TODAY IN JUDAISM: Thursday, May 11, 2017 - Chabad.org in New York, New York, United States - Today in Judaism 
- Today is: Thursday, Iyar 15, 5777 · May 11, 2017 - Omer: Day 30 - Gevurah sheb'Hod
Today's Laws & Customs:
• Count "Thirty-One Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the thirty-first day of the Omer Count. Since, on the Jewish calendar, the day begins at nightfall of the previous evening, we count the omer for tomorrow's date tonight, after nightfall: "Today is thirty-one days, which are four weeks and three days, to the Omer." (If you miss the count tonight, you can count the omer all day tomorrow, but without the preceding blessing).
The 49-day "Counting of the Omer" retraces our ancestors' seven-week spiritual journey from the Exodus to Sinai. Each evening we recite a special blessing and count the days and weeks that have passed since the Omer; the 50th day is Shavuot, the festival celebrating the Giving of the Torah at Sinai.
Tonight's Sefirah: Tifferet sheb'Hod -- "Harmony in Humility"
The teachings of Kabbalah explain that there are seven "Divine Attributes" -- Sefirot -- that G-d assumes through which to relate to our existence: Chessed, Gevurah, Tifferet, Netzach, Hod, Yesod and Malchut ("Love", "Strength", "Beauty", "Victory", "Splendor", "Foundation" and "Sovereignty"). In the human being, created in the "image of G-d," the seven sefirot are mirrored in the seven "emotional attributes" of the human soul: Kindness, Restraint, Harmony, Ambition, Humility, Connection and Receptiveness. Each of the seven attributes contain elements of all seven--i.e., "Kindness in Kindness", "Restraint in Kindness", "Harmony in Kindness", etc.--making for a total of forty-nine traits. The 49-day Omer Count is thus a 49-step process of self-refinement, with each day devoted to the "rectification" and perfection of one the forty-nine "sefirot."
Links:
How to count the Omer
The deeper significance of the Omer Count
Today in Jewish History:
• Matzah Depleted (1313 BCE)
The supply of matzah (unleavened bread) which the Jewish people brought out of Egypt--enough for 60 meals--was exhausted on the 15th of Iyar, the 30th day after the Exodus. The people complained to Moses that they have nothing to eat. G-d notified them that He will rain down "bread from heaven" to sustain them (Exodus 16; see "Today in Jewish History" for tomorrow, Iyar 16).
• Jews Expelled from Ukraine (1727)
A few months prior to her death, Empress Catherine I, the second wife of Peter the Great, expelled all Jews from the Ukraine.
• Riots in Rostov-on-Don (1883)
Rostov-on-Don, Russia, was home to 14 Synagogues and many communal institutions. With the encouragement of local Russian officials, a wave of anti-Jewish riots (pogroms) swept the city on the 15th of Iyar of 1883.
Daily Quote:
It is written (Deuteronomy 11:13): "To love the L-rd your G-d, and to serve Him with all your hearts." Which is the service of the heart? This is prayer[Talmud, Taanit 2]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Emor, 5th Portion Leviticus 23:23-23:32 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class
Leviticus Chapter 23
23And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, כגוַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר:
24Speak to the children of Israel, saying: In the seventh month, on the first of the month, it shall be a Sabbath for you, a remembrance of [Israel through] the shofar blast a holy occasion. כדדַּבֵּ֛ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר בַּחֹ֨דֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִ֜י בְּאֶחָ֣ד לַחֹ֗דֶשׁ יִֽהְיֶ֤ה לָכֶם֙ שַׁבָּת֔וֹן זִכְר֥וֹן תְּרוּעָ֖ה מִקְרָא־קֹֽדֶשׁ:
a remembrance of [Israel through] the shofar blast: [On this Rosh Hashanah day,] a remembrance [before God of the Jewish people is evoked through the sounds of the shofar. And in order to enhance this remembrance, our Rabbis instituted the recitation] of Scriptural verses dealing with remembrance and Scriptural verses dealing with the blowing of the shofar (R.H . 32a), through which the remembrance of the binding of Isaac is recalled for them, [whereby Isaac was willing to be sacrificed as a burnt-offering according to God’s words (see Gen. 22:119), and] in whose stead a ram was offered up [whereby the shofar alludes to that ram’s horns, by which it was caught in a tree, thus making its appearance as Isaac’s replacement (see Gen. 22:13)]. — [Sifthei Chachamim, Gur Aryeh; R.H. 16a] זכרון תרועה: זכרון פסוקי זכרונות ופסוקי שופרות, לזכור לכם עקידת יצחק שקרב תחתיו איל:
25You shall not perform any work of labor, and you shall offer up a fire offering to the Lord. כהכָּל־מְלֶ֥אכֶת עֲבֹדָ֖ה לֹ֣א תַֽעֲשׂ֑וּ וְהִקְרַבְתֶּ֥ם אִשֶּׁ֖ה לַֽיהֹוָֽה:
And you shall offer up a fire offering: The additional offerings stated in the Book of Num. (29:16). והקרבתם אשה: המוספים האמורים בחומש הפקודים:
26And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: כווַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר:
27But on the tenth of this seventh month, it is a day of atonement, it shall be a holy occasion for you; you shall afflict yourselves, and you shall offer up a fire offering to the Lord. כזאַ֡ךְ בֶּֽעָשׂ֣וֹר לַחֹ֩דֶשׁ֩ הַשְּׁבִיעִ֨י הַזֶּ֜ה י֧וֹם הַכִּפֻּרִ֣ים ה֗וּא מִקְרָא־קֹ֨דֶשׁ֙ יִֽהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֔ם וְעִנִּיתֶ֖ם אֶת־נַפְשֹֽׁתֵיכֶ֑ם וְהִקְרַבְתֶּ֥ם אִשֶּׁ֖ה לַֽיהֹוָֽה:
But: Heb. אַךְ. Wherever the word אַךְ, “but,” or רַק, “only,” appear in the Torah, they denote an exclusion. [Thus,] Yom Kippur atones for those who repent, “but” it does not atone for those who do not repent. — [Shev. 13a] אך: כל אכין ורקין שבתורה מיעוטין, מכפר הוא לשבים ואינו מכפר על שאינם שבים:
28You shall not perform any work on that very day, for it is a day of atonement, for you to gain atonement before the Lord, your God. כחוְכָל־מְלָאכָה֙ לֹ֣א תַֽעֲשׂ֔וּ בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה כִּ֣י י֤וֹם כִּפֻּרִים֙ ה֔וּא לְכַפֵּ֣ר עֲלֵיכֶ֔ם לִפְנֵ֖י יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶֽם:
29For any person who will not be afflicted on that very day, shall be cut off from its people. כטכִּ֤י כָל־הַנֶּ֨פֶשׁ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹֽא־תְעֻנֶּ֔ה בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה וְנִכְרְתָ֖ה מֵֽעַמֶּֽיהָ:
30And any person who performs any work on that very day I will destroy that person from amidst its people. לוְכָל־הַנֶּ֗פֶשׁ אֲשֶׁ֤ר תַּֽעֲשֶׂה֙ כָּל־מְלָאכָ֔ה בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה וְהַֽאֲבַדְתִּ֛י אֶת־הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַהִ֖וא מִקֶּ֥רֶב עַמָּֽהּ:
I will destroy: כָּרֵת (“excision” or “cutting off”) is stated [as a punishment] in many places [in Scripture] and I do not know what that means, when God says [explicitly] “I will destroy,” [coinciding with וְנִכְרְתָה in the preceding verse,] this teaches us כָּרֵת means only “destruction” [i.e., premature death, and not that the body is to be cut up or that the person is to be exiled]. — [See Be’er Basadeh on this verse and on 22:3 above; Torath Kohanim 23:180] והאבדתי: לפי שהוא אומר כרת בכל מקום ואיני יודע מה הוא, כשהוא אומר והאבדתי, למד על הכרת שאינו אלא אבדן:
31You shall not perform any work. [This is] an eternal statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places. לאכָּל־מְלָאכָ֖ה לֹ֣א תַֽעֲשׂ֑וּ חֻקַּ֤ת עוֹלָם֙ לְדֹרֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם בְּכֹ֖ל מֽשְׁבֹֽתֵיכֶֽם:
You shall not perform any work: [But has this not already been stated in verses 28 and 30 above? Yes, nevertheless this prohibition is repeated several times here, so that one who disobeys] transgresses many negative commandments, or to warn against work at night [that it is forbidden just] as [performing] work during the day [of the tenth of Tishri]. - [Yoma 81a; see Mizrachi and Divrei David] כל מלאכה וגו': לעבור עליו בלאוין הרבה, או להזהיר על מלאכת לילה כמלאכת יום:
32It is a complete day of rest for you, and you shall afflict yourselves. On the ninth of the month in the evening, from evening to evening, you shall observe your rest day. לבשַׁבַּ֨ת שַׁבָּת֥וֹן הוּא֙ לָכֶ֔ם וְעִנִּיתֶ֖ם אֶת־נַפְשֹֽׁתֵיכֶ֑ם בְּתִשְׁעָ֤ה לַחֹ֨דֶשׁ֙ בָּעֶ֔רֶב מֵעֶ֣רֶב עַד־עֶ֔רֶב תִּשְׁבְּת֖וּ שַׁבַּתְּכֶֽם:
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 77 - 78
• Hebrew text
• English text
Chapter 77
1. For the Conductor, on the yedutun,1 by Asaph, a psalm.
2. [I raise] my voice to God and cry out; [I raise] my voice to God and He will listen to me.
3. On the day of my distress I sought my Lord. My wound oozes at night and does not abate; my soul refuses to be consoled.
4. I remember God and I moan; I speak and my spirit faints, Selah.
5. You grasped my eyelids; I am broken, I cannot speak.
6. I think of olden days, of ancient years.
7. During the night I recall my music, I meditate with my heart, and my spirit searches:
8. Is it for eternity that my Lord forsakes [me], nevermore to be appeased?
9. Has His kindness ceased forever? Has He sealed the decree for all generations?
10. Has God forgotten mercy? Has He in anger restrained His compassion forever?
11. I said, "It is to ter- rify me that the right hand of the Most High changes.”
12. I remember the deeds of Yah, when I remember Your wonders of long ago.
13. I meditate on all Your works, and speak of Your deeds.
14. O God, Your way is in sanctity; what god is as great as God?
15. You are the God Who works wonders; You make Your might known among the nations.
16. You redeemed Your people with a mighty arm, the children of Jacob and Joseph, Selah.
17. The waters2 saw You, O God, the waters saw You and trembled; even the deep shuddered.
18. The clouds streamed water, the heavens sounded forth, even Your arrows flew about.
19. The sound of Your thunder was in the rolling wind; lightning lit up the world; the earth trembled and quaked.
20. Your way was through the sea, Your path through the mighty waters; and Your footsteps were not known.3
21. You led Your people like a flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument(Metzudot).
2.Of the Red Sea.
