefesh, Ruach and Neshamah, Nefesh being the lowest of the three. In addition, as we have seen in the previous chapters, the soul itself consists of the three levels of Nefesh, Ruach and Neshamah. Thus, one who has been given only a Nefesh which stems from Nefesh deMalchut deAsiyah, has the lowest order of soul deriving from the lowest level in the spiritual hierarchy — as the Alter Rebbe now goes on to say.
שהיא מדרגה התחתונה שבקדושת העשיה
This is the lowest level of holiness in the world of Asiyah.
ואף על פי כן, מאחר שהיא מעשר ספירות קדושות
Yet, since [Malchut] is one of the ten holy Sefirot, and since holiness is the realm of unity, where every level is comprised of all the other levels, perforce
היא כלולה מכולן, גם מחכמה דעשיה
it (the lowest level in Asiyah) is compounded of all the other levels in Asiyah, including Chochmah deAsiyah (“Wisdom of the World of Action”), the highest Sefirah in Asiyah.
שבתוכה מלובשת חכמה דמלכות דאצילות
Within [Chochmah deAsiyah] is clothed Chochmah deMalchut deAtzilut(“Wisdom of Royalty in the World of Emanation”).
As the author explains in ch. 52, the Sefirah of Malchut deAtzilut clothes itself in, and illuminates, the World of Asiyah. Since Malchut deAtzilut contains all the Sefirot of Atzilut, the illumination of Asiyah by Malchut thus means that each Sefirah of Atzilut as it is contained in Malchut deAtzilut, garbs itself in the corresponding Sefirah of Asiyah — Chochmah deMalchut deAtzilut in Chochmah deAsiyah, Binah deMalchut deAtzilut in Binah deAsiyah, and so forth.
שבתוכה חכמה דאצילות, שבה מאיר אור אין סוף ברוך הוא ממש
In Chochmah deMalchut deAtzilut is clothed Chochmah deAtzilut, since all the Sefirot of Atzilut incorporate each other, which, in turn, is illuminated by the actual light of the blessed Ein Sof,
כדכתיב: ה׳ בחכמה יסד ארץ, וכולם בחכמה עשית
as it is written,5 “G‑d, in His wisdom, founded the earth”; The words “G‑d in His wisdom” show that the light of the Ein Sof illuminates the Sefirahof Chochmah, while the words “wisdom founded the earth” indicate thatChochmah is clothed in Malchut, which is called “earth” (for, like the earth,Malchut is the lowest level in its hierarchy); and it is further written,6 “In wisdom you have made them all” (the word “made” indicating thatChochmah is clothed in Asiyah — action).
ונמצא כי אין סוף ברוך הוא מלובש בבחינת חכמה שבנפש האדם, יהיה מי שיהיה מישראל
Thus we see that the light of the blessed Ein Sof is garbed in the faculty of wisdom in the human soul, of whatever sort of a Jew he may be. (Further in the chapter, the Alter Rebbe explains why it is the faculty of wisdom in the soul that receives the illumination of the Ein Sof.)
ובחינת החכמה שבה, עם אור אין סוף ברוך הוא המלובש בה, מתפשטת בכל בחינות הנפש כולה להחיותה מבחינת ראשה עד בחינת רגלה
In turn, the soul’s faculty of wisdom, together with the light of the blessed Ein Sof that is garbed in it, suffuses all the levels of the soul in its entirety, from head to foot, as it were, i.e., from the highest level of the soul to the lowest, to animate them with G‑dly vitality,
כדכתיב: החכמה תחיה בעליה
as it is written,7 “Wisdom gives life to those who possess it” — the soul, which possesses the faculty of wisdom, receives its life by means of this faculty, as stated above.
ולפעמים ממשיכים פושעי ישראל נשמות גבוהות מאד שהיו בעמקי הקליפות, כמו שכתוב בספר גלגולים
(8At times, the sinners of Israel may even bring down for their childrenvery lofty souls which had been in the depths of the kelipot, as is explained in Sefer Gilgulim.)9
A soul that has fallen captive in the hands of the kelipot remains in this state until the kelipot release it of their own will. Anything in the hold of the kelipot cannot be wrested from them against their will, for the principle that10 “G‑d does not make unjustifiable demands of His creations,” holds true even with regard to kelipot. In the case of a child to be born to sinful parents, the kelipot willingly release the soul, in the hope that such a child will be influenced by its parents, and will become a sinner like them. In this way, the kelipot stand to extract an even greater measure of vitality from the holiness of the soul by means of its eventual sins. However, having such a lofty soul, the child is able to overcome the obstacles imposed by its parents‘ wickedness, and may rise to the level of a tzaddik. In this way, paradoxically, it comes to pass that a tzaddik may be born to wicked parents because of their wickedness.11
Returning to his original point, that every Jew has a soul which stems from the holy Sefirot, and that ultimately each soul is animated by the light of the Ein Sof by way of the soul’s faculty of wisdom (Chochmah), the Alter Rebbe now goes on to explain why it is Chochmah that is the original recipient of the light of the Ein Sof. The explanation is based on a discussion of the nature of the soul’s faculty of wisdom, which now follows:
FOOTNOTES
1.
Devarim 30:14.
2.
Devarim 30:14.
3.
See ch. 23.
4.
These terms are explained above, ch. 2.
5.
Mishlei 3:19.
6.
Tehillim 104:24.
7.
Kohelet 7:12.
8.
Parentheses are in the original text.
9.
Book on Transmigration, by R. Chayim Vital.
10.
Avodah Zarah 3a.
11.
The relevance of this point here is clarified by the explanation given by the Rebbe of the final passage of ch. 2. See there.
• Rambam - Friday, 29 Tevet, 5777 · 27 January 2017

• Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"

• Negative Commandment 179 (Digest)
• Creeping Creatures or Insects
"You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creeps, neither shall you make yourselves unclean with them"—Leviticus 11:43.
It is forbidden to eat any creeping creature or insect.
Though there are other prohibitions regarding specific types of insects and creeping creatures (e.g., flying ones, ones that creep on the ground), this prohibition adds a second "encompassing" prohibition on all sorts of creeping creatures, so that one who eats a specific type of creeping creature has transgressed two commandments.
• Creeping Creatures or Insects[From the beginning of this mitzvah until the words "However, this is not a proper explanation," the Rambam explains the mitzvah according to an opinion he rejects. This mitzvah, he later concludes, prohibits eating a water insect. When quoting such an opinion, the Rambam usually hints at the outset that he disagrees. Kapach (5731, note 88) suggests that this first part was an early draft, and the Rambam later changed his mind.]
The 179th prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating any insect whatsoever, regardless of whether it flies (sheretz ha'of), breeds in the water (sheretz hamayim) or on land (sheretz ha'aretz).
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not make yourselves disgusting [by eating] any small creature that breeds. Do not defile yourselves with them, because it will make you spiritually insensitive."
This constitutes a separate prohibition punishable by lashes, and resembles an issur kolel (inclusive prohibition). Therefore, one who eats an insect which breeds on the ground (sheretz ha'aretz) receives two sets of lashes: once for the prohibition,2 "Every small creature which breeds on land is repulsive to you. It may not be eaten," and once for the prohibition, "Do not make yourselves disgusting [by eating] any small creature that breeds." Similarly, one who eats a flying insect (sheretz ha'of) receives two sets of lashes: once for the prohibition,3 "All flying insects are unclean to you. They may not be eaten," and once for the prohibition, "Do not make yourselves disgusting [by eating] any small creature that breeds." And if one eats a single insect which both flies and breeds on the ground, and therefore qualifies both as a sheretz ha'of and a sheretz ha'aretz, he receives four sets of lashes. If this same insect also breeds in the water (sheretz hamayim), one would receive six sets of lashes. The fifth set is because of the prohibition against eating a non-kosher fish, regarding which it is written,4 "Do not eat from their flesh," and the sixth set because of [this prohibition], "Do not make yourselves disgusting [by eating] any small creature that breeds," since it also includes insects which breed in water (sheretz hamayim) and it is the only verse which prohibits such insects.
In accordance with these principles, our Sages said in tractate Makos,5 "One who eats a potisa receives four sets of lashes; a n'mala — five sets; a tzira — six sets." Every commentary on this passage — "One who eats a potisa..." — that I have heard or seen explains it in this way.
However, this is not a valid explanation, and requires one to contradict the proper principles which are explained in the Talmud. This means as follows: If you think into that which was written above, you will find that three sets of lashes are given for the single prohibition, "Do not make yourselves disgusting [by eating] any small creature that breeds." And this idea has no merit, as our Sages have explained in tractate Chullin6 that one can never receive two sets of lashes for a single prohibition. We have already mentioned and explained this principle many times,7 and will bring other examples as well.8
The proper explanation, regarding which there is no doubt or objection, is that one who eats a creature which qualifies as a sheretz ha'of and a sheretz hamayim and a sheretz ha'aretz receives only three sets of lashes — once for the prohibition of sheretz ha'of [N175]; once for the prohibition of sheretz ha'aretz [N176]; and once because of the statement, "Do not make yourselves disgusting," since insects which breed in the water are also included in the phrase "any small creature" (kol hashoretz), and therefore in the prohibition, "Do not make yourselves disgusting [by eating] any small creature that breeds."
And if one ate an insect which breeds only on the ground, he receives just one set of lashes, for the prohibition of sheretz ha'aretz. So too if it was [just] a flying insect, he receives only one set of lashes — for sheretz ha'of. And if it breeds only in the water, he receives just one set — because of the verse, "Do not make yourselves disgusting [by eating] any small creature that breeds."
But9 just because this prohibition includes a sheretz ha'aretz, one cannot be lashed twice for eating one. The reason is that even if there were a thousand prohibitions — each one specifically prohibiting sheretz ha'aretz — one would still only be lashed once, since they are merely repeating the same prohibition. Even if was repeated, "Do not eat (lo soch'lu) a sheretz ha'aretz," "Do not eat (lo yei'o'cheil) a sheretz ha'aretz" one thousand times, only one set of lashes would be given.
Have you seen those who propose this erroneous principle dictating two sets of lashes for a person who wears shatnez, since there are two10 prohibitions? I have not seen them say such a thing, and they would consider it strange if anyone else did. But they somehow do not find it strange when they rule that one who eats a sheretz ha'aretz or sheretz ha'of receive two sets of lashes — once for the specific prohibition and once for the prohibition, "Do not make yourselves disgusting [by eating] any small creature that breeds." This is totally clear even to the deaf and dumb.
I will now go back and complete the discussion begun previously.11 If a living creature developed inside any type of seed or fruit, and then emerged to the surface, one who eats it receives one set of lashes even though it never touched the ground.12 This is because it is covered by a separate prohibition, as explained in the previous commandment [N178].
If this creature reached the ground and crawled (romas13) on it, one who ate it would receive two sets of lashes — one for "Do not defile your souls [by eating] any small creature that lives on land" [N178], and one for "Do not defile your souls [by eating] any small creature that lives on land" [N177].
If this creature was also capable of reproducing, one would receive three sets of lashes — two as mentioned above, and a third for, "Every small creature which breeds on land is repulsive to you. It may not be eaten." [N176].
If it was also able to fly, one would receive a fourth set of lashes because of the prohibition, "All flying insects are unclean to you. They may not be eaten" [N175]. If it could swim as well as fly — as we see many such species — one would receive a fifth set of lashes for the general prohibition which includes a sheretz hamayim, "Do not make yourselves disgusting [by eating] any small creature that breeds." If this same creature which developed [from inside the food] was also a bird, one would receive a sixth set of lashes, for,14 "These are the flying animals that you must avoid. Do not eat..." [N174].
Do not be surprised that a bird could develop from decayed fruit, since we often see birds develop from decaying matter which are larger than a hazelnut.15 You should also not find it strange that the same creature is considered a non-kosher bird and an insect (sheretz ha'of), since it can have the characteristics of a bird and also display the actions and characteristics of an insect. You see that all the early explanations16 include in the six sets of lashes the prohibitions of non-kosher fish [N173] and sheretz hamayim (water insects). This is reasonable and I don't disagree, since it is possible for a creature to be both a fish and a sheretz hamayim.
Similarly, the same creature can be both a bird and a sheretz ha'of. This is the potisa, which is a bird, a sheretz ha'of, a sheretz ha'aretz, and a sheretz hamayim, and one therefore receives four sets of lashes for eating one. The n'mala referred to is one which flies, develops from decaying fruit, and doesn't reproduce. For eating it one receives lashes for an insect which came from food [N178], was shoretz on land [N176], was romeis on land [N177], a sheretz ha'of, and a sheretz hamayim. The tzira, which also develops from decayed matter,17 has the additional quality of being both a bird and a sheretz ha'of.
The development of a tzira or n'mala or other flying or crawling creature from decayed matter or from inside fruit only seems impossible to the uneducated, who are ignorant in natural science.18 They think it impossible for anything to come into existence except through male-female reproduction, since they see that this is so in the majority of cases.
Remember these principles and understand this subject well, since19 "Everything is explained in the proper way." I've explained the ways in which to determine that eating one type of creature is punishable by a certain number of sets of lashes, and another type by a lesser number.
It can be understood from the previous quotes that one if eats an entire creature we do not investigate its size and require a kezayis. Even eating a ba'utz20 is punishable by three sets of lashes — for sheretz hashoretz [N176], romeis [N177], and sheretz ha'of [N175].
Our Sages also said,21 "One who holds himself in from defecating transgresses the prohibition, 'Do not make yourselves disgusting.' " Similarly, "One who drinks water from a karna d'umna — which is a vessel used for bloodletting — transgresses the prohibition, 'Do not make yourselves disgusting.' " The same applies for eating filth or disgusting things or drinking anything repulsive which most people find revolting — they are all prohibited. One does not receive lashes for them, however, since the plain meaning of the verse refers to insects. One is administered makos mardus.22
From everything explained above about this verse, "Do not make yourselves disgusting," we see that it comes to prohibit only the a sheretz hamayim, which is not covered by any other prohibition. You should understand this well.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 11:43.
2.Lev. 11:41 (N176).
3.Deut. 14, 15 (N175).
4.Lev. 11:11 (N173).
5.16b.
6.102b.
7.See N26, N60, N94, N98, N143, N161, N170.
8.See N195, N318, N319.
9.The Rambam now comes to answer the following claim, which is part of the opinion which he already rejected: Since the phrase kol hashoretz ("any small creature") includes both insects which breed in the water and those which breed on land, one would think that eating a sheretz ha'aretz would merit two sets of lashes — one for being a sheretz ha'aretz and one for kol hashoretz.
10.Lev. 19:19. Deut. 22:11.
11.I.e. the explanation of the passage in Makos, "One who ate a potisa..."
12.Apparently the Rambam explains the phrase, "All small creatures which breed on land," as referring to the surface of the seed or fruit. However, see Hilchos Macholos Asuros 2:16, where he rules that it is only a doubtful prohibition, and therefore lashes are not given.
13.See N177, where the Rambam explained that the term romeis is used to refer to an insect which comes into existence from decayed matter and cannot reproduce, and shoretz refers to an insect which does reproduce.
14.Lev. 11:13.
15.See Kapach, 5731, note 97.
16.Of the passage in Makos, quoted above and rejected by the Rambam.
17.Apparently the Rambam means decaying fruit, for otherwise the tzira would also have only five sets of lashes.
18.Some commentaries point out that an insect which is invisible to the naked eye is not considered halachically to exist. For this reason we are allowed to drink tap water even though it is full of microscopic organisms which obviously do not qualify as kosher fish.
For this same reason, an organism which developed from a microscopic stage is not considered by halachah to be an offspring of its "parent," but from the material it came from at the moment it became visible. Some use this idea to reconcile the Rambam's statement with today's scientific views.
19.A paraphrase of Proverbs 25:11.
20.Arabic for the Hebrew yatush or yavchush.
21.Makos 16a. (b?)
22.Lashes for a Rabbinic prohibition.
• Negative Commandment 180 (Digest)
• Creatures that were not Properly Slaughtered
"You shall not eat any carcass "—Deuteronomy 14:21.
It is forbidden to eat any [kosher animal, beast or bird] that has died [without being ritually slaughtered].
• Creatures that were not Properly Slaughtered
The 180th prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating an animal which died [by itself].
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not eat any neveilah."
One who eats a kezayis of neveilah is punished by lashes.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 14:21.
• Negative Commandment 188 (Digest)
• The Flesh of a Condemned Ox
"And his flesh shall not be eaten"—Exodus 21:28.
It is forbidden to eat of the flesh of an ox [or any other animal] condemned to death by the courts [e.g., for killing a human].
This prohibition holds even if the ox was properly slaughtered before the sentence was carried out.
• The Flesh of a Condemned Ox
The 188th prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating the flesh of a shor ha'nis'kal,1 even if it was slaughtered in a kosher manner before being stoned to death.2 Since the final judgment was issued, it is prohibited even if it was slaughtered with a valid shechita.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,3 "Do not eat its flesh."
In the words of the Mechilta, "If an ox was on its way to be stoned to death and its owners slaughtered it first, its flesh may not eaten. For this case, the Torah said, 'Do not eat its flesh.' "
One who eats a kezayis of its flesh is punished by lashes.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Literally, "an ox which is stoned," i.e. which was judged worthy of execution for killing a person, for example.
2.The Rambam adds this explanation, for if it was stoned to death, it would already be prohibited since it wasn't killed with a kosher slaughter.
3.Ex. 21.28.
• Rambam - 1 Chapter: Rotzeach uShmirat Nefesh Rotzeach uShmirat Nefesh - Chapter Two
• Rotzeach uShmirat Nefesh - Chapter Two


1
Whenever a person kills a colleague with his hands - e.g., he strikes him with a sword or with a stone that can cause death, strangles him until he dies or burns him in fire - he should be executed by the court, for he himself has killed him.
א
כל ההורג חבירו בידו כגון שהכהו בסייף או באבן הממיתה. או שחנקו עד שמת. או שרפו באש. הואיל והרגו מכל מקום הוא בעצמו הרי זה נהרג בבית דין:
2
But a person who hires a murderer to kill a colleague, one who sends his servants and they kill him, one who binds a colleague and leaves him before a lion or the like and the beast kills him, and a person who commits suicide are all considered to be shedders of blood; the sin of bloodshed is upon their hands, and they are liable for death at the hands of God. They are not, however, liable for execution by the court.
ב
אבל [א] השוכר הורג להרוג את חבירו או ששלח עבדיו והרגוהו. או שכפתו והניחו לפני הארי וכיוצא בו והרגתהו חיה וכן ההורג את עצמו. כל אחד מאלו שופך דמים הוא. ועון הריגה בידו וחייב מיתה לשמים ואין בהן מיתת בית דין:
3
Which source indicates that this is the law? Genesis 9:6 states: "When a person sheds the blood of a man, by a man his blood shall be shed." This refers to a person who kills a colleague by himself, without employing an agent.
The verse continues: "Of the blood of your own lives I will demand an account." This refers to a person who commits suicide.6
"From the hand of every wild beast will I demand an account" Ibid. 9:5 This refers to a person who places a person before a wild beast so that he will devour him.
"From the hand of a man, from the hand of one's brother, will I demand an account for the soul of a man" ibid.. This refers to a person who hires others to kill a colleague. In all of the three last instances, the verse uses the expression "will I demand an account," indicating that their judgment is in heaven's hands.
ג
ומנין שכן הוא הדין שנאמר א שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך זה ההורג בעצמו שלא על ידי שליח. את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש זה הורג עצמו. מיד כל חיה אדרשנו זה המוסר חבירו לפני חיה לטרפו. מיד האדם מיד איש אחיו אדרוש את נפש האדם זה השוכר אחרים להרוג את חבירו. ובפירוש נאמר בשלשתן לשון דרישה הרי דינם מסור לשמים:
4
When a Jewish king desires to slay any of these murderers and the like - who are not liable for execution by the court - by virtue of his regal authority, in order to perfect society, he has the license.
Similarly, if the court desires to execute them as a result of a immediate fiat, because this was required at the time, they have the license to do as they see fit.
ד
וכל אלו הרצחנים וכיוצא בהן שאינן מחוייבין מיתת בית דין. אם רצה מלך ישראל להרגם בדין המלכות ותקנת העולם הרשות בידו. וכן אם ראו בית דין להרגם בהוראת שעה. אם היתה השעה צריכה לכך יש להם רשות כפי מה שיראו:
5
If the king did not execute them, nor did the court deem the time as such to require strengthening the strictures against murder, it should nevertheless have the murderer beaten with severe blows - so that he is on the verge of death - and imprisoned, deprived and afflicted with all types of discomfort in order to strike fear and awe into the hearts of other wicked men, so that this death should not be a stumbling block and a snag for them, causing them to say: "Let me arrange to have my enemies killed the way so-and-so did, and I will not suffer the consequences."
ה
הרי שלא הרגם המלך ולא היתה השעה צריכה לכך לחזק הדבר הרי בית דין חייבין מכל מקום להכותם מכה רבה הקרובה למיתה לאסרם במצור ובמצוק שנים רבות ולצערן בכל מיני צער כדי להפחיד ולאיים על שאר הרשעים שלא יהיה הדבר להם לפוקה ולמכשול ויאמר הריני מסבב להרוג אויבי כדרך שעשה פלוני ואפטר:
6
Whether a person kills an adult or an infant that is one day old, a male or a female, he should be executed if he killed him intentionally, or exiled if he killed him unintentionally.
With regard to an infant, the above applies provided it was born after a full term pregnancy. If, however, it was born before nine months passed, it is considered to be an inviable birth until it lives for 30 days. If it is killed within those 30 days, the killer should not be executed.
ו
אחד ההורג את הגדול או את הקטן בן יומו. בין זכר בין נקבה. הרי זה נהרג עליו אם הרג בזדון. או גולה אם הרג בשגגה. והוא שכלו לו חדשיו. אבל אם נולד לפחות מתשעה חדשים הרי הוא כנפל עד שישהה שלשים יום וההורגו בתוך שלשים יום אינו נהרג עליו:
7
Whether a person kills a healthy person, a sick person who is on the verge of dying, or even a person in his actual death throes, the killer should be executed. If, however, one kills a person in his death throes because of wounds inflicted upon him by others - i.e., he was stricken until he was on the verge of death, and he is in his death throes, the killer should not be executed by the court.
ז
אחד ההורג את הבריא או את החולה הנוטה למות. ואפילו הרג את הגוסס נהרג עליו. ואם היה גוסס בידי אדם כגון שהכוהו עד שנטה למות והרי הוא גוסס. ההורגו אין בית דין ממיתין אותו:
8
When, by contrast, a person is considered trefah,even though he eats, drinks and walks in the market place, one is not held liable by an earthly court for killing him.
Every person is presumed to be physically sound, and a person who kills him should be executed unless it is certainly known that he is a trefah, and the physicians say that his infirmity does not have any remedy for humans and it will surely cause his death, if no other factor does first.
ח
ההורג את הטריפה אע"פ שאוכל ושותה ומהלך בשוק הרי זה פטור מדיני אדם. וכל אדם בחזקת שלם והורגו נהרג עד שיוודע בודאי שזה טריפה ויאמרו הרופאים שמכה זו אין לה תעלה באדם ובה ימות אם לא ימיתנו דבר אחר:
9
When a person who is a trefah kills another man, he should be killed, as reflected by Deuteronomy 19:19, which states: "And you shall destroy the evil from among your midst."
When does this apply? When he committed the murder in the presence of a court. If, however, he committed the murder in the presence of witnesses, he is not liable. The rationale is that the witnesses may be disqualified through hazamah. And if they are disqualified through hazamah, they will not be punished by execution, for they intended merely to have a person who was trefah executed. And whenever the laws of hazamah cannot be applied to testimony, it is not considered to be valid testimony in capital cases.
ט
אדם טריפה שהרג את הנפש נהרג שנאמר ובערת הרע מקרבך. והוא שיהרוג בפני בית דין אבל בפני עדים פטור שמא יזומו ואם הוזמו אינן נהרגין שהרי לא זממו אלא להרוג טריפה וכל עדות שאינה ראוי להזמה אינה עדות בדיני נפשות:
10
If a person kills either a Jew or a Canaanite servant, he should be executed. If he kills inadvertently, he should be exiled.
י
אחד ההורג את ישראל א או ההורג עבד כנעני הרי זה נהרג עליו. ואם הרג בשגגה גולה:
11
At first, a person who killed a resident alienshould not be executed by the court, as implied by Exodus 21:14, which introduces the laws regarding the punishment for murder, by stating: "When a man acts intentionally against his colleague, killing him...." Needless to say, this ruling applies with regard to a gentile.
Whether a person kills his own Canaanite servant or a servant belonging to someone else, he should be executed. For a servant has accepted the yoke of mitzvot and has been added to "the heritage of God."
יא
בראשונה מי שהרג גר תושב אינו נהרג עליו בבית דין שנאמר וכי יזיד איש על רעהו. ואין צריך לומר שאינו נהרג על העובד כוכבים. ואחד ההורג את עבד אחרים או ההורג עבדו הרי זה נהרג עליו שהעבד קבל עליו מצות ונוסף על נחלת ה':
12
What is the difference between killing one's own Canaanite servant and a servant belonging to someone else? With regard to one's own servant, one has the right to strike him. Thus, if one strikes him with a blow that is sufficient to cause death, and he is on the verge of dying, but survives for 24 hours and dies afterwards, the owner should not be executed, although the servant died because of the blow, as Exodus 21:21 states: "But if he survives for a day or two, he shall not be avenged, for he is his property."
What is the intent of the phrase "for a day or two"? A day that is like two days - i.e., a full 24-hour cycle.
יב
מה בין עבדו לעבד אחרים. שעבדו יש לו רשות להכותו לפיכך אם הכהו הכאה שיש בה כדי להמית ונטה למות ועמד עשרים וארבע שעות ואחר כך מת לא היה נהרג עליו אע"פ שמת מחמת המכה שנאמר לא יוקם כי כספו הוא. ומהו יום או יומים יום שהוא כיומים שהוא מעת לעת:
13
Different rules apply when, by contrast, one strikes a Canaanite servant who belongs to another person. If one strikes him with a blow sufficient to kill, one may be executed for killing him, as one would be executed for killing any free Jew, even if he does not die because of the blow until several days have passed.
יג
אבל המכה עבד שאינו שלו. אפילו מת לאחר כמה ימים מחמת המכה הואיל והכהו כדי להמית הרי זה נהרג עליו כשאר בני חורין:
14
It appears to me that when a person strikes his servant with a knife, a sword, a stone, a fist or the like, and it was assessed that he would die, and he did die, the leniency granted if the servant survives more than 24 hours does not apply. Instead, even if the servant dies a year later, the owner should be executed because of the servant's death.
To underscore this point, Exodus 21:20 mentions striking the servant "with a rod." For the Torah has granted the owner permission to beat his servant only with a rod, a staff, a strap or the like, and he may not strike him with murderous blows.
יד
יראה לי [ב] שהמכה את עבדו בסכין וסייף או באבן ואגרוף וכיוצא בהן ואמדוהו למיתה ומת אינו בדין יום או יומים אלא אפילו מת לאחר שנה נהרג עליו. לכך נאמר בשבט שלא נתנה תורה רשות להכותו אלא בשבט ומקל ורצועה וכיוצא בהן ולא בהכאת רציחה:
15
The following rules apply when a person sells his servant and stipulates that the servant must continue to serve him for 30 days - and in those 30 days, either the seller or the purchaser strikes the servant - the leniency granted if the servant survives more than 24 hours does not apply, neither to the seller nor to the purchaser, and the killer should be executed.
The rationale is that the servant no longer is the personal "property" of the seller, nor has he entered the domain of the purchaser.
טו
המוכר עבדו ופסק עמו שישמשנו שלשים יום והכהו אחר מהן בתוך השלשים יום והמיתו. הרי זה נהרג עליו ואינו בדין [ג] יום או יומים. הראשון לפי שאינו כספו המיוחד לו. והשני לפי שאינו עדיין תחתיו:
16
Similarly, if a person is half servant and half free,or there is a servant belonging to two partners, and the owner or one of the owners strikes and kills the servant, the leniency granted if the servant survives more than 24 hours does not apply. For in these cases, there is not an owner who owns the servant as his personal "property." Therefore, the owner should be executed, as would any other person.
טז
וכן מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין ועבד של שני שותפין אינן בדין יום או יומים. שהרי אינו לאחד מהן כספו המיוחד לו ולפיכך נהרג עליו כשאר העם:
• Rambam - 3 Chapters: Ma'achalot Assurot Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 8, Ma'achalot Assurot Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 9, Ma'achalot Assurot Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 10
• 
Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 8

1
[The prohibition against partaking of] the gid hanesheh1applies with regard to kosher2 domesticated animals and wild beasts,3even nevelot and trefot.4 It applies to a fetus5 and to animals that have been consecrated, both those consecrated [for sacrifices] of which we partake and for sacrifices of which we do not partake. It applies to [the gid] on the right thigh and that on the left thigh.6
According to Scriptural Law, only [the gid] on the hip socket is forbidden, as [Genesis 32:33] states: "which is on the hip-socket." The remainder of the gid which is above the socket or below the socket - and similarly, the fat which is on the gid - are forbidden only according to Rabbinic decree.7There are two giddim. The inner one next to the bone is forbidden according to Scriptural Law. The entire outer one is forbidden by Rabbinic decree.
א
גיד הנשה נוהג בבהמה וחיה הטהורין ואפילו בנבלות וטרפות שלהן ונוהג בשליל ובמוקדשין בין קדשים הנאכלים בין קדשים שאינן נאכלין ונוהג בירך של ימין ובירך של שמאל ואין אסור מן התורה אלא שעל כף הירך בלבד שנאמר אשר על כף הירך אבל שאר הגיד שלמעלה מן הכף ושלמטה עד סופו וכן חלב שעל הגיד אינו אסור אלא מדברי סופרים ושני גידין הן הפנימי הסמוך לעצם אסור מן התורה והעליון כולו אסור מדבריהם:
2
When a person partakes of the inner gid hanesheh on the socket, he is liable for lashes.8 If he partakes of the fat [of the gid], the remainder of the inner gid, or the entire outer one, he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.9
What is the measure of which one must partake to be liable? An olive-sized portion. If one ate the entire gid on the socket, one is liable, even though it is less than an olive in size. The rationale is that it is considered as a self-contained entity.10
ב
האוכל מגיד הנשה הפנימי ממקום שעל הכף לוקה ואם אכל מחלבו או משאר הגיד הפנימי או מכל החיצון מכין אותו מכת מרדות וכמה שיעור אכילה כזית ואם אכל הגיד שעל הכף כולו אע"פ שאין בו כזית לוקה מפני שהוא כבריה בפני עצמה:
3
When a person eats an olive-sized portion of the gid on the right side and an olive-sized portion of the gid on the left side, or he ate two entire giddim even if they are not the size of an olive, he receives 80 lashes. He is given lashes for every gid independently.11
ג
אבל כזית מגיד של ימין וכזית מגיד של שמאל או שאכל שני גידים כולן אף על פי שאין בהן כזית לוקה שמונים (וכן הוא לוקה על כל גיד וגיד):
4
The prohibition against gid hanesheh does not apply with regard to a fowl, because it does not have a [round]12 hip-socket. Instead, its thigh is long [and flat]. If there is a fowl whose thigh is shaped like that of the thigh of an animal, i.e., it has a hip-socket, its gid hanesheh is forbidden, but one is not liable for lashes, because of it. Similarly, when there is an animal whose thigh is long like that of a fowl, its gid hanesheh is forbidden, but one is not liable for lashes for it.13
ד
העוף אין בו משום גיד הנשה מפני שאין לו כף ירך אלא יריכו ארוך ואם נמצא עוף שירכו כירך הבהמה שיש לו כף גיד הנשה שלו אסור ואין לוקין עליו וכן בהמה שכף ירכה ארוך כשל עוף גיד הנשה שלה אסור ואין לוקין עליו:
5
When a person eats the gid hanesheh from a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild beast, he is not liable.14 [The rationale is that this prohibition] does not apply with regard to a non-kosher animal,15 only with regard to an animal that is entirely permitted. Nor is he considered as one who partook of the remainder of its body, for the gid is not included as meat, as we explained.16 If, however, one partakes of the fat on the gid [of a non-kosher] animal, it is considered as if one ate from its meat.