3.The waters returned to cover the trail.
Chapter 78
This psalm recounts all the miracles that God wrought for Israel, from the exodus of Egypt to David's becoming king over Israel.
1. A maskil1 by Asaph. Listen, my people, to my teaching; incline your ear to the words of my mouth.
2. I will open my mouth with a parable, I will utter riddles of long ago;
3. that which we have heard and know [to be true], and that our fathers have told us.
4. We will not withhold from their children, telling the final generation the praises of the Lord, and His might, and the wonders He has performed.
5. He established a testimony in Jacob, and set down the Torah in Israel, which He commanded our fathers to make known to their children,
6. so that the last generation shall know; children yet to be born will rise and tell their children,
7. and they shall put their hope in God, and not forget the works of the Almighty; and they shall guard His commandments.
8. And they shall not be like their fathers, a wayward and rebellious generation, a generation that did not set its heart straight, and whose spirit was not faithful to God.
9. The children of Ephraim, armed archers, retreated on the day of battle.2
10. They did not keep the covenant of God, and refused to follow His Torah.
11. They forgot His deeds and His wonders that He had shown them.
12. He performed wonders before their fathers, in the land of Egypt, in the field of Zoan.3
13. He split the sea and brought them across; He erected the waters like a wall.
14. He led them with a cloud by day, and all night long with the light of fire.
15. He split rocks in the wilderness, and gave them to drink as if from the abundant depths.
16. And He brought forth flowing waters from the rock, and caused waters to descend like rivers.
17. Yet they again continued to sin against Him, to provoke the Most High in the parched land.
18. And they tested God in their hearts, by requesting food for their craving.
19. They spoke against God; they said, "Can God set a table in the wilderness?
20. True, He hit the rock and waters flowed, streams gushed forth; but can He also give bread? Will He prepare meat for His people?”
21. And so the Lord heard and was enraged; a fire was kindled against Jacob; wrath, too, flared against Israel.
22. For they did not believe in God and did not trust in His salvation,
23. [though] He had commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven.
24. He had rained upon them manna to eat, and given them grain of heaven.
25. Man ate the bread of angels; He sent them [enough] provisions to satiate.
26. He drove the east wind through the heaven, and led the south wind with His might.
27. He rained meat upon them like dust, winged birds like the sand of seas;
28. and He dropped them inside His camp, around His dwellings.
29. And they ate and were very satiated, for He brought them their desire.
30. They were not yet estranged from their craving, their food was still in their mouths,
31. when the wrath of God rose against them and slew their mighty ones, and brought down the chosen of Israel.
32. Despite this, they sinned again, and did not believe in His wonders;
33. so He ended their days in futility, and their years in terror.
34. When He slew them they would seek Him, they would return and pray to God.
35. They remembered that God is their rock, God the Most High, their redeemer.
36. But they beguiled Him with their mouth, and deceived Him with their tongue.
37. Their heart was not steadfast with Him; they were not faithful to His covenant.
38. Yet He is compassionate, pardons iniquity, and does not destroy; time and again He turns away His anger, and does not arouse all His wrath.
39. He remembered that they were but flesh, a spirit that leaves and does not return.
40. How often they provoked Him in the desert, and grieved Him in the wasteland!
41. Again and again they tested God, and sought a sign from the Holy One of Israel.
42. They did not remember His hand, the day He redeemed them from the oppressor;
43. that He set His signs in Egypt, and His wonders in the field of Zoan.
44. He turned their rivers to blood, and made their flowing waters undrinkable.
45. He sent against them a mixture of beasts which devoured them, and frogs that destroyed them.
46. He gave their produce to the grasshopper, and their toil to the locust.
47. He killed their vines with hail, and their sycamores with biting frost.
48. He delivered their animals to the hail, and their livestock to fiery bolts.
49. He sent against them His fierce anger, fury, rage, and affliction; a delegation of messengers of evil.
50. He leveled a path for His anger, and did not spare their soul from death; He delivered their animals to pestilence.
51. He struck every firstborn in Egypt, the first fruit of their strength in the tents of Ham.4
52. He drove His nation like sheep, and guided them like a flock in the desert.
53. He led them in security and they did not fear, for the sea covered their enemies.
54. And He brought them to the boundary of His holy place, this mountain which His right hand acquired.
55. He drove out nations before them, and allotted them an inheritance [measured] by the cord; He settled the tribes of Israel in their tents.
56. Yet they tested and defied God, the Most High, and did not keep His testimonies.
57. They regressed and rebelled like their fathers; they turned around like a deceptive bow.
58. They angered Him with their high altars, and provoked Him with their idols.
59. God heard and was enraged, and He was utterly disgusted with Israel;
60. And He abandoned the Tabernacle of Shilo, the Tent where He had dwelled among men.
61. He put His might into captivity, and His glory into the hand of the oppressor.
62. He delivered His nation to the sword, and was enraged with His inheritance.
63. Fire consumed His young men, and His maidens had no marriage song.
64. His priests fell by the sword, and their widows did not weep.5
65. And the Lord awoke like one who had been asleep, like a warrior shouting [to sober himself] from wine.
66. He beat His enemies into retreat, and dealt them eternal disgrace.
67. He was disgusted with the tent of Joseph, and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim.
68. He chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion which He loves.
69. And He built His Sanctuary [permanent as] the heavens; like the earth, He established it forever.
70. And He chose David His servant, and took him from the sheep corrals.
71. From following the nursing ewes, He brought Him to shepherd His nation Jacob, Israel His inheritance.
72. And he tended them with the integrity of his heart, and led them with the skill of his hands.
FOOTNOTES
1.A psalm intended to enlighten and impart knowledge(Metzudot).
2.The Ephraimites escaped Egypt before the other tribes, but were defeated when trying to enter the land of Canaan.
3.Capital of Egypt (Radak).
4.Progenitor of the Egyptians.
5.They died before being able to weep (Targum).
-------
- Today is: Thursday, Iyar 15, 5777 · May 11, 2017 - Omer: Day 30 - Gevurah sheb'HodToday's Laws & Customs:
• Count "Thirty-One Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the thirty-first day of the Omer Count. Since, on the Jewish calendar, the day begins at nightfall of the previous evening, we count the omer for tomorrow's date tonight, after nightfall: "Today is thirty-one days, which are four weeks and three days, to the Omer." (If you miss the count tonight, you can count the omer all day tomorrow, but without the preceding blessing).
The 49-day "Counting of the Omer" retraces our ancestors' seven-week spiritual journey from the Exodus to Sinai. Each evening we recite a special blessing and count the days and weeks that have passed since the Omer; the 50th day is Shavuot, the festival celebrating the Giving of the Torah at Sinai.
Tonight's Sefirah: Tifferet sheb'Hod -- "Harmony in Humility"
The teachings of Kabbalah explain that there are seven "Divine Attributes" -- Sefirot -- that G-d assumes through which to relate to our existence: Chessed, Gevurah, Tifferet, Netzach, Hod, Yesod and Malchut ("Love", "Strength", "Beauty", "Victory", "Splendor", "Foundation" and "Sovereignty"). In the human being, created in the "image of G-d," the seven sefirot are mirrored in the seven "emotional attributes" of the human soul: Kindness, Restraint, Harmony, Ambition, Humility, Connection and Receptiveness. Each of the seven attributes contain elements of all seven--i.e., "Kindness in Kindness", "Restraint in Kindness", "Harmony in Kindness", etc.--making for a total of forty-nine traits. The 49-day Omer Count is thus a 49-step process of self-refinement, with each day devoted to the "rectification" and perfection of one the forty-nine "sefirot."
Links:
How to count the Omer
The deeper significance of the Omer Count
Today in Jewish History:
• Matzah Depleted (1313 BCE)
The supply of matzah (unleavened bread) which the Jewish people brought out of Egypt--enough for 60 meals--was exhausted on the 15th of Iyar, the 30th day after the Exodus. The people complained to Moses that they have nothing to eat. G-d notified them that He will rain down "bread from heaven" to sustain them (Exodus 16; see "Today in Jewish History" for tomorrow, Iyar 16).
• Jews Expelled from Ukraine (1727)
A few months prior to her death, Empress Catherine I, the second wife of Peter the Great, expelled all Jews from the Ukraine.
• Riots in Rostov-on-Don (1883)
Rostov-on-Don, Russia, was home to 14 Synagogues and many communal institutions. With the encouragement of local Russian officials, a wave of anti-Jewish riots (pogroms) swept the city on the 15th of Iyar of 1883.
Daily Quote:
It is written (Deuteronomy 11:13): "To love the L-rd your G-d, and to serve Him with all your hearts." Which is the service of the heart? This is prayer[Talmud, Taanit 2]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Emor, 5th Portion Leviticus 23:23-23:32 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class
Leviticus Chapter 23
23And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, כגוַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר:
24Speak to the children of Israel, saying: In the seventh month, on the first of the month, it shall be a Sabbath for you, a remembrance of [Israel through] the shofar blast a holy occasion. כדדַּבֵּ֛ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר בַּחֹ֨דֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִ֜י בְּאֶחָ֣ד לַחֹ֗דֶשׁ יִֽהְיֶ֤ה לָכֶם֙ שַׁבָּת֔וֹן זִכְר֥וֹן תְּרוּעָ֖ה מִקְרָא־קֹֽדֶשׁ:
a remembrance of [Israel through] the shofar blast: [On this Rosh Hashanah day,] a remembrance [before God of the Jewish people is evoked through the sounds of the shofar. And in order to enhance this remembrance, our Rabbis instituted the recitation] of Scriptural verses dealing with remembrance and Scriptural verses dealing with the blowing of the shofar (R.H . 32a), through which the remembrance of the binding of Isaac is recalled for them, [whereby Isaac was willing to be sacrificed as a burnt-offering according to God’s words (see Gen. 22:119), and] in whose stead a ram was offered up [whereby the shofar alludes to that ram’s horns, by which it was caught in a tree, thus making its appearance as Isaac’s replacement (see Gen. 22:13)]. — [Sifthei Chachamim, Gur Aryeh; R.H. 16a] זכרון תרועה: זכרון פסוקי זכרונות ופסוקי שופרות, לזכור לכם עקידת יצחק שקרב תחתיו איל:
25You shall not perform any work of labor, and you shall offer up a fire offering to the Lord. כהכָּל־מְלֶ֥אכֶת עֲבֹדָ֖ה לֹ֣א תַֽעֲשׂ֑וּ וְהִקְרַבְתֶּ֥ם אִשֶּׁ֖ה לַֽיהֹוָֽה:
And you shall offer up a fire offering: The additional offerings stated in the Book of Num. (29:16). והקרבתם אשה: המוספים האמורים בחומש הפקודים:
26And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: כווַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר:
27But on the tenth of this seventh month, it is a day of atonement, it shall be a holy occasion for you; you shall afflict yourselves, and you shall offer up a fire offering to the Lord. כזאַ֡ךְ בֶּֽעָשׂ֣וֹר לַחֹ֩דֶשׁ֩ הַשְּׁבִיעִ֨י הַזֶּ֜ה י֧וֹם הַכִּפֻּרִ֣ים ה֗וּא מִקְרָא־קֹ֨דֶשׁ֙ יִֽהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֔ם וְעִנִּיתֶ֖ם אֶת־נַפְשֹֽׁתֵיכֶ֑ם וְהִקְרַבְתֶּ֥ם אִשֶּׁ֖ה לַֽיהֹוָֽה:
But: Heb. אַךְ. Wherever the word אַךְ, “but,” or רַק, “only,” appear in the Torah, they denote an exclusion. [Thus,] Yom Kippur atones for those who repent, “but” it does not atone for those who do not repent. — [Shev. 13a] אך: כל אכין ורקין שבתורה מיעוטין, מכפר הוא לשבים ואינו מכפר על שאינם שבים:
28You shall not perform any work on that very day, for it is a day of atonement, for you to gain atonement before the Lord, your God. כחוְכָל־מְלָאכָה֙ לֹ֣א תַֽעֲשׂ֔וּ בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה כִּ֣י י֤וֹם כִּפֻּרִים֙ ה֔וּא לְכַפֵּ֣ר עֲלֵיכֶ֔ם לִפְנֵ֖י יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶֽם:
29For any person who will not be afflicted on that very day, shall be cut off from its people. כטכִּ֤י כָל־הַנֶּ֨פֶשׁ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹֽא־תְעֻנֶּ֔ה בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה וְנִכְרְתָ֖ה מֵֽעַמֶּֽיהָ:
30And any person who performs any work on that very day I will destroy that person from amidst its people. לוְכָל־הַנֶּ֗פֶשׁ אֲשֶׁ֤ר תַּֽעֲשֶׂה֙ כָּל־מְלָאכָ֔ה בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה וְהַֽאֲבַדְתִּ֛י אֶת־הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַהִ֖וא מִקֶּ֥רֶב עַמָּֽהּ:
I will destroy: כָּרֵת (“excision” or “cutting off”) is stated [as a punishment] in many places [in Scripture] and I do not know what that means, when God says [explicitly] “I will destroy,” [coinciding with וְנִכְרְתָה in the preceding verse,] this teaches us כָּרֵת means only “destruction” [i.e., premature death, and not that the body is to be cut up or that the person is to be exiled]. — [See Be’er Basadeh on this verse and on 22:3 above; Torath Kohanim 23:180] והאבדתי: לפי שהוא אומר כרת בכל מקום ואיני יודע מה הוא, כשהוא אומר והאבדתי, למד על הכרת שאינו אלא אבדן:
31You shall not perform any work. [This is] an eternal statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places. לאכָּל־מְלָאכָ֖ה לֹ֣א תַֽעֲשׂ֑וּ חֻקַּ֤ת עוֹלָם֙ לְדֹרֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם בְּכֹ֖ל מֽשְׁבֹֽתֵיכֶֽם:
You shall not perform any work: [But has this not already been stated in verses 28 and 30 above? Yes, nevertheless this prohibition is repeated several times here, so that one who disobeys] transgresses many negative commandments, or to warn against work at night [that it is forbidden just] as [performing] work during the day [of the tenth of Tishri]. - [Yoma 81a; see Mizrachi and Divrei David] כל מלאכה וגו': לעבור עליו בלאוין הרבה, או להזהיר על מלאכת לילה כמלאכת יום:
32It is a complete day of rest for you, and you shall afflict yourselves. On the ninth of the month in the evening, from evening to evening, you shall observe your rest day. לבשַׁבַּ֨ת שַׁבָּת֥וֹן הוּא֙ לָכֶ֔ם וְעִנִּיתֶ֖ם אֶת־נַפְשֹֽׁתֵיכֶ֑ם בְּתִשְׁעָ֤ה לַחֹ֨דֶשׁ֙ בָּעֶ֔רֶב מֵעֶ֣רֶב עַד־עֶ֔רֶב תִּשְׁבְּת֖וּ שַׁבַּתְּכֶֽם:
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 77 - 78
• Hebrew text
• English text
Chapter 77
1. For the Conductor, on the yedutun,1 by Asaph, a psalm.
2. [I raise] my voice to God and cry out; [I raise] my voice to God and He will listen to me.
3. On the day of my distress I sought my Lord. My wound oozes at night and does not abate; my soul refuses to be consoled.
4. I remember God and I moan; I speak and my spirit faints, Selah.
5. You grasped my eyelids; I am broken, I cannot speak.
6. I think of olden days, of ancient years.
7. During the night I recall my music, I meditate with my heart, and my spirit searches:
8. Is it for eternity that my Lord forsakes [me], nevermore to be appeased?
9. Has His kindness ceased forever? Has He sealed the decree for all generations?
10. Has God forgotten mercy? Has He in anger restrained His compassion forever?
11. I said, "It is to ter- rify me that the right hand of the Most High changes.”
12. I remember the deeds of Yah, when I remember Your wonders of long ago.
13. I meditate on all Your works, and speak of Your deeds.
14. O God, Your way is in sanctity; what god is as great as God?
15. You are the God Who works wonders; You make Your might known among the nations.
16. You redeemed Your people with a mighty arm, the children of Jacob and Joseph, Selah.
17. The waters2 saw You, O God, the waters saw You and trembled; even the deep shuddered.
18. The clouds streamed water, the heavens sounded forth, even Your arrows flew about.
19. The sound of Your thunder was in the rolling wind; lightning lit up the world; the earth trembled and quaked.
20. Your way was through the sea, Your path through the mighty waters; and Your footsteps were not known.3
21. You led Your people like a flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument(Metzudot).
2.Of the Red Sea.
3.The waters returned to cover the trail.
Chapter 78
This psalm recounts all the miracles that God wrought for Israel, from the exodus of Egypt to David's becoming king over Israel.
1. A maskil1 by Asaph. Listen, my people, to my teaching; incline your ear to the words of my mouth.
2. I will open my mouth with a parable, I will utter riddles of long ago;
3. that which we have heard and know [to be true], and that our fathers have told us.
4. We will not withhold from their children, telling the final generation the praises of the Lord, and His might, and the wonders He has performed.
5. He established a testimony in Jacob, and set down the Torah in Israel, which He commanded our fathers to make known to their children,
6. so that the last generation shall know; children yet to be born will rise and tell their children,
7. and they shall put their hope in God, and not forget the works of the Almighty; and they shall guard His commandments.
8. And they shall not be like their fathers, a wayward and rebellious generation, a generation that did not set its heart straight, and whose spirit was not faithful to God.
9. The children of Ephraim, armed archers, retreated on the day of battle.2
10. They did not keep the covenant of God, and refused to follow His Torah.
11. They forgot His deeds and His wonders that He had shown them.
12. He performed wonders before their fathers, in the land of Egypt, in the field of Zoan.3
13. He split the sea and brought them across; He erected the waters like a wall.
14. He led them with a cloud by day, and all night long with the light of fire.
15. He split rocks in the wilderness, and gave them to drink as if from the abundant depths.
16. And He brought forth flowing waters from the rock, and caused waters to descend like rivers.
17. Yet they again continued to sin against Him, to provoke the Most High in the parched land.
18. And they tested God in their hearts, by requesting food for their craving.
19. They spoke against God; they said, "Can God set a table in the wilderness?
20. True, He hit the rock and waters flowed, streams gushed forth; but can He also give bread? Will He prepare meat for His people?”
21. And so the Lord heard and was enraged; a fire was kindled against Jacob; wrath, too, flared against Israel.
22. For they did not believe in God and did not trust in His salvation,
23. [though] He had commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven.
24. He had rained upon them manna to eat, and given them grain of heaven.
25. Man ate the bread of angels; He sent them [enough] provisions to satiate.
26. He drove the east wind through the heaven, and led the south wind with His might.
27. He rained meat upon them like dust, winged birds like the sand of seas;
28. and He dropped them inside His camp, around His dwellings.
29. And they ate and were very satiated, for He brought them their desire.
30. They were not yet estranged from their craving, their food was still in their mouths,
31. when the wrath of God rose against them and slew their mighty ones, and brought down the chosen of Israel.
32. Despite this, they sinned again, and did not believe in His wonders;
33. so He ended their days in futility, and their years in terror.
34. When He slew them they would seek Him, they would return and pray to God.
35. They remembered that God is their rock, God the Most High, their redeemer.
36. But they beguiled Him with their mouth, and deceived Him with their tongue.
37. Their heart was not steadfast with Him; they were not faithful to His covenant.
38. Yet He is compassionate, pardons iniquity, and does not destroy; time and again He turns away His anger, and does not arouse all His wrath.
39. He remembered that they were but flesh, a spirit that leaves and does not return.
40. How often they provoked Him in the desert, and grieved Him in the wasteland!
41. Again and again they tested God, and sought a sign from the Holy One of Israel.
42. They did not remember His hand, the day He redeemed them from the oppressor;
43. that He set His signs in Egypt, and His wonders in the field of Zoan.
44. He turned their rivers to blood, and made their flowing waters undrinkable.
45. He sent against them a mixture of beasts which devoured them, and frogs that destroyed them.
46. He gave their produce to the grasshopper, and their toil to the locust.
47. He killed their vines with hail, and their sycamores with biting frost.
48. He delivered their animals to the hail, and their livestock to fiery bolts.
49. He sent against them His fierce anger, fury, rage, and affliction; a delegation of messengers of evil.
50. He leveled a path for His anger, and did not spare their soul from death; He delivered their animals to pestilence.
51. He struck every firstborn in Egypt, the first fruit of their strength in the tents of Ham.4
52. He drove His nation like sheep, and guided them like a flock in the desert.
53. He led them in security and they did not fear, for the sea covered their enemies.
54. And He brought them to the boundary of His holy place, this mountain which His right hand acquired.
55. He drove out nations before them, and allotted them an inheritance [measured] by the cord; He settled the tribes of Israel in their tents.