ה
האוכל גיד הנשה מבהמה וחיה הטמאים פטור לפי שאינו נוהג בטמאה אלא בבהמה שכולה מותרת ואינו כאוכל משאר גופה שאין הגידים מכלל הבשר כמו שביארנו ואם אכל מחלב שעל הגיד הרי זה כאוכל מבשרה:
6
When a person partakes of a gid hanesheh from a nevelah, a trefe, or an animal consecrated as a burnt offering, he is liable for two [sets of lashes]. Since [the prohibition]17 includes the remainder of its body which was permitted, it also includes the gid and causes another prohibition to be added to it.18
ו
האוכל גיד הנשה של נבילה או של טרפה או של עולה חייב שתים מתוך שנכלל באיסור שאר גופה שהיה מותר נכלל גם הגיד ונוסף עליו איסור אחר:
7
One who removes the gid hanesheh must ferret out all traces of it until nothing remains.19 A butcher's word is accepted with regard to the gid hanesheh,20 just as it is accepted with regard to forbidden fat. [Accordingly,] we do not purchase meat from every butcher, [only from] an upright man who has established a reputation for observance.21 If he slaughters meat himself and sells it, his word is accepted.
ז
הנוטל גיד הנשה צריך לחטט אחריו עד שלא ישאיר ממנו כלום ונאמן הטבח על גיד הנשה כשם שנאמן על החלב ואין לוקחין בשר מכל טבח אלא אם היה אדם כשר ומוחזק בכשרות הוא ששוחט לעצמו ומוכר ונאמן:
8
Where does the above apply? In the Diaspora. In Eretz Yisrael, by contrast, when it is populated entirely by [Torah-observant] Jews, meat may be purchased from anyone.22
ח
במה דברים אמורים בחוצה לארץ אבל בארץ ישראל בזמן שכולה לישראל לוקחין מכל אדם:
9
[The following rules apply when] a butcher is considered as trustworthy to sell meat, but it is discovered that he sold meat that was nevelah or trefe. He must return the money to its owners.23 He is placed under a ban of ostracism and is removed from his position.24
There is no way that he can correct [his act] so that people [will be allowed] to purchase meat from him until he goes to a place where his identity is unknown25and returns a lost object of significant worth or slaughters an animal for his own self and has it declared trefe although it involves a significant financial loss. For these actions indicate that he certainly repented without any [intent to] deceive.26
ט
טבח הנאמן למכור בשר ונמצא בשר נבלה או בשר טריפה יוצא מתחת ידו מחזיר את הדמים לבעלים ומשמתין אותו ומעבירין אותו ואין לו תקנה לעולם ליקח ממנו בשר עד שילך למקום שאין מכירין אותו ויחזיר אבדה בדבר חשוב או ישחוט לעצמו ויוציא טרפה לעצמו בממון חשוב שודאי עשה תשובה בלא הערמה:
10
When a person purchases meat and sends it via a common person, [the latter's] word is accepted with regard to it. Although he has not established a reputation for Torah observance,27 we do not suspect that he will exchange [the meat for a non-kosher cut].28 Even the servants and maidservants29 of the Jews are trusted with regard to such a matter. A gentile, by contrast, is not [trusted], for we fear that he will exchange [the meat].30
י
הלוקח בשר ושלחו ביד אחד מעמי הארץ הרי זה נאמן עליו ואע"פ שאינו מוחזק בכשרות אין חוששין לו שמא יחליף ואפילו עבדי ישראל ואמהותיהן נאמנין בדבר זה אבל לא לעכו"ם שמא יחליף:
11
[The following rule applies when there are] ten stores, nine sell kosher meat and one sells nevelot.31 If one purchased meat from one of these stores and did not know which one he purchased from, [the meat] is forbidden. [The rationale is that] whenever [the presence of a forbidden entity] is firmly established, the situation is considered as half and half.32
If, however, meat is found cast away in the street,33 [it is judged] according to the majority. For [we follow the assumption:] Anything that was separated, separated from the majority.34 If the majority of sellers were gentile, [the meat] is forbidden. If the majority were Jewish, it is permitted.
יא
עשר חנויות תשע מוכרות בשר שחוטה ואחת מוכרת נבלות ולקח בשר מאחת מהן ואינו יודע מאיזה מהן לקח הרי זה אסור שכל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה דמי אבל בשר הנמצא מושלך בשוק הלך אחר הרוב דכל דפריש מרובא פריש אם היו רוב המוכרים עכו"ם אסור ואם היו רוב המוכרים ישראל מותר:
12
Similarly, when meat is found in the hand of a gentile and it is not known from where he purchased it, if [the majority of] the sellers of meat were Jewish, it is permitted.
This reflects the ruling according to Scriptural Law. [Nevertheless,] our Sages have already forbidden any meat found in the marketplace or in the possession of a gentile35 even though all the slaughterers and all the sellers are Jewish. Moreover, even if one purchased meat, left it in his house, and it disappeared from one's sight, it is forbidden36 unless it had a distinguishing mark, he was familiar with it and could recognize it definitely as [the piece of meat lost],37 or it was bound and sealed.
יב
וכן בשר הנמצא ביד עכו"ם ואינו ידוע ממי לקח אם היו מוכרי הבשר ישראל מותר זה הוא דין תורה וכבר אסרו חכמים כל הבשר הנמצא בין בשוק בין ביד עכו"ם אף על פי שכל השוחטין וכל המוכרין ישראל ולא עוד אלא הלוקח בשר והניחו בביתו ונעלם מן העין אסור אלא אם כן היה לו בו סימן או שהיה לו בו טביעת עין והוא מכירו ודאי שהוא זה או שהיה צרור וחתום:
13
[The following rule applies when] one hung a container filled with pieces of meat, the container broke, and the pieces fell to the earth.38 If there is no distinguishing mark [on the meat] and he was not able to recognize it, it is forbidden. [The rationale is that] it is possible to say that the meat that was in the container was dragged away by a wild beast or creeping animal and this is other meat.
יג
תלה כלי מלא חתיכות בשר ונשבר הכלי ונפלו החתיכות לארץ ובא ומצא חתיכות ואין לו בהן סימן ולא טביעת עין הרי זה אסור שיש לומר אותו בשר שהיה בכלי גררתו חיה או שרץ וזה בשר אחר הוא:
14
It is permitted to derive benefit from a gid hanesheh.39Therefore it is permissible for a person to send a thigh which contains a gid hanesheh to a gentile.40 He may give him the entire thigh intact in the presence of a Jew. We do not suspect that [the other] Jew will partake of this meat before the gid is removed, because its place is recognizable.41 Accordingly, if the thigh was cut into pieces, he should not give it to a gentile in the presence of a Jew, lest the other Jew partake of it.42
יד
גיד הנשה מותר בהנאה לפיכך מותר לאדם לשלוח לעכו"ם ירך שגיד הנשה בתוכה ונותן לו הירך שלימה בפני ישראל ואין חוששין שמא יאכל ממנה ישראל זה קודם שינטל הגיד שהרי מקומו ניכר לפיכך אם היתה הירך חתוכה לא יתננה לעכו"ם בפני ישראל עד שיטול הגיד שמא יאכל ממנה ישראל:
15
Wherever the Torah states: "Do not eat," "You shall not eat,"43 "They shall not eat," or "It shall not be eaten," the intent is that it is forbidden both to partake of or benefit from the forbidden entity44 unless:
a) a verse explicitly states otherwise, as it does with regard to a nevelah [Deuteronomy 14:21]: "Give it to the stranger in your gate and he shall partake of it," or with regard to forbidden fat [Leviticus 7:24]: "You may use it for any task"; or
b) the Oral Law states explicitly that it is permitted to benefit from it, as is the case with regarding to teeming animals, swarming animals, blood, a limb from a living animal, and the gid hanesheh. For according to the Oral Tradition, it is permitted to benefit from all these prohibited entities, even though it is forbidden to partake of them.
טו
כל מקום שנאמר בתורה לא תאכל לא תאכלו לא יאכלו לא יאכל אחד איסור אכילה ואחד איסור הנאה במשמע עד שיפרוט לך הכתוב כדרך שפרט לך בנבלה שנאמר לגר אשר בשעריך תתננה ואכלה וכחלב שנאמר בו יעשה לכל מלאכה או עד שיתפרש בתורה שבעל פה שהוא מותר בהנאה כגון שקצים ורמשים ודם ואבר מן החי וגיד הנשה שכל אלו מותרין בהנאה מפי הקבלה אע"פשהן אסורין באכילה:
16
Whenever it is forbidden to benefit from a substance, if a person derives benefit without partaking of it, e.g., he sold or gave to a gentile or gave it to dogs, he is not liable for lashes.45He should, however, be given stripes for rebellious conduct. The money [he received] is permitted.46
Whenever it is forbidden to partake of a substance, but it is permitted to benefit from it, even though it is permitted to benefit from it, it is forbidden do business with such articles or establish oneself in a profession that involves forbidden entities.47[There is] an exception, forbidden fat, for concerning it, it is written: "You may use it for any task." For this reason, we do not do business with nevelot, trefot, teeming animals, and swarming animals.
טז
כל מאכל שהוא אסור בהנאה אם נהנה ולא אכל כגון שמכר או נתן לעכו"ם או לכלבים אינו לוקה ומכין אותו מכת מרדות והדמים מותרין וכל דבר שאסור באכילה ומותר בהנאה אע"פ שהוא מותר בהנאה אסור לעשות בו סחורה ולכוין מלאכתו בדברים אסורים חוץ מן החלב שהרי נאמר בו יעשה לכל מלאכה לפיכך אין עושין סחורה לא בנבלות ולא בטרפות ולא בשקצים ולא ברמשים:
17
When a trapper happens upon a non-kosher wild animal, fowl, or fish, and he snares them or he traps both kosher and non-kosher animals, he may sell them.48 He may not, however, intend to have his profession concern non-kosher species.
It is, however, permitted to do business with milk that was milked by a gentile without being observed by a Jew, cheeses made by gentiles, and the like.
יז
הצייד שנזדמנו לו חיה או עוף ודג טמאים וצדן או שניצודו לו טמאים וטהורים מותר למוכרן אבל לא יכוין מלאכתו לטמאים ומותר לעשות סחורה בחלב שחלבו עכו"ם ואין ישראל רואהו ובגבינות העכו"ם וכיוצא בהן:
18
This is the general principle: Whenever a prohibition is forbidden by Scriptural Law, it is forbidden to do business with it. Whenever the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin, it is permitted do business with it, whether we are certain of the existence of the prohibition or it is a matter of question.
יח
זה הכלל כל שאיסורו מן התורה אסור לעשות בו סחורה וכל שאיסורו מדבריהם מותר לעשות בו סחורה בין בספיקו בין בודאו:
FOOTNOTES
1.
Genesis, ch. 32, relates that before his confrontation with Esau, Jacob remained alone in his camp. An unidentified being - interpreted by the Torah commentaries to be Esau's archangel - wrestled with him the entire night. When he saw that he could not defeat Jacob, he gave him a blow to his upper thigh, dislocating his gid hanesheh. In commemoration of this event, ""The children of Israel do not eat the gid hanesheh.
The Rabbis identified the gid hanesheh as the sciatic nerve, the large main nerve running down the back of an animal's hind leg. The term gid, though sometimes translated as "sinew," is a general term. As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:4), it is used to refer to arteries, veins, tendons, nerves, and sinews.
2.
See Halachah 5.
3.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 183) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 3) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
4.
See Halachah 6.
5.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 65:7 does not cite the Rambam's view, but instead quotes two differing opinions: one that the prohibition does not apply to a fetus at all and another, that it applies only when the fetus has completed the period of gestation and is discovered alive.
6.
Although the angel only dislodged the nerve on one of Jacob's legs, we are forbidden to partake of the nerves from both sides.
7.
See Halachah 7 concerning the removal of this nerve.
8.
Because he violates a Scriptural prohibition.
9.
For violating a Rabbinic prohibition.
10.
Accordingly, even if it is less than an olive-sized portion in size, one is liable. Compare to Chapter 2, Halachah 21, Chapter 15, Halachah 17, and Chapter 16, Halachah 6.
11.
Rav Moshe HaCohen writes that this ruling applies when the person was given a separate warning for each gid. Otherwise, he receives only one set of lashes. The Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam would also accept that interpretation.
12.
This explanatory addition is based on Chullin 92b.
13.
Chullin 92b discusses these issues and leaves both matters unresolved; hence, the Rambam's rulings.
14.
Not for partaking of the gid and not for partaking of the meat of a forbidden animal.
15.
Chullin 101a notes that the confrontation between Jacob and the angel took place before the Giving of the Torah, at a time when the Jews could eat non-kosher animals. Hence, there is reason to say that the prohibition could involve a non-kosher animal, for partaking of such animal was not forbidden until the Giving of the Torah.
In response, the Talmud explains that our observance of this prohibition does not stem from the practice observed by Jacob's descendants, but because this prohibition was reiterated at the time of the Giving of the Torah. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 7:6, the Rambam elaborates on this point, explaining that our observance of Jewish practice, even the mitzvot which we know that the Patriarchs fulfilled like circumcision, stems from God's command at Sinai and not from our ancestors' observance.
16.
Chapter 4, Halachah 18. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 65:9) which states that a gid is "like a piece of wood; it has no flavor."
17.
I.e., the prohibition against partaking of a nevelahtrefe, or burnt offering.
18.
Following the concept of issur kollel, "an encompassing prohibition," as explained in the conclusion of Halachah 14 (Maggid Mishneh).
The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that Chullin 82b states that according to the opinion that a gid hanesheh does not have any flavor, one is not liable. Only the opinion that maintains that the gid hanesheh does have a flavor holds one liable. From the previous halachah, it appears that the Rambam follows the former view. Why then does he hold the person liable for two sets of lashes.
19.
Since the gid hanesheh and the gid forbidden by Rabbinic decree subdivide into several branches, this is a rather difficult task. For this reason, in most sectors of the Jewish community today, it is customary not to eat the hind-quarters of an animal. Accordingly, several cuts of meat, e.g., sirloin steak, are not available from kosher butchers.
20.
I.e., we rely on his word and do not inspect the meat ourselves.
21.
If the person himself does not have a reputation for observance and knowledge of the laws, he can sell meat if he hires such a person to act as a supervisor. This is the rationale for the practice of hasgachah, kashrut inspection, practiced today.
22.
In the present era, there is no difference between Eretz Yisrael and other lands, for the majority of the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael are not Torah observant.
23.
He must return the money entirely. This applies even if the customers already partook of the non-kosher meat (Hilchot Mechirah 16:14). The rationale is that a person's soul is revolted by the commission of a transgression and he is not considered to have benefited from the meat at all (Sefer Meirat Einayim 232:4).
24.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 21.
25.
If he performs such an act in a place where his identity is known, it can be said that he did so in order to be reinstated.
26.
I.e., they show that he is willing to forgo his financial benefit in order to keep Torah law. See also Hilchot Shechitah 10:14 and Hilchot Edut 12:9 which deal with the same concept. Hilchot Edut states that in order to be accepted as a witness, he must wear black garments as a sign of repentance.
27.
See the Maggid Mishneh who maintains that the Rambam would rule in this manner even when a Jew is reputed to transgress various prohibitions. He also mentions the opinion of the Rashba who maintains that further precautions must be taken if an article is entrusted to a non-observant Jew. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 118:8) quotes the Rambam's ruling and then cites the Rashba's view without indicating which opinion should be followed.
28.
I.e., we do not expect that he will steal. Moreover, he will derive no benefit from doing so, for he will have to supply an equivalent piece of meat for the one he exchanges. We do not expect him to cause sin without deriving any benefit. If, however, he has a reputation for stealing, his word is not accepted (Maggid Mishneh).
29.
I.e., Canaanite servants, non-Jews purchased as servants who have undergone a partial conversion process (Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 12:11).
30.
For a gentile is never trusted in any matters involving Jewish observance. When one desires to send food that involves prohibitions with a gentile, it is necessary to take precautions as stated in Chapter 13, Halachot 8-10.
31.
I.e., even if the proportions are heavily weighted in favor of the conclusion that the meat is kosher, we accept the possibility that it is non-kosher.
32.
This is a general principle applying in many other contexts as well, e.g., Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 2:10, Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:15.
33.
The Hagahot Maimoniot explains that this law applies only when the meat is discovered in the public domain. If a person is seen taking meat from a store, but it is not known which store he took it from, the previous law applies.
34.
This also is a frequently employed Talmudic principle.
35.