56. Yet they tested and defied God, the Most High, and did not keep His testimonies.
57. They regressed and rebelled like their fathers; they turned around like a deceptive bow.
58. They angered Him with their high altars, and provoked Him with their idols.
59. God heard and was enraged, and He was utterly disgusted with Israel;
60. And He abandoned the Tabernacle of Shilo, the Tent where He had dwelled among men.
61. He put His might into captivity, and His glory into the hand of the oppressor.
62. He delivered His nation to the sword, and was enraged with His inheritance.
63. Fire consumed His young men, and His maidens had no marriage song.
64. His priests fell by the sword, and their widows did not weep.5
65. And the Lord awoke like one who had been asleep, like a warrior shouting [to sober himself] from wine.
66. He beat His enemies into retreat, and dealt them eternal disgrace.
67. He was disgusted with the tent of Joseph, and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim.
68. He chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion which He loves.
69. And He built His Sanctuary [permanent as] the heavens; like the earth, He established it forever.
70. And He chose David His servant, and took him from the sheep corrals.
71. From following the nursing ewes, He brought Him to shepherd His nation Jacob, Israel His inheritance.
72. And he tended them with the integrity of his heart, and led them with the skill of his hands.
FOOTNOTES
1.A psalm intended to enlighten and impart knowledge(Metzudot).
2.The Ephraimites escaped Egypt before the other tribes, but were defeated when trying to enter the land of Canaan.
3.Capital of Egypt (Radak).
4.Progenitor of the Egyptians.
5.They died before being able to weep (Targum).
-------
Tanya
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 48
Thursday, Iyar 15, 5777 · May 11, 2017
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 48
והנה, פרטיות הצמצומים איך ומה, אין כאן מקום ביאורם
Now, as for the intricate details of the “contractions”, how they achieve their effect and what they actually are, — this is not the place for their explanation.
אך דרך כלל הן הם בחינת הסתר והעלם המשכת האור והחיות
But in general they are something in the nature of an obscuring and concealment of the flow of light and vitality,
שלא יאיר ויומשך לתחתונים בבחינת גילוי, להתלבש ולהשפיע בהן ולהחיותם להיות יש מאין
so that [the light and vitality] should illumine and reach the lower creatures in a revealed manner, pervading them and acting in them and animating them in such a way that they exist ex nihilo
כי אם מעט מזעיר אור וחיות, בכדי שיהיו בבחינת גבול ותכלית
in only an extremely minute measure, so that they be in a state of finitude and limitation.
Were their life-force to be revealed within them they would be infinite. “Contraction” ensures that the light and vitality which is their life-force remains concealed from them; all that is revealed is but a minute degree of light and vitality.
שהיא הארה מועטת מאד, וממש כלא חשיבי לגבי בחינת הארה בלי גבול ותכלית, ואין ביניהם ערך ויחס כלל
This light and vitality that is revealed within them after the “contraction” constitutes an infinitesimal illumination, and is truly considered as naught when compared with the quality of the limitless and infinite illumination, and there is no reference or relationship between them,
I.e., they are not quantitatively different, not even immensely different in quantity, but of a wholly different and incomparable quality.
כנודע פירוש מלת ערך במספרים, שאחד במספר יש לו ערך לגבי מספר אלף אלפים, שהוא חלק אחד מני אלף אלפים
as the term “reference” is understood in number values, where the number one has a relevancy to the number one million, for it is a one-millionth part of it;
The sum of one million is merely the sum of one million ones; subtract but one and the million ceases to exist — a clear demonstration of the relation that subsists between one and a million.
אבל לגבי דבר שהוא בבחינת בלי גבול ומספר כלל, אין כנגדו שום ערך במספרים
but as regards a thing which transcends finitude and numeration, there is no number — however great — that can be relative to it,
שאפילו אלף אלפי אלפים ורבוא רבבות אינן אפילו כערך מספר אחד לגבי אלף אלפי אלפים ורבוא רבבות
for a billion and a trillion1 when compared to infinity do not even attain the relevancy of the value of one in comparison with a billion or a trillion,
אלא כלא ממש חשיבי
For the sum of one retains some degree of relevance even when compared to a trillion — it is, in fact, one trillionth of it — while even a sum as large a trillion has no relevance at all when compared to the realm of the infinite, but is veritably accounted as nothing.
וככה ממש היא בחינת ההארה מועטת זו, המתלבשת בעולמות עליונים ותחתונים, להשפיע בהם להחיותם
So, indeed, is the utterly insignificant quality of this minute illumination — after the “contraction” — which clothes itself in the higher and lower worlds in order to provide them with sustenance and life,
לגבי אור הגנוז ונעלם, שהוא בבחינת אין סוף
when compared with the quality of the hidden and concealed light that is of an infinite order,
ואינו מתלבש ומשפיע בעולמות בבחינת גילוי להחיותם, אלא מקיף עליהם מלמעלה, ונקרא סובב כל עלמין
and does not clothe itself or exercise its influence in the worlds in a revealed manner, providing them with life, but encompasses them from above — i.e., it exerts its influence while remaining on its own level — and is called sovev kol almin (lit., “encompassing all worlds”).
Unlike the light that pervades all worlds (memale kol almin), which permeates and vests itself within them (just as the soul vests itself in the body), the encompassing light remains aloof from the worlds.
ואין הפירוש סובב ומקיף מלמעלה בבחינת מקום, חס ושלום, כי לא שייך כלל בחינת מקום ברוחניות
The meaning of this is not that it encircles and encompasses from above spatially, G‑d forbid, for in spiritual matters the category of space is in no way applicable,
Physical objects are spatial; they may be said to be found in one place or the other. Spirituality, however, is non-spatial; the terms “encompassing” and “encircling” are never to be understood in their literal, physical sense,
אלא רוצה לומר: סובב ומקיף מלמעלה לענין בחינת גילוי השפעה
but the meaning is that it “encircles and encompasses from above” insofar as the revelation of this influence is concerned,
כי ההשפעה שהיא בבחינת גילוי בעולמות נקראת בשם הלבשה, שמתלבשת בעולמות, כי הם מלבישים ומשיגים ההשפעה שמקבלים
for influence which is in the category of “revelation” in the worlds is referred to as “investiture”, being “clothed” within the worlds, for the influence that they receive is clothed and comprehended by them, i.e., they are able to comprehend and internalize it,
מה שאין כן ההשפעה שאינה בבחינת גילוי אלא בהסתר והעלם, ואין העולמות משיגים אותה, אינה נקראת מתלבשת, אלא מקפת וסובבת
whereas the influence which does not come within the category of “revelation”, but remains obscured and concealed, and is not apprehended by the worlds, is not described as being “invested” in them but as “encircling and encompassing” [them].
הלכך, מאחר שהעולמות הם בבחינת גבול ותכלית, נמצא שאין השפעת אור אין סוף מתלבשת ומתגלה בהם בבחינת גילוי, רק מעט מזער הארה מועטת מצומצמת מאד מאד
Therefore, since the worlds belong in the order of the finite and limited, it follows that only an extremely minute and contracted reflection of the flow of the [infinite] light of the blessed Ein Sof clothes and manifests itself in them in a revealed form,
והיא רק כדי להחיותם בבחינת גבול ותכלית
and this, only to animate them in a finite and revealed state.
In order for creation to come about there must necessarily be at least some glimmer of G‑dly illumination, albeit in an extremely limited form, for this enables creation to be finite and bounded.
אבל עיקר האור בלי צמצום כל כך נקרא מקיף וסובב, מאחר שאין השפעתו מתגלית בתוכם, מאחר שהם בבחינת גבול ותכלית
But the principal light that is without contraction to such an extent is called makkif (“encircler”) and sovev (“encompasser”), since its influence is not revealed within [the worlds], inasmuch as they belong in the order of the finite and the limited.
FOOTNOTES
1.“Text of Nishmat; Sifrei, beginning of Parshat Vaetchanan.” (— Note of the Rebbe.)
It would seem that the Rebbe here explains why the Alter Rebbe specifically chose to mention these two numbers: they are cited in the prayer beginning “Nishmat...,” in accordance with the passage in Sifrei indicated above.
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 48
Thursday, Iyar 15, 5777 · May 11, 2017
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 48
והנה, פרטיות הצמצומים איך ומה, אין כאן מקום ביאורם
Now, as for the intricate details of the “contractions”, how they achieve their effect and what they actually are, — this is not the place for their explanation.
אך דרך כלל הן הם בחינת הסתר והעלם המשכת האור והחיות
But in general they are something in the nature of an obscuring and concealment of the flow of light and vitality,
שלא יאיר ויומשך לתחתונים בבחינת גילוי, להתלבש ולהשפיע בהן ולהחיותם להיות יש מאין
so that [the light and vitality] should illumine and reach the lower creatures in a revealed manner, pervading them and acting in them and animating them in such a way that they exist ex nihilo
כי אם מעט מזעיר אור וחיות, בכדי שיהיו בבחינת גבול ותכלית
in only an extremely minute measure, so that they be in a state of finitude and limitation.
Were their life-force to be revealed within them they would be infinite. “Contraction” ensures that the light and vitality which is their life-force remains concealed from them; all that is revealed is but a minute degree of light and vitality.
שהיא הארה מועטת מאד, וממש כלא חשיבי לגבי בחינת הארה בלי גבול ותכלית, ואין ביניהם ערך ויחס כלל
This light and vitality that is revealed within them after the “contraction” constitutes an infinitesimal illumination, and is truly considered as naught when compared with the quality of the limitless and infinite illumination, and there is no reference or relationship between them,
I.e., they are not quantitatively different, not even immensely different in quantity, but of a wholly different and incomparable quality.
כנודע פירוש מלת ערך במספרים, שאחד במספר יש לו ערך לגבי מספר אלף אלפים, שהוא חלק אחד מני אלף אלפים
as the term “reference” is understood in number values, where the number one has a relevancy to the number one million, for it is a one-millionth part of it;
The sum of one million is merely the sum of one million ones; subtract but one and the million ceases to exist — a clear demonstration of the relation that subsists between one and a million.
אבל לגבי דבר שהוא בבחינת בלי גבול ומספר כלל, אין כנגדו שום ערך במספרים
but as regards a thing which transcends finitude and numeration, there is no number — however great — that can be relative to it,
שאפילו אלף אלפי אלפים ורבוא רבבות אינן אפילו כערך מספר אחד לגבי אלף אלפי אלפים ורבוא רבבות
for a billion and a trillion1 when compared to infinity do not even attain the relevancy of the value of one in comparison with a billion or a trillion,
אלא כלא ממש חשיבי
For the sum of one retains some degree of relevance even when compared to a trillion — it is, in fact, one trillionth of it — while even a sum as large a trillion has no relevance at all when compared to the realm of the infinite, but is veritably accounted as nothing.
וככה ממש היא בחינת ההארה מועטת זו, המתלבשת בעולמות עליונים ותחתונים, להשפיע בהם להחיותם
So, indeed, is the utterly insignificant quality of this minute illumination — after the “contraction” — which clothes itself in the higher and lower worlds in order to provide them with sustenance and life,
לגבי אור הגנוז ונעלם, שהוא בבחינת אין סוף
when compared with the quality of the hidden and concealed light that is of an infinite order,
ואינו מתלבש ומשפיע בעולמות בבחינת גילוי להחיותם, אלא מקיף עליהם מלמעלה, ונקרא סובב כל עלמין
and does not clothe itself or exercise its influence in the worlds in a revealed manner, providing them with life, but encompasses them from above — i.e., it exerts its influence while remaining on its own level — and is called sovev kol almin (lit., “encompassing all worlds”).
Unlike the light that pervades all worlds (memale kol almin), which permeates and vests itself within them (just as the soul vests itself in the body), the encompassing light remains aloof from the worlds.
ואין הפירוש סובב ומקיף מלמעלה בבחינת מקום, חס ושלום, כי לא שייך כלל בחינת מקום ברוחניות
The meaning of this is not that it encircles and encompasses from above spatially, G‑d forbid, for in spiritual matters the category of space is in no way applicable,
Physical objects are spatial; they may be said to be found in one place or the other. Spirituality, however, is non-spatial; the terms “encompassing” and “encircling” are never to be understood in their literal, physical sense,
אלא רוצה לומר: סובב ומקיף מלמעלה לענין בחינת גילוי השפעה
but the meaning is that it “encircles and encompasses from above” insofar as the revelation of this influence is concerned,
כי ההשפעה שהיא בבחינת גילוי בעולמות נקראת בשם הלבשה, שמתלבשת בעולמות, כי הם מלבישים ומשיגים ההשפעה שמקבלים
for influence which is in the category of “revelation” in the worlds is referred to as “investiture”, being “clothed” within the worlds, for the influence that they receive is clothed and comprehended by them, i.e., they are able to comprehend and internalize it,
מה שאין כן ההשפעה שאינה בבחינת גילוי אלא בהסתר והעלם, ואין העולמות משיגים אותה, אינה נקראת מתלבשת, אלא מקפת וסובבת
whereas the influence which does not come within the category of “revelation”, but remains obscured and concealed, and is not apprehended by the worlds, is not described as being “invested” in them but as “encircling and encompassing” [them].
הלכך, מאחר שהעולמות הם בבחינת גבול ותכלית, נמצא שאין השפעת אור אין סוף מתלבשת ומתגלה בהם בבחינת גילוי, רק מעט מזער הארה מועטת מצומצמת מאד מאד
Therefore, since the worlds belong in the order of the finite and limited, it follows that only an extremely minute and contracted reflection of the flow of the [infinite] light of the blessed Ein Sof clothes and manifests itself in them in a revealed form,
והיא רק כדי להחיותם בבחינת גבול ותכלית
and this, only to animate them in a finite and revealed state.
In order for creation to come about there must necessarily be at least some glimmer of G‑dly illumination, albeit in an extremely limited form, for this enables creation to be finite and bounded.
אבל עיקר האור בלי צמצום כל כך נקרא מקיף וסובב, מאחר שאין השפעתו מתגלית בתוכם, מאחר שהם בבחינת גבול ותכלית
But the principal light that is without contraction to such an extent is called makkif (“encircler”) and sovev (“encompasser”), since its influence is not revealed within [the worlds], inasmuch as they belong in the order of the finite and the limited.
FOOTNOTES
1.“Text of Nishmat; Sifrei, beginning of Parshat Vaetchanan.” (— Note of the Rebbe.)
It would seem that the Rebbe here explains why the Alter Rebbe specifically chose to mention these two numbers: they are cited in the prayer beginning “Nishmat...,” in accordance with the passage in Sifrei indicated above.
-------
Rambam
Sefer Hamitzvot
Sefer Hamitzvot
Thursday, Iyar 15, 5777 · May 11, 2017
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 107
Ritual Impurity Contracted through Contact with a Corpse
We are commanded regarding the ritual impurity contracted through contact with a human corpse. [I.e., if contracted, one must follow all the laws associated with this impurity.]
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Ritual Impurity Contracted through Contact with a Corpse
Positive Commandment 107
Translated by Berel Bell
The 107th mitzvah1 is that we are commanded regarding the tumah conveyed by a dead body.2 This mitzvah includes all the laws relating to tumas meis.3
FOOTNOTES
1.In the order given here, following the order of Mishneh Torah, P107 is the first of the commandments dealing with tumah and taharah (ritual purity and impurity). In the order of Sefer HaMitzvos, however, P96 is the first of these mitzvos, and there the Rambam gives a general introduction to all these mitzvos.
2.Num. 19:11ff.
3.Such as which parts of the body convey tumah, how it is conveyed, etc. See Hilchos Tumas Meis.
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 107
Ritual Impurity Contracted through Contact with a Corpse
We are commanded regarding the ritual impurity contracted through contact with a human corpse. [I.e., if contracted, one must follow all the laws associated with this impurity.]
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Ritual Impurity Contracted through Contact with a Corpse
Positive Commandment 107
Translated by Berel Bell
The 107th mitzvah1 is that we are commanded regarding the tumah conveyed by a dead body.2 This mitzvah includes all the laws relating to tumas meis.3
FOOTNOTES
1.In the order given here, following the order of Mishneh Torah, P107 is the first of the commandments dealing with tumah and taharah (ritual purity and impurity). In the order of Sefer HaMitzvos, however, P96 is the first of these mitzvos, and there the Rambam gives a general introduction to all these mitzvos.
2.Num. 19:11ff.
3.Such as which parts of the body convey tumah, how it is conveyed, etc. See Hilchos Tumas Meis.
-------
Rambam
1 Chapter
She'elah uFikkadon - Chapter 5
1
If money designated to be given to the poor or to be used for the redemption of captives was given to a person, he was negligent in guarding it and it was stolen, the watchman is not liable. This is derived from Exodus 22:6, which states: "If a man gives money or articles to his colleague to watch...." The wording implies that obligations determined by the verse apply when the money or the article was given to watch, but not when it was given to divide among the poor. This decision is rendered, because there is no one to claim the money as his own.
Even if the thieves attacked the person and he saved himself by giving them the money designated for the redemption of captives, he is not liable. There is no greater redemption of captives than this.
When does the above apply? When the money was not entrusted to him for the sake of the poor people of a particular place or a designated group of captives. If, however, the money was designated for a particular group of poor people or captives, and is thus set aside for them, it is considered to be money that people can claim. Therefore, the watchman must pay if he was negligent, or take an oath that he was not negligent, as is required of all watchmen.א
מי שהפקידו אצלו מעות של עניים או של פדיון שבויים ופשע בהם ונגנבו פטור שנאמר לשמור ולא לחלק לעניים והרי הוא ממון שאין לו תובעים אפילו באו עליו גנבים וקדם והציל עצמו בממון שבויים פטור אין לך פדיון שבויים גדול מזה במה דברים אמורים בשאין זה הממון מופקד לעניי מקום זה או לשבויים [אלו] אבל אם היו לעניים אלו או לשבויים אלו והרי הוא קצוץ להן הרי זה הממון שיש לו תובעין וישלם אם פשע או ישבע שלא פשע כדרך כל השומרים:
2
The following rules apply when a person entrusts money or valuable articles to a colleague, thieves come and attack him and he gives them the entrusted article before offering any of his other property to save himself. If the person has the reputation of being wealthy, he is liable. The rationale is that we may presume that the thieves came because of the watchman. Thus, he is saving himself with money belonging to a colleague. If the watchman does not have the reputation of being wealthy, we presume that the thieves came only because of the entrusted article. Hence, the watchman is not liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.ב
המפקיד אצל חבירו ממון או כלים חשובין ובאו עליו גנבים וקדם ונתן להם הפקדון להציל עצמו אם היה אמוד שהוא בעל ממון חייב שחזקתו שבגללו באו הגנבים ונמצא זה מציל עצמו בממון חבירו ואם אינו אמוד חזקתו שלא באו אלא לשם הפקדון ופטור וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
3
The following rules apply when a person entrusts articles or fruit to a colleague. If thieves come and steal the entrusted article in his presence and he remains silent, he may be held liable. If people would have come and rescued the entrusted article had he called out, he is considered negligent for remaining silent and he is obligated to make restitution. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.ג
המפקיד אצל חבירו כלים או פירות ובאו גנבים וגנבום בפניו ואילו היה צווח היו באין בני אדם ומצילין אותן הואיל ולא צווח הרי זה פושע וחייב לשלם וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
4
The following laws apply when two people entrusted money to a colleague, one 100 zuz and the other 200 zuz, both claim to have entrusted the 200 zuz, and the watchman does not recall which one deposited 200, and which one 100. Each of the claimants must take an oath that he was the one who deposited the 200 zuz He may then collect the money he claims,14 as is the law with regard to any person who takes an oath and collects his due. The watchman must pay each claimant 200, losing 100 zuz from his own resources. The rationale is that he was negligent, for he should have written down the name of each person on the packet that he entrusted.
Therefore, if the two people together brought him the 300 zuz in a single packet, and afterwards each claims that the 200 belongs to him, the watchman is not considered negligent if he does not remember who brought the larger sum. He should give each one a maneh, and the balance should remain in the watchman's possession forever, or until one of them acknowledges the other's claim.21 The rationale is that the watchman can explain: "I saw that you two were not precise with each other, as indicated by the fact that you brought the money to me in a single packet. Therefore, I did not trouble myself to know and continuously remember who owned 100 and who owned 200."
Similar laws apply if two people entrusted one watchman with two utensils, one large and one small, each one claimed to be the owner of the larger utensil, and the watchman did not remember to whom it belonged. Each of the claimants must take an oath supporting his claim. The watchman must then give one of them the larger utensil, and the value of the larger one to the other. The smaller utensil remains his.If the two brought the two in a single container, he should give the smaller utensil to one and the worth of that utensil to the other. He may keep the remainder in his possession until one claimant acknowledges the other's claim or until eternity.