As mentioned by the Maggid Mishneh, there are Rishonim who permit meat found in the possession of a gentile when the majority of the sellers are Jewish, maintaining that this is evident from Chullin 95a. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 63:1, however, quotes the Rambam's view.
36.
According to the literal meaning of the Rambam's words, if meat was placed in the freezer, it would be forbidden. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 63:2) cites, however, the opinion of Rashbam which permits the meat if it is found in the same place that it was placed. The Rama writes that it is customary to follow this view.
37.
The Maggid Mishneh states that if a person has a reputation for upright conduct, his word is accepted in this concept even if he is not a Torah scholar. Note the contrast to Hilchot Gezeilah V'Aveidah 14:12 which accepts only the word of a Torah scholar if one claims to recognize a lost object, but cannot identify it with distinctive marks.
38.
If, however, he found it as he left it, it is certainly permitted (Maggid Mishneh).
39.
The Maggid Mishneh notes that according to Pesachim 22a, it would appear that the authorities who maintain that the gid hanesheh has no flavor also maintain that it is forbidden to benefit from it. Now the Rambam follow the perspective that the gid hanesheh has no flavor (see Halachah 5). Hence his position here is somewhat difficult. The Maggid Mishneh explains, however, that the two positions are not necessary interrelated and both rulings of the Rambam can be upheld.
40.
I.e., because there is no prohibition against receiving benefit from the gid hanesheh, he does not have to remove it before selling the meat.
41.
Since the Jew sees a co-religionist giving the gentile the meat, he will assume that it was ritually slaughtered and that the meat was kosher. [This applies in a place where public announcements are made when an animal is discovered to be trefe (Chullin 93b). Otherwise, the Jew must tell the gentile that the animal is kosher (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 65:11)].
Nevertheless, since the place of the gid hanesheh is recognizable - i.e., it is obvious whether the gid is still in the thigh or has already been removed - he will not partake of the meat until the gid is removed.
42.
Since the place of the gid hanesheh is not obvious, the other Jew may think that ordinary kosher meat is being given and may partake of it.
43.
Both of these commands are in the second person: one singukar, one plural.
44.
Sometimes the command is stated in an active voice; sometimes, it is passive; sometimes, singular and sometimes plural. The passive form implies that it is forbidden to derive any benefit that could lead to one's eating, e.g., selling it for money that could be used to purchase food.
45.
Rav Moshe HaCohen questions this ruling, stating that if the intent of the Scriptural prohibition is that it is forbidden to benefit from these substances, why is one not liable for lashes for deriving such benefit? The Maggid Mishneh explains that he is not liable, for one is liable for lashes only when he derives benefit from the food in the ordinary manner one derives benefit from food. This includes only eating. Receiving money, by contrast, is not considered as benefiting from food in the ordinary manner. Rav Moshe HaCohen, however, anticipated that attempted resolution and explains that, on the contrary, selling edible food is an ordinary way of deriving benefit.
46.
There is one exception to this: money received in return for a false deity or articles associated with it. That money is itself forbidden (see Chapter 13, Halachah 15; Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:19).
47.
I.e., one's livelihood may not revolve around the sale of these forbidden entities or performing work with them (e.g., serving as a chef in a non-kosher restaurant). The rationale for the prohibition is that we fear that a person who has extensive involvement with forbidden substances may come to partake of them (Rashba).
The Maggid Mishneh clarifies that the above applies only with regard to food from forbidden species. One may choose a profession that involves employing a horse or a donkey as a beast of burden.
48.
He must sell them immediately. He may not raise them until they become large [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 117:4)]. See also Siftei Cohen 117:6 who questions whether the leniency is granted only to a professional trapper or to any person.

Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 9


1
It is forbidden to cook meat and milk together and to partake of them according to Scriptural Law.1 It is forbidden to benefit from [such a mixture]. It must be buried. Its ashes are forbidden like the ashes of all substances that must be buried.2
Whenever a person cooks an olive-sized portion of the two substances together,3 he is worthy of lashes, as [Exodus 23:19] states: "Do not cook a kid in its mother's milk." Similarly, a person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the meat and milk that were cooked together4 is worthy of lashes even though he was not the one who cooked them.5
א
בשר בחלב אסור לבשלו ואסור לאכלו מן התורה ואסור בהנאה וקוברין אותו ואפרו אסור כאפר כל הנקברין ומי שיבשל משניהם כזית כאחד לוקה שנאמר לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו וכן האוכל כזית משניהם מהבשר והחלב שנתבשלו כאחד לוקה ואף על פי שלא בשל:
2
The Torah remained silent concerning the prohibition against partaking [of meat and milk]6 only because it forbade cooking them. This is as if to say: Even cooking it is forbidden, how much more so partaking of it.7 [To cite a parallel:] The Torah did not mention the prohibition against relations with one's daughter, because it forbade those with the daughter of one's daughter.8
ב
לא שתק הכתוב מלאסור האכילה אלא מפני שאסר הבשול כלומר ואפילו בשולו אסור ואין צריך לומר אכילתו כמו ששתק מלאסור הבת מאחר שאסר בת הבת:
3
According to Scriptural Law, the prohibition involves only [a mixture of] meat from a kosher domesticated animal9 and milk from a kosher domesticated animal, as implied by the verse: "Do not cook a kid in its mother's milk."10 The term "a kid" includes the offspring of an ox, the offspring of a sheep, and the offspring of a goat unless the verse states explicitly, a goat-kid.11The term "a kid in its mother's milk" [does not exclude all other situations].12Instead, the Torah is speaking regarding the commonplace circumstance.
With regard to the meat of a kosher animal which was cooked in the milk of a non-kosher animal or the meat of a non-kosher animal which was cooked in the milk of a kosher animal, by contrast, cooking is permitted, and deriving benefit is permitted. One is not liable for [transgressing the prohibition against partaking of] meat and milk if one partakes of it.13
ג
אין אסור מן התורה אלא בשר בהמה טהורה בחלב בהמה טהורה שנאמר לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו וגדי הוא כולל ולד השור ולד השה ולד העז עד שיפרוט ויאמר גדי עזים ולא נאמר גדי בחלב אמו אלא שדיבר הכתוב בהווה אבל בשר בהמה טהורה (שבשלו) בחלב בהמה טמאה או בשר בהמה טמאה (שבשלו) בחלב בהמה טהורה מותר לבשל ומותרת בהנייה ואין חייבין על אכילתו משום בשר בחלב:
4
Similarly, the meat of a wild beast and the meat of a fowl together with the milk of a wild beast or the milk of a domesticated animal is not forbidden according to Scriptural Law.14Therefore it is permitted to cook it and it is permitted to benefit from it. It is forbidden to partake of it according to Rabbinic Law so that people at large will not be negligent and come to violate the Scriptural prohibition against milk and meat and partake of the meat of a kosher domesticated animal [cooked] in the milk of a kosher domesticated animal. For the literal meaning of the verse implies only the meat of a kid in the milk of its actual mother.15Therefore, they forbade all meat in milk.
ד
וכן בשר חיה ועוף בין בחלב חיה בין בחלב בהמה אינו אסור באכילה מן התורה לפיכך מותר לבשלו ומותר בהנייה ואסור באכילה מדברי סופרים כדי שלא יפשעו העם ויבואו לידי איסור בשר בחלב של תורה ויאכלו בשר בהמה טהורה בחלב בהמה טהורה שהרי אין משמע הכתוב אלא גדי בחלב אמו ממש לפיכך אסרו כל בשר בחלב:
5
It is permitted to partake of fish and locusts [cooked] in milk.16
When a person slaughters a fowl and finds eggs that are completed within it, it is permitted to partake of them together with milk.17
ה
דגים וחגבים מותר לאכלן בחלב והשוחט עוף ונמצא בו ביצים גמורות מותר לאכלן בחלב:
6
When [milk and meat] are smoked, cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias, or the like, one is not liable for lashes.18 Similarly, when meat is cooked in whey, milk from a dead animal,19 or milk from a male,20 or if blood is cooked with milk, one is absolved and is not liable for partaking [of the mixture] because of [the prohibition against partaking of] milk and meat.21
When, however, a person cooks the meat of a dead animal, forbidden fat, or the like in milk, he is liable for lashes for cooking.22He is not liable for lashes for partaking [of the mixture] because of the prohibition against meat and milk.23For the prohibition against [mixtures of] meat and milk does not take effect with regard to [entities] prohibited as nevelah or forbidden fat, because we are not speaking about a more encompassing prohibition, a prohibition which adds a new dimension, or [two] prohibitions that take effect at the same time.24
ו
המעושן והמבושל בחמי טבריא וכיוצא בהן אין לוקין עליו וכן המבשל בשר במי חלב או בחלב מתה או בחלב זכר או שבשל דם בחלב פטור ואינו לוקה על אכילתו מושם בשר בחלב אבל המבשל בשר מתה או חלב וכיוצא בהן בחלב לוקה על בשולו ואינו לוקה על אכילתו משום בשר בחלב שאין איסור בשר בחלב חל על איסור נבילה או איסור חלב שאין כאן לא איסור כולל ולא איסור מוסיף ולא איסור בת אחת:
7
When a person cooks a fetus in milk, he is liable. Similarly, one who partakes of it is liable. When, however, one cooks a placenta, skin, sinews, bones, the roots of the horns, or the soft portion of the hoofs [cooked] in meat,25he is not liable. Similarly, one who partakes [of such a mixture] is not liable.
ז
המבשל שליל בחלב חייב וכן האוכלו אבל המבשל שליא או עור וגידין ועצמות ועקרי קרנים וטלפים הרכים בחלב פטור וכן האוכלן פטור:
8
When meat falls into milk or milk falls into meat and they are cooked together, the minimum measure [for which one is liable is] enough for one substance to impart its flavor to the other.
What is implied? When a piece of meat falls into a bubbling pot26full of milk, a gentile should taste [the contents of] the pot.27 If it has the flavor of meat, it is forbidden. If not, it is permitted, but the piece of meat is forbidden.28
When does the above apply? When he hurried and removed the piece of meat before it discharged the milk that it absorbed. If he did not remove it [that quickly], we require 60 times its volume,29because the milk that it absorbed became forbidden. It was discharged and then mixed together with the remainder of the milk.30
ח
בשר שנפל לתוך החלב או חלב שנפל לתוך הבשר ונתבשל עמו שיעורו בנותן טעם כיצד חתיכה של בשר שנפלה לקדרה רותחת של חלב טועם הנכרי את הקדרה אם אמר שיש בה טעם בשר אסורה ואם לאו מותרת ואותה חתיכה אסורה במה דברים אמורים שקדם והוציא את החתיכה קודם שתפלוט חלב שבלעה אבל אם לא סלק משערים אותה בששים מפני שהחלב שנבלע בה ונאסר יצא ונתערב עם שאר החלב:
9
When milk falls [onto a piece of] meat [being cooked] in a pot,31 we taste32 the piece on which the milk fell. If it does not have the flavor of milk, everything is permitted.33 [More stringent rules apply] if the piece of meat has the flavor of milk. Even though if the piece of meat was pressed to remove [the absorbed liquid], the flavor [of milk] would not remain, since it has the flavor of milk now, it is forbidden and we must measure its entire volume.34 If everything in the pot - the other meat, the vegetables, the sauce, and the spices - is great enough so that the piece is one sixtieth of the entire [volume], that piece of meat is forbidden35 and the remainder is permitted.36
ט
נפל חלב לתוך קדרה של בשר טועמין את החתיכה שנפל עליה חלב אם אין בה טעם חלב הכל מותר ואם יש בחתיכה טעם חלב אף על פי שאם תסחט החתיכה לא ישאר בה טעם הואיל ויש בה עתה טעם חלב נאסרה אותה חתיכה ומשערין בכולה אם היה בכל שיש בקדרה מן החתיכות והירק והמרק והתבלין כדי שתהיה חתיכה זו אחד מששים מן הכל החתיכה אסורה והשאר מותר:
10
When does the above apply? When he did not stir the pot at the outset when the milk fell into it. [He did so] only at the end37 and did not cover the pot.38
If, however, he stirred the pot from the beginning until the end39 or covered [the pot]40 from the time [the milk] fell until the end, [the question of whether a prohibition exists depends] on whether [the milk] imparted its flavor.41
Similarly, if the milk fell into the sauce or onto all the pieces and it was not known on which piece [the milk] fell,42 he should stir the entire pot so that all its contents will be mixed [thoroughly].43 If the flavor of milk [can be detected] in the entire pot, it is forbidden. If not, it is permitted. If a gentile to taste [the pot] whom we can rely on cannot be found, we require a measure of sixty whether for meat in milk or milk in meat. If there is one measure in sixty,44 it is permitted. If there is less than sixty, it is forbidden.
י
בד"א בשלא נער את הקדרה בתחלה כשנפל החלב אלא לבסוף ולא כסה אבל אם נער מתחלה ועד סוף או שכסה משעת נפילה עד סוף הרי זה בנותן טעם וכן אם נפל חלב לתוך המרק או לכל החתיכות ולא נודע לאי זה חתיכה נפל נוער את הקדרה כולה עד שתשוב ויתערב הכל אם יש בקדרה כולה טעם חלב אסורה ואם לאו מותרת אם לא נמצא נכרי שיטעום ונסמוך עליו משערים בששים בין בשר לתוך חלב בין חלב לתוך בשר אחד מששים מותר פחות בששים אסור:
11
When meat has been cooked in a pot, milk should not be cooked in it.45 If one cooked [milk] in it, [it is forbidden] if it imparted its flavor.46
יא
קדרה שבשל בה בשר לא יבשל בה חלב ואם בשל בנותן טעם:
12
The udders [of an animal] are forbidden according to Rabbinic Law.47 [The prohibition is not of Scriptural origin, because] meat that was cooked in milk from an animal that was slaughtered is not forbidden according to Scriptural Law, as we explained.48
Therefore if one cut it open and discharged the milk it contained, it is permitted to roast it and eat it. If one cut it both horizontally and vertically and then pressed it into a wall until none of the moisture of the milk remained, it may be cooked with other meat.49
When an udder has not been cut open, when from a young animal that never nursed50 or from an older one, it is forbidden to cook it. If one transgressed and cooked it alone, it is permitted to partake of it. If one cooked it with other meat, we require 60 times its volume. The udder itself is calculated in the 60.51
יב
הכחל אסור מדברי סופרים שאין בשר שנתבשל בחלב שחוטה אסור מן התורה כמו שביארנו לפיכך אם קרעו ומירק החלב שבו מותר לצלותו ולאכלו ואם קרעו שתי וערב וטחו בכותל עד שלא נשאר בו לחלוחית חלב מותר לבשלו עם הבשר וכחל שלא קרעו בין של קטנה שלא הניקה בין של גדולה אסור לבשלו ואם עבר ובשלו בפני עצמו מותר לאכלו ואם בשלו עם בשר אחר משערין אותו בששים וכחל מן המנין:
13
What is implied? If the entire mixture together with the udder was sixty times the volume of the udder, the udder is forbidden,52 and the remainder is permitted. If there was less than 60 times its volume, the entire mixture is forbidden. Regardless of [the ruling applying to the entire mixture], if the udder fell into another pot, it can cause it to be forbidden. We require 60 times its volume as in the original instance.53 [The rationale is that] the udder which is cooked becomes considered as a forbidden piece of meat.
We measure [the volume of] the udder at the time that it was cooked, not according to its state when it fell [into the mixture].
יג
כיצד אם היה הכל עם הכחל כמו ששים בכחל הכחל אסור והשאר מותר ואם היה בפחות מששים הכל אסור בין כך ובין כך אם נפל לקדרה אחרת אוסר אותה ומשערין בו בששים כבראשונה שהכחל עצמו שנתבשל נעשה כחתיכה האסורה ואין משערין בו אלא כמות שהוא בעת שנתבשל לא כמות שהיה בשעה שנפל:
14
We do not roast an udder that has been cut above meat on a spit.54If, however, one roasted it [in that manner], everything is permitted.55
יד
אין צולין את הכחל שחתכו [למעלה] מן הבשר בשפוד ואם צלהו הכל מותר:
15
A stomach that is cooked with milk inside it56 is permitted. [The rationale is that] it is no longer considered as milk.57Instead, it is considered as a waste product, because it undergoes a change in the digestive system.