Similar laws apply if only one article was entrusted, and two people claim it as their own and the watchman says, "One of you is the owner, but I do not know which one." He must pay both of them. Similarly, when two people each entrust an animal to a shepherd, and one animal dies, if the watchman does not know whose animal died, he must make restitution to both of them. If they placed them in his herd without informing him, he may place one animal between them and depart. That animal shall remain until one acknowledges the other's claim or until they desire to divide it.ד
שנים שהפקידו אצל אחד זה מאה וזה מאתים וכל אחד משניהם אומר אני הוא שהפקדתי המאתים והשומר אומר איני יודע ישבע כל אחד מהן שהפקיד מאתים ונוטל כדין כל נשבע ונוטל ויתן מאתים לזה ומאתים לזה ומפסיד מאה מביתו שהרי הוא פושע שהיה לו לכתוב שם כל אחד על כיס שלו לפיכך אם הביאו לו השנים כאחד שלש מאות בכרך אחד ובאו ותבעו וכל אחד אומר המאתים שלי נותן מנה לזה ומנה לזה והשאר יהיה מונח אצלו עד לעולם או עד שיודה האחד לחבירו שהרי הוא אומר להם כיון שראיתי שאין אתם מקפידין זה על זה והבאתם בכרך אחד לא הטרחתי עצמי לידע ולזכור תמיד מי בעל המאה ומי בעל המאתים וכן אם הפקידו אצלו שני כלים אחד גדול ואחד קטן וכל אחד ואחד אומר אני הוא בעל הגדול והשומר אומר איני יודע ישבעו שניהם ויתן הגדול לאחד מהם ודמי הגדול לשני וישאר לו הקטן ואם הביאום בכרך אחד כאחד נותן הקטן לאחד ודמי הקטן לשני והשאר יהיה מונח אצלו עד שיודה האחד לחבירו או עד לעולם וכן מי שתבעוהו שנים זה אומר אני הוא בעל הפקדון וזה אומר אני הוא והשומר אומר אחד מכם הוא ואיני יודע מי הוא ישלם לשניהם וכן שנים שהפקידו שתי בהמות אצל רועה ומתה אחת מהן ואינו יודע של מי היתה ישלם לשניהם ואם הפקידו בעדרו שלא מדעתו מניח הבהמה ביניהם ומסתלק ותהיה מונחת עד שיודה האחד לחבירו או עד שירצו לחלוק אותה:
5
When a person entrusts produce to a colleague, the watchman should not mix it together with his own produce. The following rules apply if the watchman transgressed and mixed the produce together. He should calculate the quantity of produce entrusted to him, see how much produce was lacking from the entire amount and estimate the amount of loss suffered by the entrusted produce. He should return this amount to the owner after he takes an oath.
If the watchman made use of the combined quantity of produce and did not know how much he used, he should subtract the standard norm before returning the produce. For example, for wheat and for shelled rice, he should subtract four and a half kabbin for every kor; for barley and for millet, he should subtract nine kabbin for each kor; and for buckwheat, flax seeds in their stalks and unshelled rice, he should subtract three se'ah for each kor.
When does the above apply? When the original measurement of the produce was made at harvest time, and it was returned during the harvest time. If, however, the watchman returns the produce in the rainy season, he should not make a deduction because of spoilage, for the produce swells.
Similarly, a watchman may deduct a sixth of a quantity of wine entrusted to him and three lugin for every 100 lugin of oil entrusted to him, one and half lugin for dregs and one and a half lugin for absorption. If the oil was refined, the watchman should not make a deduction for dregs. If the containers are old, he should not make a deduction for absorption.ה
המפקיד פירות אצל חבירו ה"ז לא יערבם עם פירותיו עבר ועירב יחשוב כמה היה הפקדון ויראה כמה חסר הכל ויחשוב חסרון הפקדון ויתן לו אחר שישבע נסתפק מהן ולא ידע כמה נסתפק יוציא לו חסרונו לחטים ולאורז קלוף ארבעה קבין ומחצה לכל כור לשעורים ולדוחן תשעה קבין לכל כור לכוסמין ולזרע פשתן בגבעוליו ולאורז שאינו קלוף שלש סאין לכל כור וכמדה הזאת לכל שנה ושנה בד"א שמדד לו בימות הגורן והחזיר לו בימות הגורן אבל מדד בימות הגורן והחזיר לו בימות הגשמים אינו מוציא לו חסרונו מפני שהן מותירות וכן מוציא לו שתות ליין ושלשת לוגין שמן למאה לוגין לוג ומחצה שמרים ולוג ומחצה בלע אם היה מזוקק אינו מוציא לו שמרים ואם היו הקנקנים ישנים אינו מוציא לו בלע:
6
When a person entrusts produce that has not been measured to a watchman, and the watchman mixes it together with his own produce without measuring it, the watchman is considered negligent.
If the owner of the fruit says, "There was this and this amount of produce entrusted," and the watchman says, "I don't know how much there was," he is liable. For he is obligated to take an oath and yet cannot take the oath. My teachers, Rav Yosef HaLevi and his teacher, ruled in this manner.
Similarly, whenever a watchman is obligated to pay, but does not know how much he is obligated to pay, if the owners say: "It was worth such and such," they may collect this amount without taking an oath. This law applies provided the owner claims a sum or an object that he can be presumed to possess. The watchman may have a ban of ostracism issued against anyone who expropriates more than his due.
What is the rationale for this law? Consider: The owner entrusted a purse full of gold coins to the watchman, and the watchman was negligent. The owner says, "It contained 200 dinarim, and the watchman says, "It certainly contained dinarim, but I do not know how much it contained." Thus, a claim is being issued for 200. The watchman admits a portion of the claim, and does not know about the remainder of the claim. He is thus obligated to take an oath, but cannot. Hence, he is required to pay, as will be explained.ו
הפקיד אצלו פירות שאינן מדודין ועירבן עם פירותיו ולא מדדן ה"ז פושע בעל הפקדון אומר כך וכך היו והשומר אומר איני יודע ישלם בלא שבועה שהרי חייב עצמו בתשלומין ואינו יודע כמה הוא חייב ונמצא חייב שבועה שאינו יכול להשבע וכזה הורו רבותי הרב ר' יוסף הלוי ורבו ז"ל וכן כל שומר שנתחייב לשלם ואמר איני יודע כמה דמים אני חייב לשלם והבעלים אומרים אנו יודעין וכך וכך היה שוה יטלו בלא שבועה והוא שיטענו דבר שהן אמודין בו ויש לשומר להחרים על מי שלקח ממנו יתר מן הראוי לו ומנין שהדין כך הוא הגע עצמך שהפקיד אצלו כיס מלא זהובים ופשע בו הבעלים אומרים מאתים דינר היו והשומר אומר ודאי שהיה בו דינרים אבל איני יודע כמה היו נמצא זה כטוען מאתים והודה לו במקצת ואמר השאר איני יודע שהוא מחוייב שבועה ואינו יכול לישבע ומשלם כמו שיתבאר:
7
The following rules apply when a person's father died, leaving him a closed sack. The heir entrusted it to a colleague for safekeeping, the colleague was negligent in its care, and it was destroyed. The depositor says, "I don't know what it contained. Maybe it contained pearls." Similarly, the watchman states: "I don't know how much I am obligated to pay. Maybe it was filled with pieces of glass."
I maintain that the ruling in this instance is that, as our Sages required, the watchman should take an oath that the entrusted object is no longer in his domain. He should include in this oath that he does not know whether it was worth more than a specific amount. He must then pay the amount that he admits that it was worth. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
An incident occurred concerning a person who entrusted a closed sack to his colleague. The latter was negligent in its care, and it was lost. The owner said, "It contained gold jewelry, pearls and the like." The watchman replied: "I don't know. Perhaps all it contained were pieces of scrap metal or sand."
Our Sages ruled: "The owner of the entrusted article may take an oath supporting his claim, and then collect the sum he claims, provided he claims a sum that he could be presumed to have entrusted to him.
Why must the owner of the entrusted article take an oath in this instance?Because in this instance, the watchman is not obligated to take an oath. For even if the watchman were to admit and say: "I am definitely certain that it contained scrap metal," and the owner claimed: "It contained pearls," the watchman could take a sh'vuat hesset and be freed of obligation. This resembles a case where the plaintiff demands wheat and the defendant admits owing barley. The same laws apply in all analogous situations. The fundamental principles upon which these laws revolve will be explained in Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an.ז
מת אביו והניח לו שק צרור והפקידו אצלו חבירו ופשע בו המפקיד אומר איני יודע מה היו בו שמא מרגליות היו בו וכן השומר אומר איני יודע כמה אני חייב לשלם שמא זכוכית היה מלא שורת הדין שאני אומר בטענה זו שישבע השומר בתקנת חכמים שאינו ברשותו ויכלול בשבועתו שאינו יודע בודאי שהיה בו יתר על שוה כך וכך וישלם מה שהודה בו וכן כל כיוצא בזה מעשה באחד שהפקיד שק צרור אצל חבירו ופשע בו המפקיד אומר חלי זהב ומרגליות וכיוצא בהן היו בו והשומר אומר איני יודע שמא סיגים או חול היו בו ואמרו חכמים ישבע בעל הפקדון ויטול והוא שיטעון דבר שהוא אמוד בו או אמוד להפקידו אצלו ולמה נשבע כאן בעל הפקדון לפי שאין השומר מחוייב שבועה שאפילו הודה ואמר ברי לי שהיה מלא סיגים והמפקיד אומר מרגליות היו השומר נשבע היסת ונפטר כמו שטענו חטים והודה לו בשעורים וכן כל כיוצא בזה ובהלכות טוען ונטען יתבארו עיקרי הדברים:
She'elah uFikkadon - Chapter 5
1
If money designated to be given to the poor or to be used for the redemption of captives was given to a person, he was negligent in guarding it and it was stolen, the watchman is not liable. This is derived from Exodus 22:6, which states: "If a man gives money or articles to his colleague to watch...." The wording implies that obligations determined by the verse apply when the money or the article was given to watch, but not when it was given to divide among the poor. This decision is rendered, because there is no one to claim the money as his own.
Even if the thieves attacked the person and he saved himself by giving them the money designated for the redemption of captives, he is not liable. There is no greater redemption of captives than this.
When does the above apply? When the money was not entrusted to him for the sake of the poor people of a particular place or a designated group of captives. If, however, the money was designated for a particular group of poor people or captives, and is thus set aside for them, it is considered to be money that people can claim. Therefore, the watchman must pay if he was negligent, or take an oath that he was not negligent, as is required of all watchmen.א
מי שהפקידו אצלו מעות של עניים או של פדיון שבויים ופשע בהם ונגנבו פטור שנאמר לשמור ולא לחלק לעניים והרי הוא ממון שאין לו תובעים אפילו באו עליו גנבים וקדם והציל עצמו בממון שבויים פטור אין לך פדיון שבויים גדול מזה במה דברים אמורים בשאין זה הממון מופקד לעניי מקום זה או לשבויים [אלו] אבל אם היו לעניים אלו או לשבויים אלו והרי הוא קצוץ להן הרי זה הממון שיש לו תובעין וישלם אם פשע או ישבע שלא פשע כדרך כל השומרים:
2
The following rules apply when a person entrusts money or valuable articles to a colleague, thieves come and attack him and he gives them the entrusted article before offering any of his other property to save himself. If the person has the reputation of being wealthy, he is liable. The rationale is that we may presume that the thieves came because of the watchman. Thus, he is saving himself with money belonging to a colleague. If the watchman does not have the reputation of being wealthy, we presume that the thieves came only because of the entrusted article. Hence, the watchman is not liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.ב
המפקיד אצל חבירו ממון או כלים חשובין ובאו עליו גנבים וקדם ונתן להם הפקדון להציל עצמו אם היה אמוד שהוא בעל ממון חייב שחזקתו שבגללו באו הגנבים ונמצא זה מציל עצמו בממון חבירו ואם אינו אמוד חזקתו שלא באו אלא לשם הפקדון ופטור וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
3
The following rules apply when a person entrusts articles or fruit to a colleague. If thieves come and steal the entrusted article in his presence and he remains silent, he may be held liable. If people would have come and rescued the entrusted article had he called out, he is considered negligent for remaining silent and he is obligated to make restitution. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.ג
המפקיד אצל חבירו כלים או פירות ובאו גנבים וגנבום בפניו ואילו היה צווח היו באין בני אדם ומצילין אותן הואיל ולא צווח הרי זה פושע וחייב לשלם וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
4
The following laws apply when two people entrusted money to a colleague, one 100 zuz and the other 200 zuz, both claim to have entrusted the 200 zuz, and the watchman does not recall which one deposited 200, and which one 100. Each of the claimants must take an oath that he was the one who deposited the 200 zuz He may then collect the money he claims,14 as is the law with regard to any person who takes an oath and collects his due. The watchman must pay each claimant 200, losing 100 zuz from his own resources. The rationale is that he was negligent, for he should have written down the name of each person on the packet that he entrusted.
Therefore, if the two people together brought him the 300 zuz in a single packet, and afterwards each claims that the 200 belongs to him, the watchman is not considered negligent if he does not remember who brought the larger sum. He should give each one a maneh, and the balance should remain in the watchman's possession forever, or until one of them acknowledges the other's claim.21 The rationale is that the watchman can explain: "I saw that you two were not precise with each other, as indicated by the fact that you brought the money to me in a single packet. Therefore, I did not trouble myself to know and continuously remember who owned 100 and who owned 200."
Similar laws apply if two people entrusted one watchman with two utensils, one large and one small, each one claimed to be the owner of the larger utensil, and the watchman did not remember to whom it belonged. Each of the claimants must take an oath supporting his claim. The watchman must then give one of them the larger utensil, and the value of the larger one to the other. The smaller utensil remains his.If the two brought the two in a single container, he should give the smaller utensil to one and the worth of that utensil to the other. He may keep the remainder in his possession until one claimant acknowledges the other's claim or until eternity.
Similar laws apply if only one article was entrusted, and two people claim it as their own and the watchman says, "One of you is the owner, but I do not know which one." He must pay both of them. Similarly, when two people each entrust an animal to a shepherd, and one animal dies, if the watchman does not know whose animal died, he must make restitution to both of them. If they placed them in his herd without informing him, he may place one animal between them and depart. That animal shall remain until one acknowledges the other's claim or until they desire to divide it.ד
שנים שהפקידו אצל אחד זה מאה וזה מאתים וכל אחד משניהם אומר אני הוא שהפקדתי המאתים והשומר אומר איני יודע ישבע כל אחד מהן שהפקיד מאתים ונוטל כדין כל נשבע ונוטל ויתן מאתים לזה ומאתים לזה ומפסיד מאה מביתו שהרי הוא פושע שהיה לו לכתוב שם כל אחד על כיס שלו לפיכך אם הביאו לו השנים כאחד שלש מאות בכרך אחד ובאו ותבעו וכל אחד אומר המאתים שלי נותן מנה לזה ומנה לזה והשאר יהיה מונח אצלו עד לעולם או עד שיודה האחד לחבירו שהרי הוא אומר להם כיון שראיתי שאין אתם מקפידין זה על זה והבאתם בכרך אחד לא הטרחתי עצמי לידע ולזכור תמיד מי בעל המאה ומי בעל המאתים וכן אם הפקידו אצלו שני כלים אחד גדול ואחד קטן וכל אחד ואחד אומר אני הוא בעל הגדול והשומר אומר איני יודע ישבעו שניהם ויתן הגדול לאחד מהם ודמי הגדול לשני וישאר לו הקטן ואם הביאום בכרך אחד כאחד נותן הקטן לאחד ודמי הקטן לשני והשאר יהיה מונח אצלו עד שיודה האחד לחבירו או עד לעולם וכן מי שתבעוהו שנים זה אומר אני הוא בעל הפקדון וזה אומר אני הוא והשומר אומר אחד מכם הוא ואיני יודע מי הוא ישלם לשניהם וכן שנים שהפקידו שתי בהמות אצל רועה ומתה אחת מהן ואינו יודע של מי היתה ישלם לשניהם ואם הפקידו בעדרו שלא מדעתו מניח הבהמה ביניהם ומסתלק ותהיה מונחת עד שיודה האחד לחבירו או עד שירצו לחלוק אותה:
5
When a person entrusts produce to a colleague, the watchman should not mix it together with his own produce. The following rules apply if the watchman transgressed and mixed the produce together. He should calculate the quantity of produce entrusted to him, see how much produce was lacking from the entire amount and estimate the amount of loss suffered by the entrusted produce. He should return this amount to the owner after he takes an oath.
If the watchman made use of the combined quantity of produce and did not know how much he used, he should subtract the standard norm before returning the produce. For example, for wheat and for shelled rice, he should subtract four and a half kabbin for every kor; for barley and for millet, he should subtract nine kabbin for each kor; and for buckwheat, flax seeds in their stalks and unshelled rice, he should subtract three se'ah for each kor.
When does the above apply? When the original measurement of the produce was made at harvest time, and it was returned during the harvest time. If, however, the watchman returns the produce in the rainy season, he should not make a deduction because of spoilage, for the produce swells.
Similarly, a watchman may deduct a sixth of a quantity of wine entrusted to him and three lugin for every 100 lugin of oil entrusted to him, one and half lugin for dregs and one and a half lugin for absorption. If the oil was refined, the watchman should not make a deduction for dregs. If the containers are old, he should not make a deduction for absorption.ה
המפקיד פירות אצל חבירו ה"ז לא יערבם עם פירותיו עבר ועירב יחשוב כמה היה הפקדון ויראה כמה חסר הכל ויחשוב חסרון הפקדון ויתן לו אחר שישבע נסתפק מהן ולא ידע כמה נסתפק יוציא לו חסרונו לחטים ולאורז קלוף ארבעה קבין ומחצה לכל כור לשעורים ולדוחן תשעה קבין לכל כור לכוסמין ולזרע פשתן בגבעוליו ולאורז שאינו קלוף שלש סאין לכל כור וכמדה הזאת לכל שנה ושנה בד"א שמדד לו בימות הגורן והחזיר לו בימות הגורן אבל מדד בימות הגורן והחזיר לו בימות הגשמים אינו מוציא לו חסרונו מפני שהן מותירות וכן מוציא לו שתות ליין ושלשת לוגין שמן למאה לוגין לוג ומחצה שמרים ולוג ומחצה בלע אם היה מזוקק אינו מוציא לו שמרים ואם היו הקנקנים ישנים אינו מוציא לו בלע:
6
When a person entrusts produce that has not been measured to a watchman, and the watchman mixes it together with his own produce without measuring it, the watchman is considered negligent.
If the owner of the fruit says, "There was this and this amount of produce entrusted," and the watchman says, "I don't know how much there was," he is liable. For he is obligated to take an oath and yet cannot take the oath. My teachers, Rav Yosef HaLevi and his teacher, ruled in this manner.
Similarly, whenever a watchman is obligated to pay, but does not know how much he is obligated to pay, if the owners say: "It was worth such and such," they may collect this amount without taking an oath. This law applies provided the owner claims a sum or an object that he can be presumed to possess. The watchman may have a ban of ostracism issued against anyone who expropriates more than his due.
What is the rationale for this law? Consider: The owner entrusted a purse full of gold coins to the watchman, and the watchman was negligent. The owner says, "It contained 200 dinarim, and the watchman says, "It certainly contained dinarim, but I do not know how much it contained." Thus, a claim is being issued for 200. The watchman admits a portion of the claim, and does not know about the remainder of the claim. He is thus obligated to take an oath, but cannot. Hence, he is required to pay, as will be explained.ו
הפקיד אצלו פירות שאינן מדודין ועירבן עם פירותיו ולא מדדן ה"ז פושע בעל הפקדון אומר כך וכך היו והשומר אומר איני יודע ישלם בלא שבועה שהרי חייב עצמו בתשלומין ואינו יודע כמה הוא חייב ונמצא חייב שבועה שאינו יכול להשבע וכזה הורו רבותי הרב ר' יוסף הלוי ורבו ז"ל וכן כל שומר שנתחייב לשלם ואמר איני יודע כמה דמים אני חייב לשלם והבעלים אומרים אנו יודעין וכך וכך היה שוה יטלו בלא שבועה והוא שיטענו דבר שהן אמודין בו ויש לשומר להחרים על מי שלקח ממנו יתר מן הראוי לו ומנין שהדין כך הוא הגע עצמך שהפקיד אצלו כיס מלא זהובים ופשע בו הבעלים אומרים מאתים דינר היו והשומר אומר ודאי שהיה בו דינרים אבל איני יודע כמה היו נמצא זה כטוען מאתים והודה לו במקצת ואמר השאר איני יודע שהוא מחוייב שבועה ואינו יכול לישבע ומשלם כמו שיתבאר:
7
The following rules apply when a person's father died, leaving him a closed sack. The heir entrusted it to a colleague for safekeeping, the colleague was negligent in its care, and it was destroyed. The depositor says, "I don't know what it contained. Maybe it contained pearls." Similarly, the watchman states: "I don't know how much I am obligated to pay. Maybe it was filled with pieces of glass."
I maintain that the ruling in this instance is that, as our Sages required, the watchman should take an oath that the entrusted object is no longer in his domain. He should include in this oath that he does not know whether it was worth more than a specific amount. He must then pay the amount that he admits that it was worth. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
An incident occurred concerning a person who entrusted a closed sack to his colleague. The latter was negligent in its care, and it was lost. The owner said, "It contained gold jewelry, pearls and the like." The watchman replied: "I don't know. Perhaps all it contained were pieces of scrap metal or sand."
Our Sages ruled: "The owner of the entrusted article may take an oath supporting his claim, and then collect the sum he claims, provided he claims a sum that he could be presumed to have entrusted to him.