טו
קיבה שבשלה בחלב שבה מותרת שאינו חלב אלא הרי הוא כטנופת שהרי ישתנה במעים:
16
It is forbidden to place the skin of a kosher animal's stomach [in milk] to serve as a catalyst for it to harden into cheese. If one used it as a catalyst, [a gentile] should taste the cheese. If it has a taste of meat, it is forbidden. If not, it is permitted. [The rationale is that] the catalyst is itself a permitted entity,58 for it comes from the stomach of a kosher animal. [The only question] is [whether] the prohibition against meat and milk [was violated] and that is dependent on whether the flavor was imparted.
[Different laws apply, however, when] one uses the skin of the stomach of a nevelah, a trefe, or a non-kosher animal. [The rationale is that] since the catalyst is forbidden in its own right, the cheese becomes forbidden, not because of the prohibition of meat and milk, but because of the prohibition against a nevelah. For this reason, [our Sages] forbade cheeses made by gentiles, as we explained.59
טז
אסור להעמיד הגבינה בעור הקיבה של שחוטה ואם העמיד טועם את הגבינה אם יש בה טעם בשר אסורה ואם לאו מותרת מפני שהמעמיד דבר המותר הוא שקיבת שחוטה היא ואין כאן אלא איסור בשר בחלב ששעורו בנותן טעם אבל המעמיד בעור קיבת נבילה וטרפה ובהמה טמאה הואיל והמעמיד דבר האסור בפני עצמו נאסרה הגבינה משום נבלה לא משום בשר בחלב ומפני חשש זה אסרו גבינת עכו"ם כמו שביארנו:
17
Meat alone is permitted and milk alone is permitted. It is [only] when the two become mixed together through cooking that they both become forbidden.
When does the above apply? When they were cooked together, when a hot object fell into a hot object,60 or when a cold object fell into a hot object.61If, however, [milk or meat] that is hot fell into the other when it is cold, [all that is necessary is to] remove the surface of the meat which touched the milk; the remainder may be eaten.62
If cold [meat] fell into cold [milk or the opposite], one must wash the piece of meat thoroughly.63 [Afterwards,] it may be eaten. For this reason, it is permitted to [carry] meat and milk bound together in a single handkerchief, provided they do not touch each other. If they do touch each other, one must wash the meat and wash the cheese.64 [Afterwards,] he may partake of them.
יז
הבשר לבדו מותר והחלב לבדו מותר ובהתערב שניהן על ידי בישול יאסרו שניהם במה דברים אמורים שנתבשלו שניהם ביחד או שנפל חם לתוך חם או צונן לתוך חם אבל אם נפל אחד משניהם והוא חם לתוך השני והוא צונן קולף הבשר כולו שנגע בו החלב ואוכל השאר ואם נפל צונן לתוך צונן מדיח החתיכה ואוכלה לפיכך מותר לצרור בשר וגבינה במטפחת אחת והוא שלא יגעו זה בזה ואם נגעו מדיח הבשר ומדיח הגבינה ואוכל:
18
When a substance is salted to the extent that it cannot be eaten because of its salt,65 is considered as if it is boiling.66If it can be eaten in its present state like kutach,67 it is not considered as if it is boiling.68
יח
מליח שאינו נאכל מחמת מלחו הרי הוא כרותח ואם נאכל כמות שהוא כמו הכותח אינו כרותח:
19
[The following rules apply when] a fowl that has been slaughtered falls into milk or kutach that contains milk: If it is raw, it need only be washed thoroughly and it is permitted. If it was roasted, one should remove its surface.69If it has portions where it is open70 or it is spiced and it falls into milk or kutach, it is forbidden.71
יט
עוף שחוט שנפל לחלב או לכותח שיש בו חלב אם חי הוא מדיחו ומותר ואם צלי קולפו ואם היו בו פלחים פלחים או שהיה מתובל בתבלין ונפל לחלב או לכותח הרי זה אסור:
20
It is forbidden to serve fowl72 together with milk on the table upon which one is eating.73 This is a decree [enacted] because habit [might lead] to sin.74 We fear that one will eat one with the other. [This applies] even though fowl with milk is forbidden only because of Rabbinic decree.75
כ
אסור להעלות העוף עם הגבינה על השלחן שהוא אוכל עליו גזירה משום הרגל עבירה שמא יאכל זה עם זה אע"פ שהעוף בחלב אסור מדברי סופרים:
21
When two guests who are not familiar with each other are eating at the same table, one may eat the meat of an animal and one may eat cheese. [The rationale is] that they are not well-acquainted with each other to the extent that they will eat together.76
כא
שני אכסנאין שאינם מכירין זה את זה אוכלין על שלחן אחד זה בשר בהמה וזה גבינה מפני שאין זה גס לבו בזה כדי שיאכל עמו:
22
We do not knead a loaf with milk. If one kneaded it [with milk], the loaf is forbidden,77 because habit [might lead] to sin, lest he eat it together with meat. We do not dab an oven with animal fat.78 If in fact one dabbed an oven [with fat], any loaf is forbidden79 until one fires the oven,80 lest one eat milk with [that loaf]. If one altered the appearance of the bread so that it will be evident that one should not eat meat or milk with it, it is permitted.
כב
אין לשון העיסה בחלב ואם לש כל הפת אסורה מפני הרגל עבירה שמא יאכל בה בשר ואין טשין את התנור באליה ואם טש כל הפת אסורה עד שיסיק את התנור שמא יאכל בה חלב ואם שינה בצורת הפת עד שתהיה ניכרת כדי שלא יאכל בה לא בשר ולא חלב הרי זה מותר:
23
When a loaf has been baked together with roasted meat or fish were roasted together with meat,81 it is forbidden to eat them together with milk.82 When meat was eaten83 in a dish and then fish were cooked in it, it is permitted to eat those fish together with kutach.84
כג
פת שאפאה עם הצלי ודגים שצלאן עם הבשר אסור לאכלן בחלב קערה שאכלו בה בשר ובשלו בה דגים אותן הדגים מותר לאכלן בכותח:
24
When a knife was used to cut roasted meat85 and then was used to cut radish or other sharp foods, it is forbidden to eat them together with kutach.86 If, however, one cut meat [with a knife] and afterwards cut zucchini or watermelon,87 one should scrape away the place where the cut was made and the remainder may be eaten with milk.
כד
סכין שחתך בה בשר צלי וחזר וחתך בה צנון וכיוצא בו מדברים חריפין אסור לאכלן בכותח אבל אם חתך בה בשר וחזר וחתך בה קישות או אבטיח גורד מקום החתך ואוכל השאר בחלב:
25
We do not place a jar of salt near a jar of kutach, because it will draw out its flavor.88 Thus one will cook meat with this salt that has the flavor of milk. One may, however, place a jar of vinegar near a jar of kutach, because the vinegar will not draw out its flavor.89
כה
אין מניחין כד של מלח בצד כד של כמך מפני ששואב ממנו ונמצא מבשל הבשר במלח זה שיש בו טעם החלב אבל מניח כד החומץ בצד כד הכמך שאין החומץ שואב ממנו:
26
When a person eats cheese or milk first, it is permitted for him to eat meat directly afterwards. He must, however, wash his hands90 and clean his mouth between the cheese and the meat.91
With what should he clean his mouth? With bread or with fruit that [require him] to chew and then swallow or spit them out.92 One may clean his mouth with all substances with the exception of dates, flour, and vegetables, because they do not clean effectively.
כו
מי שאכל גבינה או חלב תחלה מותר לאכול אחריו בשר מיד וצריך שידיח ידיו ויקנח פיו בין הגבינה ובין הבשר ובמה מקנח פיו בפת או בפירות שלועסן ובולען או פולטן ובכל מקנחין את הפה חוץ מתמרים או קמח או ירקות שאין אלו מקנחין יפה:
27
When does the above apply? With regard to the meat of a domesticated animal or a wild beast.93 If, however, one [desires to] eat the meat of a fowl after eating cheese or milk, it is not necessary for him to clean his mouth or wash his hands.94
כז
בד"א בבשר בהמה או חיה אבל אם אכל בשר עוף אחר שאכל הגבינה או החלב אינו צריך לא קנוח הפה ולא נטילת ידים:
28
When a person ate meat first - whether the meat of an animal or the meat of a fowl - he should not partake of milk afterwards unless he waits the time for another meal, approximately six hours.95 This stringency is required because meat that becomes stuck between teeth and is not removed by cleaning.96
כח
מי שאכל בשר בתחלה בין בשר בהמה בין בשר עוף לא יאכל אחריו חלב עד שיהיה ביניהן כדי שיעור סעודה אחרת והוא כמו שש שעות מפני הבשר של בין השינים שאינו סר בקינוח:
FOOTNOTES
1.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 186-187) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 113 and 92) include these prohibitions among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
2.
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:11,13.
3.
I.e., together the mixture is the size of an olive. It is not necessary that one have an olive-sized portion of milk and an olive-sized portion of meat.
4.
If, however, the meat and milk have not been cooked together, there is no Scriptural prohibition against partaking of them together (Maggid Mishneh). According to Rabbinic Law, it is forbidden to partake of them in any manner.
5.
Even if a prohibition was not violated when cooking them together (e.g., they were cooked by a gentile), it is forbidden for a Jew to partake of the mixture. The implication is that the prohibitions against cooking the mixture and partaking of it are separate issues that do not necessarily share a connection (Maggid Mishneh).
6.
I.e., no where in the Torah does it state that it is forbidden to partake of such a mixture.
7.
Significantly, in his Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., the Rambam explains that the prohibitions against partaking of and benefiting from milk and meat are derived from the fact that the Torah repeats this prohibition three times. Perhaps the reason the Rambam does not mention this means of derivation here is to avoid the following question being raised: Why are lashes not given for benefiting from milk and meat?
To explain: In Chapter 8, Halachah 16, the Rambam writes that one is not liable for lashes for deriving benefit from a forbidden substance. As explained in the notes to that halachah, the Maggid Mishneh explains that one is liable for lashes only when he derives benefit from the food in an ordinary manner from food. This includes only eating and not other forms of deriving benefit. Nevertheless, seemingly this should not apply with regard to benefiting from a mixture of milk and meat. For, as stated in Chapter 14, Halachah 10, in that instance, one is liable even if one does not derive benefit in the ordinary manner. Hence, it would appear that one should be liable for lashes for partaking of such a mixture.
Among the explanations given why one is not liable is that the prohibition against deriving benefit from a mixture of milk and meat is derived from an inference from a more lenient instance to a more stringent one (a kal vichomer; see Chullin 115b). And we follow the principle that punishment is not meted out when a prohibition is derived in such a fashion, only when it is stated explicitly (Sifri, Naso). If, however, there was an explicit prohibition in the Torah teaching us that deriving benefit from a mixture of milk and meat was forbidden. Seemingly, one would be liable for lashes (Lechem Mishneh).
8.
See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 2:6.
9.
With regard to the meat or milk of a kosher wild beast or fowl, see the following halachah and notes.
10.
I.e., the prohibition involves only a kid that could be eaten and milk of which one could partake.
11.
I.e., the term gidi translated as "kid," commonly means "a kid-goat." Nevertheless, according to the Bible, it is not necessarily restricted to this meaning unless the verse specifies so explicitly, as in Genesis 27:16; 38:20.
12.
I.e., the intent is not that one is liable only for cooking an offspring in the milk of its mother and not in any other situations. See the conclusion of the following halachah.
13.
Needless to say, one is liable for partaking of the non-kosher meat or the non-kosher milk.
14.
There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis in Chullin 116a whether the prohibition against eat the meat of a wild beast [cooked] in milk is Scriptural or Rabbinic in origin. According to some interpretations, that difference of opinion is perpetuated among the Rishonim (see Siftei Cohen 87:4). Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of Rishonim and Achronim follow the opinion the Rambam states here. This is also the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 87:3).
Significantly, in (Hilchot Mamrim 2:9), the Rambam states that the meat of a wild beast that is cooked in milk is forbidden according to Scriptural Law. In their glosses to Hilchot Mamrim, the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that there, the Rambam is speaking theoretically: Were the halachah to follow the opinion that the meat of a wild beast is forbidden according to Scriptural law, the ruling would be such and such. The Merkevat HaMishneh, however, maintains that a printing error crept into the text in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot and the text should be changed to fit the Rambam's ruling in Hilchot Mamrim.
15.
Hence were the Sages to allow one to partake of the meat of a wild beast and fowl cooked in milk, one might think that the prohibition applies only in its most literal context. As a safeguard to prevent this error from occurring, they instituted this prohibition.
16.
The Turei Zahav 87:3 and the Siftei Cohen 87:5 mention that there are authorities who forbid eating fish and milk together because it can cause health dangers. They, however, reject that ruling.
17.
This refers to eggs that already have a yolk and whites, but are still connected to the chicken's body (Maggid Mishneh). See the Turei Zahav 87:6 and the Siftei Cohen 87:9 who quote authorities who explain that even though such eggs are considered as meat in certain contexts, there is no prohibition against partaking of them together with milk.
18.
Nevertheless, there is a prohibition against partaking of all these mixtures and those mentioned in the following clause.
19.
I.e., milk that was in the animal's udders when it died or was slaughtered. See Halachah 12.
20.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 87:6) states that, after the fact, there is no prohibition against a mixture of milk from a male and meat. The Siftei Cohen 87:16 explains that this refers to milk from a male human. Even the Rama would forbid milk from a male animal according to Rabbinic Law.
21.
Implied is that in the latter instance, one is liable for partaking of blood. The Siftei Cohen 87:15 notes that according to many authorities, one is not liable for lashes for partaking of blood that has been cooked.
22.
Since we are speaking about meat or fat from a kosher species, the prohibition against cooking applies. In this instance, we do not say that "one prohibition does not fall upon another," because there is no prohibition against cooking a nevelah or forbidden fat.
23.
He is, however, liable for partaking of a nevelah or of forbidden fat.
24.
As stated in Chapter 14, Halachah 18, and in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:8, it is only in these circumstances, that we do not follow the general principle: One prohibition does not fall upon another prohibition.
The commentaries ask: Seemingly, the prohibition against a mixture of meat and milk does add a new dimension to this prohibition, because it is forbidden to benefit from such a mixture. Why then does the prohibition against partaking of milk and meat not apply?
The Rambam attempts to resolve this question in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 3:4) by explaining that since the prohibition against benefiting from the mixture is an extension of the prohibition against partaking of it, when - as in the present instance - the prohibition against partaking of it does not apply, the prohibition against benefiting from it also does not apply.
25.
For as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 18, such substances are not fit to be eaten and thus are not considered as meat.
26.
The pot must be boiling hot. If meat falls into cold milk, it will not absorb it. See Halachah 17.
27.
Chullin 97a states "An Aramean chef shall taste it." Tosafot and others explain that only a chef's word is accepted. He will not lie, because if his falsification is discovered, his professional reputation will be tarnished and he will suffer a loss. We suspect that an ordinary gentile, by contrast, will lie. His word is only accepted with regard to ritual matters when he makes statements in the course of conversation, without knowing that a Jew is depending on his word.
This interpretation is not evident from the Rambam's words. On the contrary, it appears that according to the Rambam, the statements of any gentile are acceptable (see Chapter 15, Law 30, and notes). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 92:1 quotes the Rambam's words. The Siftei Cohen 92:1 mentions the view of Tosafot. The Rama states that in the Ashkenazic community, the custom is not to rely on the word of a gentile in this context. Instead, we require sixty times the volume of the meat in all instances. Otherwise, both the milk and the meat are forbidden.
28.
For it certainly absorbed milk.
29.
As will be explained (see Chapter 15, Halachah 6, and notes), our Sages received the tradition that a forbidden substances will not impart its flavor to a mixture when the mixture contains sixty times its volume.
30.
There is no way of distinguishing the remainder of the milk from the forbidden milk. Hence the entire mixture is forbidden unless there is more than 60 times the amount of the forbidden substance.
31.
As evident from the continuation of the Rambam's words in this and the following halachah, we are speaking of an instance where milk falls on a piece of meat that is not in the sauce. According to Rashi, the lower portion of the meat is resting within the sauce in the pot and its upper portion - on which the milk falls - projects beyond it. According to Rabbenu Yitzchak, the entire portion is outside the sauce. See Turei Zahav 92:2; Siftei Cohen 92:4. (From the Rambam's wording at the beginning of the following halachah, it would appear that he follows Rabbenu Yitzchak's position.)
32.
I.e., we have the meat tasted by a gentile as above.
33.
I.e., the piece itself is permitted and therefore all the contents of the pot.
34.
Since the meat becomes forbidden, because it is meat that has been mixed with milk, tasting the mixture for milk is not sufficient. Instead, we consider the meat as a forbidden article and measure 60 times its volume. It is not possible to distinguish between the flavor of the forbidden meat and that of the permitted meat.
35.
Once it becomes forbidden, it is considered as a prohibited entity and cannot become permitted again. Our Sages [Chullin 108b; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 92:3-4)] use the expression: "The piece becomes like carrion," i.e., as if it is inherently forbidden.
36.
As if it was mixed with 60 times its volume of non-kosher meat. If the entire mixture is not 60 times the volume of the forbidden piece, the entire mixture becomes forbidden.
37.
Since he mixed at the end, after the meat became forbidden, the entire mixture may become forbidden.
38.
Thus the piece of meat on which the milk fell remained a discrete entity, separate from the entire mixture. Hence it becomes forbidden.
39.
The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 82) states that it is sufficient for him to stir the mixture at the beginning. This will cause the milk to be blended throughout the entire mixture. There is no need for him to continue stirring the pot. Rav Yaakov ibn Chaviv maintains that the Rambam would also accept this position. The Rambam mentions stirring the put until the end only for stylistic reasons. This interpretation is also apparent in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 8:3).
In his Kessef Mishneh and Beit Yosef, Rav Yosef Caro differs and maintains that the Rambam's words here should be understood literally. Unless he mixed the pot from the beginning until the end, we fear that it was not mixed well. Hence in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 92:2, he quotes the Rambam exactly. The Rama, however, cites the Tur's position.
40.
For covering the pot also causes the flavor of the milk to be blended throughout the entire mixture.
41.
And we have a gentile taste the mixture as above.
42.
The Tur and the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 92:2) emphasize that if the person does not stir the pot immediately after the milk fell in, the piece on which the milk fell becomes forbidden. Since its identity is unknown, all the pieces are forbidden unless the entire mixture is 60 times larger than its largest piece.
Rav Yaakov ibn Chaviv and Rav Yosef Caro (in his Kessef Mishneh and Beit Yosef) interpret the Rambam's intent as analogous to that of the Tur. They maintain that the Rambam also would agree that if person waited after the milk fell on the piece, that piece - and perhaps all the pieces - become(s) forbidden.
The Maggid Mishneh offers a different interpretation, explaining that in this instance, we do not say that the piece of meat on which the milk fell becomes forbidden because we do not know which piece it is. Hence rather than have the taste of the milk affect that piece, we stir the entire mixture so that the milk will become blended into it and become nullified as explained in the following note.
The Turei Zahav 92:6 and the Siftei Cohen 92:8 follow the interpretation of the Maggid Mishneh, explaining that in this instance, the principle (Beitzah 4b): "We do not nullify the existence of a forbidden substance at the outset," does not apply. For since the identity of the forbidden substance was never established, there is no specific prohibited substance involved. Hence at the outset, the entire pot is considered as subject to being forbidden. To prevent that from happening, we stir it so that the prohibition will not take effect.
43.
I.e., intentionally mixing the milk throughout the entire pot and thus nullifying its presence. As the Tur (loc. cit) writes, if the milk fell into the sauce, even if the person did not stir the mixture, this would be the ruling. Nevertheless, the Rambam advises the person to stir the mixture so that it will be mixed thoroughly and no trace will remain.
44.
More precisely, the permitted substance must be sixty times the volume of the forbidden substance. Thus we are speaking about the forbidden substance being one sixty-first.
45.
This applies even on a later day. According to Scriptural Law, after 24 hours, there is no prohibition. Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, at the outset, one should be stringent and not cook milk in a pot in which meat was cooked previously even if it had been cooked several days beforehand.
46.
I.e., it should be tasted by a gentile. According to the Ashkenazic custom not to rely on a gentile, we require that the contents be 60 times the volume of the pot. The Siftei Cohen 93:1 states that it would be very rare for such a situation to exist. Generally, the ratio between a pot and its contents is less than 60. Hence, in most instances, the food would be prohibited.
47.
I.e., we are afraid that a certain amount of milk remained in the udder or that the udder absorbed a certain amount of milk. Since we do not know how much milk it absorbed, we assume that it is entirely forbidden.
48.
Halachah 6.
49.
The ruling regarding roasting is more lenient than the ruling regarding cooking, because when meat is roasted, any fluids it contains are discharged and flow outward without being absorbed (see Halachah 14). When it is cooked, by contrast, it stews in its juices and it and any other meat will absorb the milk it discharges.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 90:2) writes that the accepted custom is not to cook it with other meat at all and to cook it alone only after it has been cut vertically and horizontally and pressed into a wall. The Rama adds that it is Ashkenazic custom not to cook it at all.
50.
I.e., our Sages enforced their decree universally, without differentiating between one animal and another.
51.
In Chapter 15, Halachah 18, the Rambam explains that since only a Rabbinic prohibition is involved, our Sages were more lenient. Thus the Rambam interprets this ruling as being of general significance. The Rashba offers a different rationale for this ruling, explaining that since the meat of the udder is acceptable, we include it in the reckoning of 60. Thus in contrast to other instances where 60 times the amount of the forbidden substance is required, here, we require only 59.
52.
Rashi, Chullin 97b, explains that we assume that the milk imparted its flavor to the udder. Hence it becomes forbidden as the Rambam proceeds to state.
53.
Thus according to the Rambam, only 59 times its volume is required. This view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 90:1). The Tur and the Rama differ and maintain that the second mixture is judged more stringently than the first. They follow the rationale of the Rashba cited above. Thus they maintain at first, the udder is included in the reckoning, because its meat is permitted. With regard to the second mixture, by contrast, it is the meat, not the milk of the udder which is forbidden. Hence 60 times its volume is required.
54.
This is a safeguard so that it will not discharge milk which will flow over other pieces of meat.
55.
For even if its milk does flow over other pieces of meat, they are not forbidden. The rationale is that since it has been cut open, we do not suspect that perhaps some milk remained. Since the entire prohibition is Rabbinic in origin, we are not overly stringent. The Rama states if the udder was not cut open beforehand, the meat that is lower on the spit is forbidden.
56.
I.e., a calf that had drank its mother's milk and was cooked with that milk in its stomach.
57.
The Kessef Mishneh states that according to the Rambam, this applies even to milk that is still liquid. Since it has already undergone preliminary digestive processes, it is no longer considered as milk. See Chapter 4, Halachah 19.
58.
Hence the logic mentioned in the following note does not apply.
59.
Chapter 3, Halachah 13. As the Rambam states in that halachah, since the amount of skin used is minimal, we might think that no prohibition is involved, for the forbidden substance would be nullified. Nevertheless, the Rabbis ruled stringently, explaining that since the catalyst which causes the milk to curdle is forbidden, everything is forbidden.
60.
For in this instance, the two substances will be absorbed by each other just as if they had been cooked together.
61.
For we follow the principle (Pesachim 76a): "The lower one dominates," and the food is considered as hot.
62.
We assume that the meat's surface absorbed a small amount of milk while it was cooling down (ibid.). Hence the surface is forbidden and must be removed. The milk does not, however, permeate beyond the surface. Therefore the remainder is permitted. With regard to the milk, it appears that there is no prohibition. The Radbaz explains that since it is not possible to remove the surface of the milk, there is no prohibition whatsoever. Other Rishonim require that the milk be sixty times the volume of the surface of the meat. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 91:4) quotes the Rambam's ruling and the Siftei Cohen 91:8 states that this decision is accepted by the Rama despite the fact that this might appear incompatible with some of the other rulings of the Rama. The Turei Zahav 91:7, however, argues in favor of the view of the other Rishonim.
63.
Since they are both cold, there is no suspicion that one will be absorbed by the other. Washing the meat is necessary only to remove any traces of milk that might be left.
64.
The Bayit Chadash rules that this applies only when one of them is moist. If they are both solid, they need not even be washed.
65.
In previous eras, before the advent of refrigeration, meat was salted thoroughly to preserve it. Afterwards, when one desired to partake of it, he would soak it in water to remove the salt (Rashi, Chullin 112a). The Radbaz states that we are speaking about salting meat in a manner similar to the way it is salted to remove its blood. If less salt than that is used, these laws do not apply. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 91:5) which discusses these laws.
66.
I.e., we assume that it will cause substances to be discharged and absorbed as cooking does. This is merely a Rabbinic stringency.
It must be emphasized that the comparison to cooking is not total. Generally, salting only causes the surface of the substance to become forbidden. If, however, the substance is fatty, the entire substance becomes forbidden (ibid.:6).
67.
A mixture of milk, breadcrumbs, salt, and spices, commonly served as a dip in Babylon.
68.
All that is necessary is to wash the meat and/or cheese thoroughly.
69.
There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if this is speaking about a roasted fowl that is hot, or even one that is not hot. According to the latter opinion, it will still absorb some milk because it has become soft and permeable. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 91:7) quotes the first view while the Turand the Rama mention the second.
70.
I.e., instead of being a solid surface, the surface of the meat cracks open in several places.
71.
Because the cracks in its surface or the spices will cause it to absorb the milk to a greater extent than it would otherwise. This clause appears also to be referring to meat that has been roasted. There are, however, opinions that interpret it as referring to raw meat. See Siftei Cohen 91:21.
72.
Needless to say, this applies to meat (see Lechem Mishneh).
73.
They may, however, be placed together on a serving table (Chullin 104b).
74.
Since both substances are permitted and they are served together, one might accidentally partake of them together.
Implied is that if substances are forbidden and one would not ordinarily partake of them, there is no difficulty in having them served on the table at which one is eating. See Siftei Cohen 88:2.
75.
See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 88:2) which explains that if a distinction is made, e.g., the milk is placed on one type of placemat and the meat on another, there is no prohibition.
76.
Thus there is little likelihood that they will share their food together.
77.
Even to be eaten alone [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 97:1)]. The Shulchan Aruch, however, grants license if only a small amount of bread was prepared in this manner and thus it can be eaten at one time.
78.
Even if the fat is kosher.
79.
We fear that the fat from the oven became absorbed in the bread, causing it to become fleishig.
80.
Firing the oven to the point that it becomes red-hot will burn away all traces of the fat.
81.
Even if they did not touch each other. Note the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 116) and the Turei Zahav 95:3) which mention that there is a prohibition against eating fish roasted with meat because it could cause a health problem.
82.
For the vapors from the meat become absorbed in the bread or in the fish. In Chapter 15, Halachah 32, the Rambam rules that vapors do not cause an object to become forbidden. There is not necessarily a contradiction between these two rulings, for here we are speaking about a small oven [Radbaz, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 97:3). Even though, after the fact, kosher meat roasted together with non-kosher meat in a small oven is permitted, here one is not deeming the bread or fish forbidden, one is merely prohibiting that it be eaten with milk (Siftei Cohen 97:4).
83.
Or cooked [Radbaz, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 95:1)]. The Shulchan Aruch adds that this ruling applies only when the dish was thoroughly washed and no trace of meat remains.
84.
Even though the kutach contains milk. The rationale is that although the flavor of the meat was imparted to the dish and from the dish, it was imparted to the fish. Nevertheless, since it went through these two intermediate stages, it is not considered significant and does not cause the fish to be considered fleishig. The Rabbis referred to this concept as nat bar nat - notain taam bar notain tam ("imparting merely flavor a second time").
It must be emphasized that nat bar nat is permitted only with regard to a mixture of milk and meat. The rationale is that both milk and meat are permitted, a prohibition only exists when they are mixed together and if one of them has been weakened to the extent that it is nat bar nat, it is not considered significant. When, however, an entity is inherently forbidden, e.g., non-kosher meat, when its flavor becomes absorbed into a dish, that dish becomes forbidden and it may not be used again for hot food (Radbaz).
85.
The Rambam's wording implies that the meat was hot (Radbaz). This ruling applies also to hot cooked meat (Kessef Mishneh). There are opinions that maintain that this ruling also applies when the meat was cold (Radbaz).
86.
Rashi, Chullin 111b, states that the rationale is that it is likely that there will be a small amount of fat left on the knife. Thus when the knife is used to cut the sharp food, its sharpness will cause the flavor of the fat will be imparted to it. According to this view, if the knife was cleaned or used to cut another substance first, it does not cause the radish to be forbidden [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 96:5); note also the dissenting view of the Rama]. (This opinion speaks of fat being left on the knife, for if there was no fat there, seemingly, this instance would resemble the concept of nat bar nat mentioned in the previous halachah.)
There are, however, other opinions (Tosafot, Sefer HaTerumot) which maintain that this ruling would apply even if the knife was clean. The rationale is the pungency of the food and the pressure of the knife cause it to absorb more than an ordinary instance of nat bar nat.
From the Rambam's wording, it appears that the entire radish is forbidden. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 96:1), however, rules that it is sufficient to remove a piece a fingerbreadth in thickness. The Rama, however, mentions the Rambam's view.
87.
I.e., substances that are not pungent and soft and contain moisture. If one cuts a vegetable that is not soft and moist, it is sufficient to wash it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 96:5)].
88.
The Ra'avad and the Radbaz note that the Rambam apparently had a slightly different version of Chullin 112a, the source for this halachah, than that found in the standard printed texts of the Talmud. According to the standard version, the rationale is that we fear that some drops of kutach will fall into the salt. The Radbaz adds that according to the Rambam, the prohibition applies only with regard to earthenware jugs. If they are made from metal, the material will be too dense to allow for the flavor to be drawn out.
89.
According to the other rationale, the kutach will remain a distinct entity if it falls into the salt, but it will become mixed with the vinegar and nullified if it falls into it (Radbaz; Turei Zahav 95:16).
90.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 89:2) states that if one sees that his hands are clean, it is not necessary to wash them.
91.
The Rama quotes a view that requires one to wait six hours after eating hard cheese. It is, however, questionable if this would be required for most hard cheese commercially produced today.
92.
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states that one should also wash his mouth.
93.
The requirement of this stringency for the meat of a domesticated animal is understandable, for the prohibition is of Scriptural origin. Nevertheless, according to the standard text of Halachah 4, the prohibition against a mixture of milk and the meat of a wild beast is also Rabbinic in origin. What then is the difference between the meat of a wild beast and that of a fowl? The Kessef Mishneh, however, explains that the meat of a domesticated animal resembles the meat of a wild beast. Hence it was necessary for the Rabbis to forbid it. Alternatively, Rabbenu Tam explains that the meat of a wild beast will stick to a person's mouth and hands more than the meat of a fowl.
94.
Since only a Rabbinic prohibition is involved, our Sages did not enforce any further stringency.
95.
This is the view stated in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 89:1) and in the Rama's conclusion, although the Rama does mention that there are some more lenient views.
96.
The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 89) gives a different rationale: that because meat is fatty, its taste persists for a long time.

Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 10


1
All the prohibitions we mentioned involve living beings. There are also other Scriptural prohibitions that involve the produce of the earth. They include: chadash, kilai hakerem, tevel, and orlah.1
א
כל איסורין שאמרנו הן במיני נפש חיה ויש איסורין אחרים של תורה בזרע הארץ והן החדש וכלאי הכרם והטבל והערלה:
2
What is meant by chadash?2 It is forbidden to partake of any of the five species of grain3 alone4 before the omer5is offered on the sixteenth of Nisan, as [Leviticus 23:14] states: "You may not partake of bread, roasted kernels, or fresh kernels."6
Anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of fresh grain before the offering of the omer is liable for lashes. [This applies] in every place and at all times, whether in Eretz [Yisrael] or in the Diaspora,7 whether at the time of the Temple or when the Temple is no longer standing.8
[The only difference in observance is that] while the Temple is standing, once the omer has been offered, it is permitted [to partake of] new grain in Jerusalem. Distant places9 are permitted [to partake of new grain] after midday. For the court will not be indolent with regard to [the offering of omer] beyond midday.10[Now] when the Temple is no longer standing, the entire day is forbidden according to Scriptural Law. In the present age, in the places where the festivals are observed for two days,11 chadash is forbidden on the entire day of the seventeenth of Nisan until the evening according to Rabbinic Law.12
ב
החדש כיצד כל אחד מחמשה מיני תבואה בלבד אסור לאכול מהחדש שלו קודם שיקרב העומר בט"ז בניסן שנאמר ולחם וקלי וכרמל לא תאכלו וכל האוכל כזית חדש קודם הקרבת העומר לוקה מן התורה בכל מקום ובכל זמן בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ בין בפני הבית בין שלא בפני הבית אלא שבזמן שיש מקדש משיקרב העומר הותר החדש בירושלים והמקומות הרחוקין מותרין אחר חצות שאין בית דין מתעצלין בו עד אחר חצות ובזמן שאין בית המקדש כל היום כולו אסור מן התורה ובזמן הזה במקומות שעושין שני ימים טובים החדש אסור כל יום י"ז בניסן עד לערב מדברי סופרים:
3
When a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of bread from each of roasted kernels, or fresh kernels [from chadash], he is liable for three sets of lashes,13 as [implied by the verse]: "You may not partake of bread, roasted kernels, or fresh kernels." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that all three involve separate prohibitions.14
ג
האוכל לחם וקלי וכרמל כזית מכל אחד ואחד לוקה שלש מלקיות שנאמר ולחם וקלי וכרמל לא תאכלו מפי השמועה למדו ששלשתן בלאוין חלוקין זה מזה:
4
Whenever grain took root before the offering of the omer, it is permitted to be eaten after the offering of the omer despite the fact that it did not reach maturity until after that offering. Grain that took root after the offering of the omer is forbidden until the offering of that sacrifice the following year even though it was planted before that offering was brought. This law applies in every place15and in every era according to Scriptural Law.
ד
כל תבואה שהשרישה קודם הקרבת העומר אף על פי שלא נגמרה אלא אחר שקרב מותרת באכילה משקרב העומר ותבואה שהשרישה אחר שקרב העומר אע"פ שהיתה זרועה קודם שקרב העומר הרי זו אסורה עד שיקרב העומר של שנה הבאה ודין זה בכל מקום ובכל זמן מן התורה:
5
[There is an unresolved halachic difficulty in the following situations:] Grain took root after the omer. One harvested it and sowed this wheat in the ground. Afterwards, the omer of the following year was offered, while these kernels of wheat were still in the ground.16 There is a doubt whether [the offering of] the omer caused [these kernels] to be permitted as if they had been stored in a jar or it did not cause them to be permitted, because they have been nullified in the ground.17 Therefore if a person collected them and partook of them, he is not liable for lashes, but [instead] is given stripes for rebellious conduct.
Similarly, when a stalk reached a third of its growth before the offering of the omer,18 one uprooted it and then replanted it after the offering of the omer, and it increased in size. There is a doubt whether it is forbidden because of the increase in size until the offering of the omer the following year or it is not forbidden because it took root before the offering of the omer.19
ה
תבואה שהשרישה אחר העומר וקצרה וזרע מן החטים בקרקע ואחר כך קרב העומר הבא ועדיין החטים בקרקע הרי אלו ספק אם התירן העומר כאילו היו מונחין בכד או לא יתיר אותן מפני שבטלו בקרקע לפיכך אם לקט מהם ואכל אינו לוקה ומכין אותו מכת מרדות וכן שיבולת שהביאה שליש מלפני העומר ועקרה ושתלה אחר שקרב העומר והוסיפה הרי זו ספק אם תהיה אסורה מפני התוספת עד שיבא העומר הבא או לא תהיה אסורה שהרי השרישה קודם העומר:
6
What is meant by kilai hakerem?20 Sowing a species of grain or a type of vegetable together with a vine.21 [This applies] whether they were sown by a Jew or a non-Jew,22 whether they grew on their own, or whether one planted a vine among vegetables, we are prohibited against partaking and benefiting from both of them, as [Deuteronomy 22:9] states: "Lest the fullness of the seed which you sowed and the produce of the vineyard become hallowed."23 ["Becom[ing] hallowed"] means being set apart and forbidden.
ו
כלאי הכרם כיצד מין ממיני תבואה או מיני ירקות שנזרעו עם הגפן בין שזרע ישראל בין שזרע נכרי בין שעלו מאליהן בין שנטע הגפן בתוך הירק שניהם אסורין באכילה ובהנייה שנאמר פן תקדש המלאה הזרע אשר תזרע ותבואת הכרם כלומר פן תתרחק ותאסור שניהם:
7
One who eats24 an olive-sized portion from kilai hakerem, whether from the vegetables or from the grapes is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. The two can be combined to reach this measure.25
ז
והאוכל כזית מכלאי הכרם בין מן הירק בין מן הענבים לוקה מן התורה ושניהם מצטרפין זה עם זה:
8
When does the above26 apply? When they were sown in Eretz Yisrael.27 In the Diaspora, by contrast, kilai hakerem are forbidden by Rabbinic decree.
In Hilchot Kelayim,28 it will be explained which species are forbidden as kilai hakerem and which are not forbidden, how they become forbidden, when they become forbidden, in which situations, produce causes vines to llowed," and when they do not cause them to become "hallowed."
ח
במה דברים אמורים שנזרעו בארץ ישראל אבל בחוצה לארץ כלאי הכרם מדברי סופרים ובהלכות כלאים יתבאר אי זה מין אסור בכלאי הכרם ואי זה מין אינו אסור והיאך יאסור ומתי יאסר ואי זה דבר מקדש ואי זה אינו מקדש:
9
What is meant by orlah?29 Whenever anyone plants30 a fruit tree, it is forbidden to partake of or benefit from all of the fruit the tree produces for three years after being planted, as [Leviticus 19:23] states: "For three years, they shall be closed off for you, they may not be eaten."31 Whoever eats an olive-sized portion of such fruit is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law.
ט
הערלה כיצד כל הנוטע אילן מאכל כל פירות שעושה אותו אילן שלש שנים משנטע הרי הן אסורין באכילה ובהנאה שנאמר שלש שנים יהיה לכם ערלים לא יאכל וכל האוכל מהם כזית לוקה מן התורה:
10
When does this apply when one plants in Eretz Yisrael, as [the above] verse states: "When you enter the land...." With regard to the prohibition against orlah in the Diaspora, it is a halachah transmitted to Moses at Sinai32 that fruit that is definitely orlah is forbidden. If there is a doubt regarding the matter, it is permitted. In Hilchot Ma'aaser Sheni,33it will be explained which [growths] are forbidden as orlah and which are permitted.34
י
בד"א בנוטע בארץ ישראל שנאמר כי תבאו אל הארץ וגו' אבל איסור ערלה בחוצה לארץ הלכה למשה מסיני שודאי הערלה בחוצה לארץ אסורה וספיקה מותר ובהלכות מעשר שני יתבאר דברים האסורין משום ערלה ודברים המותרין:
11
When there is a doubt whether produce is orlah or kilai hakerem in Eretz Yisrael, it is forbidden.35 In Syria, i.e., the lands that David conquered,36 it is permitted.
What is implied? If there was a vineyard [containing] orlah and grapes were being sold outside it, or there were vegetables sown inside it37 and vegetables were being sold outside it, [in which instance,] there is a doubt whether [the grapes or the vegetables] came from it or from another place, in Syria, they are permitted.38In the Diaspora, even if one sees grapes being taken out from a vineyard that is orlah or vegetables being taken out from a vineyard, one may purchase them provided one does not actually see orlah being reaped or the vegetables being harvested [from the vineyard].
יא
ספק ערלה וכלאי הכרם בארץ ישראל אסור בסוריא והיא ארצות שכבש דוד מותר כיצד היה כרם וערלה וענבים נמכרות חוצה לו היה ירק זרוע בתוכו וירק נמכר חוצה לו שמא ממנו הוא זה שמא מאחר בסוריא מותר ובחוצה לארץ אפילו ראה הענבים יוצאות מכרם ערלה או ירק יוצא מן הכרם לוקח מהן והוא שלא יראה אותו בוצר מן הערלה או לוקט הירק בידו:
12
When there is a doubt whether a vineyard [contains] orlah or kilai hakerem, in Eretz Yisrael, it is forbidden. In Syria, it is permitted.39 Needless to say, that ruling prevails in the Diaspora.
יב
כרם שהוא ספק ערלה או ספק כלאים בארץ ישראל אסור ובסוריא מותר ואין צריך לומר בחוצה לארץ:
13
It is forbidden40 to drink a jug of wine that is found hidden in an orchard [whose produce is] orlah. It is permitted to benefit from it. [The rationale is] that a thief will not steal from a place and hide [what he stole] there. Grapes that are hidden there are forbidden, lest they have been harvested from there and stored away there.
יג
חבית יין הנמצאת טמונה בפרדס של ערלה אסורה בשתייה ומותרת בהנייה שאין הגנב גונב ממקום וטומן בו אבל ענבים הנמצאין טמונים שם אסורים שמא משם נלקטו והצניען שם:
14
[The following laws apply when] a gentile and a Jew are partners in planting [an orchard]. If at the beginning of the partnership, they agreed that the gentile would benefit from the produce during the years of orlah and the Jew would benefit from it for three years when the produce is permitted afterwards, it is permitted.41 If they did not make such an agreement at the outset, it is forbidden [to make one afterwards].42 [Even when the agreement was made at the outset,] they may not make a reckoning.
What is meant [by making a reckoning]? I.e., to calculate the quantity of produce from which the gentile benefited in the years of orlah so that the Jew will benefit from exactly that amount. If they made such an agreement, it is forbidden, for this is exchanging the produce which is orlah.43
יד
נכרי וישראל שהיו שותפין בנטיעה אם התנו מתחלת השותפות שיהיה הנכרי אוכל שני ערלה וישראל אוכל שלש שנים משני היתר כנגד שני הערלה הרי זה מותר ואם לא התנו מתחלה אסור ובלבד שלא יבאו לחשבון כיצד כגון שיחשוב כמה פירות אכל הנכרי בשני ערלה עד שיאכל ישראל כנגד אותן הפירות אם התנו כזה אסור שהרי זה כמחליף פירות ערלה:
15
It appears to me that the laws of neta reva'i44 do not apply in the Diaspora. Instead, one may eat the produce of the fourth year without redeeming it at all. Our Sages mentioned only orlah.
An extrapolation can be made from a more stringent instance to [this one] which is less stringent. In Syria, the laws governing the tithes and the Sabbatical year apply by Rabbinic decree,45nevertheless, the laws governing neta reva'i do not apply, as will be explained in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni.46 Thus, in the Diaspoa,47 how much more so should [we conclude] that the laws governing neta reva'i do not apply.
In Eretz Yisrael, however, these laws apply whether or not the Temple is standing.48 Some of the Geonim ruled that kerem reva'i49alone must be redeemed in the Diaspora before it is permitted to be eaten. There is no basis for this [ruling].50
טו
יראה לי שאין דין נטע רבעי נוהג בחוצה לארץ אלא אוכל פירות שנה רביעית בלא פדיון כלל שלא אמרו אלא הערלה וקל וחומר הדברים ומה סוריא שהיא חייבת במעשרות ובשביעית מדבריהם אינה חייבת בנטע רבעי כמו שיתבאר בהלכות מעשר שני חוצה לארץ לא כל שכן שלא יהיה נטע רבעי נוהג בה אבל בארץ ישראל נוהג בה בין בפני הבית בין שלא בפני הבית והורו מקצת גאונים שכרם רבעי לבדו פודין אותו בחוצה לארץ ואח"כ יהיה מותר באכילה ואין לדבר זה עיקר:
16
In Eretz Yisrael, it is forbidden to eat any of the produce of the fourth year51 until it is redeemed.52 In Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni, we will explain the laws governing the redemption [of the produce], how it should be eaten, and when we begin calculating the growth of a tree with regard to orlah and [netah] reva'i.
טז
פירות שנה רביעית כולה אסור לאכול מהן בארץ ישראל עד שיפדו ובהלכות מעשר שני יתבאר משפטי פדיונן ודין אכילתן ומאימתי מונין לערלה ולרבעי:
17
How is produce which is neta reva'i redeemed in the present age?53 After [the produce] is collected, one recites the blessing: Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the earth, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to redeem neta reva'i. Afterwards, one redeems the entire crop even with one p'rutah.54 This p'rutah is then cast into the Dead Sea.55
Alternatively, one may transfer the holiness to other produce that is worth a p'rutah by saying:56 "The holiness of all of this produce is transferred to this wheat," "...to this barley," or the like.57Afterwards, one burns the [latter quantity of produce] so that they will not cause difficulty to others.58 He may then partake of all the produce [he harvested].
יז
כיצד פודין פירות נטע רבעי בזמן הזה אחר שאוסף אותן מברך בא"י אמ"ה אקב"ו על פדיון נטע רבעי ואחר כך פודה את כולן ואפילו בפרוטה אחת ואומר הרי אלו פדויין בפרוטה זו ומשליך אותה פרוטה לים המלח או מחללן על שוה פרוטה מפירות אחרות ואומר הרי כל הפירות האלו מחוללין על חטים אלו או על שעורים אלו וכיוצא בהן ושורף אותן כדי שלא יהיו תקלה לאחרים ואוכל כל הפירות:
18
Some of the Geonim ruled that even though one redeemed the produce of the fourth year or transferred its holiness, it is forbidden to partake of it until the entrance of the fifth year. This ruling has no foundation. It appears to me that it is in error. [Although Leviticus 19:25] states: "And in the fifth year, you shall partake of its produce," the intent of the verse is that in the fifth year you will partake of its produce without redeeming it like any ordinary produce in the world. One should not heed the above ruling.
יח
הורו מקצת הגאונים שאף על פי שפדה פירות שנה רביעית או חללן אסור לאכלן עד שתכנס שנה חמישית ודבר זה אין לו עיקר ויראה לי שזו שגגת הוראה והטעם לפי שכתוב ובשנה החמישית תאכלו את פריו ואין ענין הכתוב אלא שבשנה החמישית תאכלו פריו בלא פדיון ככל חולין שבעולם ואין ראוי לחוש להוראה זו:
19
What is meant by tevel? Any produce from which one is obligated to separate terumah and tithes is called tevel before one separates these portions.59 [In that state,] it is forbidden to partake of it,60 as [Leviticus 22:16] states: "And they shall not desecrate the sacraments of the children of Israel which they will dedicate to God," i.e., one should not treat them in an ordinary manner while the sacred elements that will be separated in the future have not yet been separated.
When a person61 partakes of an olive-sized portion of tevel before he separates terumah gedolah and terumat ma'aser, he is liable for death by the hand of heaven,62 as [Leviticus 22:15-16] states: "And they shall not desecrate the sacraments of the children of Israel... And they will bear the sin of guilt."
יט
הטבל כיצד כל אוכל שהוא חייב להפריש ממנו תרומה ומעשרות קודם שיפריש ממנו נקרא טבל ואסור לאכול ממנו שנאמר ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל את אשר ירימו לה' כלומר לא ינהגו בהן מנהג חולין ועדיין קדשים שעתידין להתרם לא הורמו והאוכל כזית מן הטבל קודם שיפריש ממנו תרומה גדולה ותרומת מעשר חייב מיתה בידי שמים שנאמר ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל וגו' והשיאו אותם עון אשמה:
20
When, however, one partakes of food from which terumah gedolah and terumat ma'aser63 have been separated, but from which tithes - even the tithes of the poor have not been separated - he is worthy of lashes for partaking of tevel. He is not worthy of death. For only with regard to terumah gedolah and terumat ma'aser is the sin worthy of death.64
כ
אבל האוכל מדבר שניטלה ממנו תרומה גדולה ותרומת מעשר ועדיין לא הפריש ממנו מעשרות ואפילו לא נשאר בו אלא מעשר עני הרי זה לוקה משום אוכל טבל ואין בו מיתה שאין עון מיתה אלא בתרומה גדולה ותרומת מעשר:
21
The warning against partaking of tevel from which tithes were not separated is included in [Deuteronomy 12:17 which] states: "You may not eat the tithes of grain... in your gates."65
In Hilchot Terumot and Hilchot Ma'aserot, it will be explained which produce is obligated to have terumah and the tithes [separated from it] and which is not, when does the obligation stem from Scriptural Law and when is it Rabbinic. When a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of produce that is tevel according to Rabbinic Law66 or kilai hakerem or orlah from the Diaspora,67he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.
כא
אזהרה לאוכל טבל שלא הורמו ממנו מעשרות בכלל שנאמר לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך מעשר דגנך וגו' ובהלכות תרומות ומעשרות יתבאר איזה דבר חייב בתרומה ובמעשרות ואי זה דבר פטור ואי זה דבר הוא חייב מן התורה ואי זהו החייב מדברי סופרים והאוכל כזית מטבל של דבריהם או מכלאי הכרם וערלה של חוצה לארץ מכין אותו מכת מרדות:
22
The juices that come from produce that is tevel, chadash, consecrated to the Temple, growths of the Sabbatical year, kilayim, and orlah are forbidden as they are. One is not, however, liable for lashes for partaking of them.68 Exceptions are wine and oil that are orlah and wine that is kilai hakerem. One is liable for lashes for them just as one is liable for lashes for the olives and grapes,
כב
הטבל והחדש וההקדש וספיחי שביעית והכלאים והערלה משקין היוצאין מפירותיהן אסורים כמותן ואין לוקין עליהן חוץ מיין ושמן של ערלה ויין של כלאי הכרם שלוקין עליהן כדרך שלוקין על הזיתים ועל הענבים שלהן:
23
There are other prohibitions involving foods applicable to consecrated entities. They are all of Scriptural origin, e.g., there are prohibitions against partaking of terumot, the first fruits, challah, and the second tithe. And there are prohibitions involving sacrifices consecrated [to be offered] on the altar, e.g., piggul, sacrificial meat that remains past its time, and sacrifices that have become impure.69 All of these [prohibitions] will be explained in the appropriate place.
כג
ויש בקדשים איסורין אחרים במאכלות וכולן של תורה הן כגון איסורין שיש באכילת תרומות ובכורים וחלה ומעשר שני ואיסורין שיש בקדשי מזבח כגון פיגול ונותר וטמא וכל אחד מהן יתבאר במקומו:
24
The measure for which one is liable - whether for lashes or for kerait is an olive-sized portion. We have already explained the prohibition against [partaking of] leaven on Pesach and the [relevant] laws in Hilchot Chametz UMatzah. The prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur is a different type of prohibition.70 The prohibition against all products of the vine that applies to a Nazirite does not apply equally to all. Therefore, all of these prohibitions, the measure for which one is liable, and the [relevant] laws are explained in the appropriate place.
כד
ושיעור כל אכילה מהן כזית בין למלקות בין לכרת וכבר ביארנו איסור חמץ בפסח ודיניו בהלכות חמץ ומצה אבל איסור אכילה ביוה"כ איסור מין בפני עצמו וכן איסור יוצא מגפן על הנזיר אינו שוה בכל ולפיכך יתבאר איסור כל אחד מהן ושיעורו ודיניו במקומו הראוי לו:
FOOTNOTES
1.
The Rambam proceeds to define each of these terms in the subsequent halachot. The prohibitions the Rambam mentions in this chapter apply universally. There are other prohibitions involving the consumption of agricultural products that apply with regard to non-priests, e.g., terumah, as explained in Sefer Zeraim and others involving the sacrifices as explained in Sefer HaAvodah (Radbaz).
2.
The term chadash literally means "new." It refers to new grain, i.e., grain that is harvested before the sixteenth of Nisan, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
3.
These five species are commonly identified as wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt. As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Berachot 3:1, there is some discussion whether these are in fact the species of which the Talmud and the Rambam speak.
4.
I.e., other species commonly identified as grain, e.g., corn, rice, and millet, are not included in this ban.
5.
A measure of barley that is offered on the sixteenth of Nisan, as explained in Leviticus 23:9-15; Hilchot Temidim UMusafim, ch. 7.
6.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 189-191) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 303-305) include these prohibitions among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Radbaz states that the Rambam mentions chadash before the other prohibitions, because it occurs most frequently, recurring every year.
7.
In the Diaspora, where crops of grain are sometimes planted after Pesach, this prohibition could present a problem. For all grain planted after Pesach, will not be permitted until the following year. In resolution, the Rama writes that unless we know otherwise, all grain is permitted after Pesach, based on the concept of sefek-sefekah - multiple doubt. It is possible it is from the previous year's crop. Even if it is from this year's crop, perhaps it took root before Pesach and is thus permitted.
The Bayit Chadash in his gloss to the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 293) elaborates on the concept that the prohibition against chadash applies only to grain belonging to a Jew. Grain belonging to a non-Jew is not bound by this prohibition. The Turei Zahav 293:2 differs and maintains that it applies also to grain grown by a gentile. Most of the authorities respect the Bayit Chadash for his attempt to absolve most of the Jewish people from the prohibition (since by and large, the grain available in the Diaspora is grown by non-Jews) but accept the logic of the Turei Zahav. In practice, however, it is customary to rely on the leniency of the Rama.
8.
I.e., the prohibition is not dependent on the offering of the omer, but instead applies even when no sacrifices are offered.
9.
I.e., places that will not be able to hear a report when the omer was actually offered before noon because they are far removed from Jerusalem.
10.
I.e., by midday, one can be certain that the omer had been sacrificed.
11.
See Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh, ch. 5, which explains that in places where messengers from Jerusalem would not inform the Jewish community when the new month had been sanctified, the festivals are observed for two days, for perhaps the day considered as the fifteenth of Nisan was really the fourteenth.
12.
Since the observance of the second day was instituted because there was a doubt concerning the day on which the festival should be observed, our Sages ordained that the prohibition concerning chadash should be observed by Rabbinical decree until the conclusion of the seventeenth so as not to minimize the importance of the festival. Even though there is no longer any doubt concerning the day on which the festival should be observed, we heed this prohibition to maintain our Sages' original decree (Radbaz).
13.
Provided he is given a separate warning for each one (Radbaz).
14.
All three are mentioned in one verse. Thus one might think that we are speaking of a prohibition of a general nature and we follow the principle (see Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2-3) that lashes are not given for a prohibition of a general nature. Nevertheless, Keritot 5a explains why this instance is an exception.
15.
I.e., even in places that follow a different agricultural cycle than Eretz Yisrael.
16.
And had not sprouted (Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:4).
17.
And thus they would not be permitted until the following year.
18.
Thus had one left it in the ground, it would have been permitted.
19.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 293:5) rules that such grain is forbidden because of the doubt.
20.
The Hebrew term literally means "mixed species in a vineyard."
21.
The Rambam's statements have attracted the attention of the commentaries, for they represent a contradiction to his statements in Hilchot Kelayim 8:1: "One is not liable for sowing kilai hakerem unless he sows wheat, barley, and grape seeds together." The Radbaz explains that the laws governing sowing mixed species are different than those regarding partaking of them.
22.
For as above, the prohibition against sowing mixed species and partaking of them are distinct.
23.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 193) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 549) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
24.
The Torah does not specifically mention that it is forbidden to partake of the mixed species. Nevertheless, it states that it is forbidden to derive benefit from them. There is no great derivation of benefit than eating (Radbaz). From the Rambam's wording, one would surmise that one is not liable for lashes from merely benefiting from kilai hakerem.
25.
I.e., when one eats some of the grapes and some of the vegetables, if the combined volume is the size of an olive, he is liable.
26.
Liability for lashes.
27.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 3:10), the Rambam writes that this concept is derived from Deuteronomy 22:9: "Do not sow kilayom in your vineyard." For the only vineyard that can truly be considered as "yours," i.e., belonging to a Jew, is one in Eretz Yisrael.
The Mishneh LiMelech writes that in the present era, when the observance of the agricultural laws in Eretz Yisrael is only a matter of Rabbinic Law (see Hilchot Terumah 1:26), the prohibition against kilai hakerem is also of Rabbinic origin.
28.
One of the Halachot in Sefer Zeraim.
29.
The term literally means "covered." Thus the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aserot 4:4) speaks of "something which covers (oral) its fruit." For that reason, a foreskin is described as an orlah, because it covers the male organ. Here also this fruit is "covered" by a forbidden quality.
30.
I.e., replants an existing seedling or plants a seed and grows the tree from the outset (Radbaz).
31.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 192) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 246) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
32.
I.e., an element of the Oral Tradition that has no explicit source in the Written Law.
33.
One of the Halachot in Sefer Zeraim.
34.
I.e., which type of planting or replanting incurs the prohibition against orlah and which does not.
35.
A Scriptural prohibition is involved. Hence we follow the principle: Whenever a Scriptural prohibition is involved, we rule stringently.
36.
As explained in Hilchot Terumah 1:3, King David conquered parts of Syria before he completed the conquest of Eretz Yisrael. Hence, these lands were not considered as part of Eretz Yisrael proper. Nevertheless, certain laws concerning the produce of Eretz Yisrael were applied there by Rabbinic decree.
37.
Thus violating the prohibition against kilai hakerem.
38.
I.e., permission is granted even in an instance were it is highly likely that the produce is prohibited.
39.
I.e., one may purchase the produce even if one is certain it comes from the vineyard in question. Indeed, one may even pick the produce from that vineyard by oneself (Radbaz; Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 10:11).
40.
This represents the Rambam's interpretation of Bava Batra 24a. Others interpret that passage as stating that we are even permitted to partake of the wine. This is the view quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 294:11).
Tosafot questions: Why isn't the wine forbidden as yayin nesech, wine touched by a gentile? They reply that we assume that the thieves were Jewish. Thus if there is reason to think that the thieves are gentile, the wine is forbidden (Siftei Cohen 294:22).
41.
I.e., the gentile takes care of the orchard in the orlah years, and the Jew in the subsequent years. He is not considered as benefiting from the produce that is orlah, because it never belonged to him.
42.
For the crops that are orlah are considered to have become the Jew's property and he is bartering them. Rashi and Rabbenu Asher (Avodah Zarah 22a) differ and permit such an arrangement to be made. They explain that although if such an arrangement is not made at the outset, it is forbidden to make it with regard to the Sabbath, different rules apply here. On the Sabbath, it is forbidden for the gentile to perform work on behalf of the Jew. In this instance, no such prohibition exists (Siftei Cohen 294:28). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 294:13) follows the Rambam's approach, while the Rama follows that of Rabbenu Asher.
43.
Here also, the authorities who rule leniently as mentioned in the previous note would rule leniently (Siftei Cohen 294:29).
44.
This term refers to the produce of the fourth year of a tree's growth. This produce must be taken to Jerusalem and eaten in a state of ritual purity or redeemed and the money taken to Jerusalem to be used for food to be eaten there.
45.
See Hilchot Terumot 1:4; Hilchot Shemitah 4:27.
46.
Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 9:1.
47.
Where the laws of the tithes and the Sabbatical year do not apply at all.
48.
The Rambam's wording is somewhat misleading. The laws of neta reva'i are not dependent on the existence of the Temple. Even if the Temple is not standing, this mitzvah applies. Nevertheless, according to Scriptural Law, they apply only when the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael is intact. And according to Scriptural Law, that sanctity was nullified after the conquest of the land by the Assyrians and Babylonians. According to Rabbinic Law, however, these laws do apply in Eretz Yisrael in the present age.
49.
The harvest of a vineyard must be redeemed, but not that of any other type of tree.
50.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 294:7) quotes opinions that state that the laws applying to neta reva'i also apply in the Diaspora, as well as the Rambam's view that they do not apply. The Tur and the Rama quote the opinion of the Geonim who maintain that these laws apply with regard to a vineyard, but not with regard to any other types of produce.
51.
The Radbaz emphasizes that even if the fourth year passes, fruit which grew during that year is forbidden in the fifth year until it is redeemed. This is also included as one of the 613 mitzvot. The Rambam, however, lists that mitzvah in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni.
52.
I.e., in the present era. See the following note.
53.
In Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni, the Rambam explains that in the era of the Temple, the produce would be taken to be eaten in Jerusalem in a state of ritual purity (or redeemed for its value and that money taken to Jerusalem to be used to purchase food to be eaten there in a state of ritual purity). Since that is not possible in the present era, different laws apply.
54.
A copper coin of minimal value. In the era of the Temple, it was necessary to redeem the produce for its value and add a fifth (Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 4:1,9). In the present era, since there is no opportunity to use the money as required, a p'rutah is sufficient for one's entire harvest (Arachin 29a).
55.
I.e., a place where no one will benefit from it. In Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 2:2, the Rambam states that the p'rutah should be cast into the Mediterranean Sea. At times, the term Yam HaMelech which is commonly translated as the Dead Sea is used to refer to the Mediterranean. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 294:6) mentions the Mediterranean. It also states that one may grind the coin into dust.
56.
Seemingly, the wording of the blessing should also be altered as indicated by Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 4:3.
57.
This is also a leniency granted in the present age. In the era of the Temple, at the outset, one should not transfer the holiness from one species of produce to another (Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 4:2).
58.
These kernels of grain must also be eaten in Jerusalem in a state of ritual purity. Since this is impossible, they should be destroyed, lest another person transgress by eating them elsewhere.
59.
Before produce may be eaten, a person must separate bikkurim (the first fruits), terumah gedolah (a small portion - 1/40 to 1/60 of the produce) which is given to the priests, ma'aser (tithes, which is given to the Levites), and ma'aser sheni (the second tithe, which is eaten in a state of purity in Jerusalem) or ma'aser oni (the tithe given to the poor). From the tithe which the Levites receive, they must give a tithe to the priests as terumat ma'aser.
60.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 153) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 284) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
61.
There is a question if this prohibition applies even to a priest who would later be permitted to partake of terumah. To explain: There is a discussion among the Achronim if tevel is considered as an independent prohibition or if it is forbidden because of terumah that has not been separated (see Tzaphnat Paneach; Atvan D'Oraita). According to the former view, even a priest is liable, while according to the second view, there is room for leniency.
62.
I.e., he will die before his time.
63.
Terumat Ma'aser should be separated after the tithes are separated. Nevertheless, after the fact, if one separated it beforehand, the separation is valid.
64.
The Ra'avad explains the Rambam's ruling on the basis of the prooftext cited in the previous halachah which puts an emphasis on "the sacraments of the children of Israel." That term refers to terumah. The Kessef Mishneh, however, notes that the second tithe is also referred to as "a sacrament." The Lechem Mishneh, however, offers a resolution.
65.
Although that prohibition forbids eating the second tithe outside of Jerusalem, it also has this intent.
66.
E.g., produce that grows in a flower pot without a hole on the bottom.
67.
See Halachah 8 and 10.
68.
The Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss to Chapter 8, Halachah 16) states that this is not the ordinary way which one benefits from such produce. The Lechem Mishneh explains that other juices, in contrast to wine and oil, are not considered to have the substance of the fruit.
69.
See Chapter 18 of Hilchot Pesulei HaMekedashim for a definition of these prohibitions.
70.
In all other instances, it is the substance (cheftzah) that is forbidden. On Yom Kippur, the prohibition does not apply to the substance, but to the person (the gavra). He is forbidden to partake of all foods.
• Hayom Yom: Today's Hayom Yom
• Friday, 
29 Tevet, 5777 · 27 January 2017
• "Today's Day"
• 
Wednesday, Tevet 29, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Va'eira, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 140-150.
Tanya: Ch. 15. With the above (p. 63)..."void within him." (p. 63).
We are "day workers."1 Day means light. Our work is to illuminate, to enlighten the world with the light of the Torah. Besides the necessity of maintaining our own selves properly, with G‑d's help - being what we ought to be - our whole avoda is to be privileged to develop pupils who are firmly based people, devoted with heart and mind to the inner kavana, the intention or purpose of our existence. Our pupils must know that it is not sufficient to study the Revealed Torah2 and to cherish the Sacred by observing mitzvot; there must also be avoda sheb'leiv, the service of the heart, davening.
Compiled and arranged by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 5703 (1943) from the talks and letters of the sixth Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, of righteous memory.
FOOTNOTES
1.Eruvin 65a.
2.See "On the Teachings of Chassidus," Kehot.
• Daily Thought:
A Luminous Being
Some believe that life is simply about each person doing what he or she must do. For them, there are no great differences between us. One may be wise, another thoughtless, one a pragmatist, the other a dreamer, one looks heavenward, the other earthward. But life is not about thoughts or dreams or heaven. Life is about what you do.
They are right, but they are also wrong. Life is about doing, but the doing must shine. It must shine such a brilliant light that this whole world of doing will transcend itself.
To shine with that light, we must be plugged in. We must be connected together as a single organism, bonded by those souls that entirely transcend this world, as a mind transcends the body while rendering it a single whole. Then, even our most simplest deeds shine brightly.
In truth, we are more than equal. We are a single, luminous being.[Torat Menachem, vol. 34 (Likkutei Sichot, vol. 4), Parshat Korach.]
-------

No comments:

Post a Comment