Why must the owner of the entrusted article take an oath in this instance?Because in this instance, the watchman is not obligated to take an oath. For even if the watchman were to admit and say: "I am definitely certain that it contained scrap metal," and the owner claimed: "It contained pearls," the watchman could take a sh'vuat hesset and be freed of obligation. This resembles a case where the plaintiff demands wheat and the defendant admits owing barley. The same laws apply in all analogous situations. The fundamental principles upon which these laws revolve will be explained in Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an.ז
מת אביו והניח לו שק צרור והפקידו אצלו חבירו ופשע בו המפקיד אומר איני יודע מה היו בו שמא מרגליות היו בו וכן השומר אומר איני יודע כמה אני חייב לשלם שמא זכוכית היה מלא שורת הדין שאני אומר בטענה זו שישבע השומר בתקנת חכמים שאינו ברשותו ויכלול בשבועתו שאינו יודע בודאי שהיה בו יתר על שוה כך וכך וישלם מה שהודה בו וכן כל כיוצא בזה מעשה באחד שהפקיד שק צרור אצל חבירו ופשע בו המפקיד אומר חלי זהב ומרגליות וכיוצא בהן היו בו והשומר אומר איני יודע שמא סיגים או חול היו בו ואמרו חכמים ישבע בעל הפקדון ויטול והוא שיטעון דבר שהוא אמוד בו או אמוד להפקידו אצלו ולמה נשבע כאן בעל הפקדון לפי שאין השומר מחוייב שבועה שאפילו הודה ואמר ברי לי שהיה מלא סיגים והמפקיד אומר מרגליות היו השומר נשבע היסת ונפטר כמו שטענו חטים והודה לו בשעורים וכן כל כיוצא בזה ובהלכות טוען ונטען יתבארו עיקרי הדברים:
-------
Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day
Tum'at Met - Chapter 21, Tum'at Met - Chapter 22, Tum'at Met - Chapter 23
Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day
Tum'at Met - Chapter 21, Tum'at Met - Chapter 22, Tum'at Met - Chapter 23
3 Chapters
Tum'at Met - Chapter 21
1
What is the source that teaches that a sealed covering saves the contents of a container from contracting ritual impurity in a shelter in which a corpse is located? Numbers 19:15 states: "Any open container that does not have a sealed covering on top of it is impure." One can derive from this that if there is a sealed covering on it, it is pure.
According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that the verse is speaking only about an earthenware container, for it is a container that contracts impurity only through its opening. Therefore, if its opening is closed with a sealed covering, all of its contents are protected.
From this, we can infer that the contents of any of the containers which are not susceptible to ritual impurity are protected when the container is closed with a sealed covering. Such containers include: containers made from cow turds, stone containers, containers made from earth, containers made from the bones or skin of a fish or the bones of a fowl, oversized wooden containers, wooden boards that are flat and are not containers, metal keilim which have not been completely fashioned. The contents of all of these are protected by a sealed covering.
Now if the contents of a utensil closed with a sealed covering are protected, we can infer that this also applies to keilim that are swallowed or under an ohel. What is the difference between ohalim and containers that protect because of a sealed covering? That the covering of the containers must be sealed close, while for an ohel, any covering is sufficient.א
מנין לצמיד פתיל שמציל באהל המת שנאמר וכל כלי פתוח אשר אין צמיד פתיל עליו טמא הוא הא יש צמיד פתיל עליו טהור ומפי השמועה למדו שאין הכתוב מדבר אלא בכלי חרש בלבד כלי שאינו מטמא אלא דרך פתחו לפיכך אם היה פתחו סתום ומוקף צמיד פתיל הציל על כל שבתוכו ק"ו לכל הכלים שאין מקבלין טומאה שיצילו בצמיד פתיל והם כלי גללים כלי אבנים כלי אדמה וכלי עצמות הדג ועורו ועצמות העוף וכלי עץ הבא במדה ונסרים של עץ שהן פשוטין ואינן כלים וגלמי כלי מתכת כל אלו מצילין בצמיד פתיל אם הדברים שבתוך הכלי המוקף נצלו ק"ו לבלועין ולכלים שתחת האהלים מה בין אהלים לכלים שמצילין בצמיד פתיל שהכלים אינן מצילין אלא בצמיד פתיל והאהלים מצילין בכיסוי בלבד:
2
If a funnel is turned upside down, it protects anything it covers from impurity. Although its other end has a small hole, it is considered as if it were closed.ב
משפך שכפהו מציל בכיסוי אף על פי שקצתו נקוב נקב קטן הרי הוא כסתום:
3
All containers that protect their contacts when sealed close also protect anything that is under them to the very depths if they are turned upside down and stood on the earth, when their inner space is a handbreadth by a handbreadth by a handbreadth, even though one did not spread clay around the sides to seal them. The rationale is, in that position, they are like an ohel and an ohel protects from impurity. The only exception is an earthenware container, for an ohel formed by an earthenware container does not protect from impurity.
What is implied? When an earthenware jug is turned upside down, even if one smeared clay on its sides everything under it is impure, for the prooftext speaks of "a sealed covering on top of it," and not a closed covering on its back. If one attached its opening to the wall and smeared clay on its sides, If one did not smear clay on its sides, it does not protect its contents, because an earthenware container does not protect as an ohel, as we explained.
All of the other containers that protect their contents when sealed close protect their contents when their openings are attached to the walls of a house even when they do not have a sealed covering, because they protect as an ohel. Therefore it is necessary that the walls of the utensil be at least a handbreadth high, for containers do not protect their contents with their walls as an ohel unless the wall of the container is at least a handbreadth.
If the wall of the container was half a handbreadth, there was a border of half a handbreadth protruding from the wall, and they were attached to each other, it is not considered as an ohel and does not protect its contents even though there is a handbreadth of empty space. It is necessary that the handbreadth come from one entity.ג
כל הכלים המצילין בצמיד פתיל אם היו בהן טפח על טפח על רום טפח וכפאן על פיהם על הארץ אע"פ שלא מירח בצמיד פתיל מן הצדדין הרי אלו מצילין כל מה שתחתיהן עד התהום מפני שהן כאהל והאהל מציל אא"כ היה הכלי כלי חרש שאין אהלי כלי חרש מצילין כיצד חבית שכפויה על פיה אף ע"פ שמירחה בטיט מן הצדדין כל מה שתחתיה טמא שנאמר צמיד פתיל עליו ולא צמיד פתיל על גבו הדביק פיה לכותל ומירחה מן הצדדים מצלת על כל מה שבתוכה ועל כל שכנגדה בכותל ואם לא מירח מן הצדדין אינה מצלת שאין כלי חרש מציל משום אהל כמו שביארנו אבל שאר כל הכלים המצילין בצמיד פתיל שהיו פיותיהן דבוקות בדפני הבית מצילין בלא צמיד פתיל מפני שהן מצילין משום אהל לפיכך צריך שיהיה בדופן הכלי טפח שאין הכלים מצילין עם דפנות אהלים עד שיהיה להן דופן [טפח] היה לכלי דופן חצי טפח והיה יוצא מדופן האהל שפה חצי טפח והדביק זה לזה אף על פי שיש שם חלל טפח אינו מציל עד שיהיה טפח ממקום אחד:
4
Just as such containers protect their contents from impurity when they are inside an ohel and attached to its walls, so too, do they protect their contents when they are outside the ohel if they are attached to the ohel, for the ohel is considered as a covering in all instances.
What is implied? A samovar that has walls that are a cubit high was placed on its side on staves outside an ohel and its opening was placed immediately next to the wall of the tent. If there is impurity under it, the keilim inside of it are pure. If it was placed next to the wall of a courtyard or the wall of a garden, it does not protect its contents, because these are not the walls of a tent. Therefore any keilim in the container are impure, for they were held above the impurity.ד
כשם שמצילין מבפנים עם דפנות האהל כך מצילין חוץ לאהל אם סמכן לאהל שהרי האהל נעשה כסוי מ"מ כיצד כלי מיחם שיש לו דופן טפח שהניחו ע"ג יתדות חוץ לאהל וסמך פיו לדופן האהל והיתה טומאה תחתיו כלים שבתוכו טהורין ואם היה סמוך לכותל חצר או לכותל גינה אינו מציל לפי שאינן כותל אהל ולפיכך כלים שבתוך הכלי טמאים שהרי האהילו על הטומאה:
5
If there is a beam that is a handbreadth wide running from wall to wall, there is impurity below it, a pot was hanging from the beam and the beam was touching the entire opening of the pot and covering it, the keilim in the pot are pure. The rationale is that they were saved by the ohel covering them. If the opening of the pot was not covered by the beam, but instead there was some empty space between them, everything in the pot is impure and the pot itself is impure.ה
קורה שיש בה פותח טפח והיא נתונה מכותל לכותל וטומאה תחתיה וקדרה תלויה מן הקורה והיתה הקורה נוגעת בפי הקדרה כולה ומכסה אותה כלים שבקדרה טהורים שהרי הוצלו בכיסוי האהל להם ואם לא היה פי הקדרה מכוסה בקורה אלא ביניהם ריוח כל מה שבקדרה טמא והקדרה עצמה טמאה:
6
The following laws apply when there is a cistern in a building, there is impurity in the building, and there are keilim in the cistern. If the cistern was covered with a flat board or a container that can protect its contents from impurity because it has a wall that is a handbreadth high, everything that is in the cistern is pure. If the cistern had a border built around its opening that was a handbreadth above the ground, whether he covered it with a container that can protect from impurity because it has a wall or whether the container did not have a wall, the container protects the contents of the cistern from impurity, because there is a wall of a handbreadth from another source.ו
בור שבתוך הבית וטומאה בבית וכלים בבור אם היה מכוסה בנסר חלק או בכלי המציל שיש לו דופן טפח הרי כל מה שבבור טהור היה לבור בניין סביב לפיו גבוה טפח על הארץ בין שכסהו בכלי המציל שיש לו דופן בין שלא היתה לו דופן ה"ז מציל שהרי יש לו דופן טפח ממקום אחר:
7
The following rules apply when a cistern is built inside a building and there is a lamp in it with its flower protruding and covering the opening of the cistern. One placed a container that can protect from impurity in an ohel where a corpse is located over the opening to the cistern and it is resting on the flower of the lamp. We see if the container that can protect from impurity would remain in its position if the lamp was removed. When this is the case, it protects everything that is in the cistern from impurity. The keilim that are between the edge of the container that serves as a cover and the edge of the cistern are pure until the very depths. Even the lamp is pure despite the fact that the edge of the flower is visible between the covering and the cistern. If the container would not remain in position, everything is impure.ז
חדות הבנוי בתוך הבית ומגורה בתוכו והפרח שלה יוצא ומכסה פי החדות ונתן כלי המציל באהל המת על פי החדות והרי הוא נשען על פרח המנורה רואין אם תנטל מנורה והכלי המציל עומד ה"ז מציל על כל שבחדות וכלים שבין שפת הכלי ושפת החדות טהורים עד התהום ואף המנורה טהורה אע"פ ששפת הפרח נראה בין הכסוי והחדות ואם לאו הכל טמא:
8
The following laws apply when a cistern is built inside a house and a container that could protect its contents from ritual impurity was placed over its opening. If there was impurity between the edge of the container and the edge of the cistern or within the cistern, the house is impure. The rationale is that an ohel inside a building does not prevent the spread of impurity, as we explained.
If there was impurity in the house and there is a handbreadth by a handbreadth by a handbreadth of empty space in the cistern, the keilim stored in the walls of the cistern are pure. If not, they are impure.
If the width of the walls of the cistern extends outside the house, they are nevertheless pure. The rationale is that they are not the walls of the house and just as the inside of the cistern is protected from impurity, so too, its walls protect.
We have already explained that an old oven is like all other keilim that convey impurity and is not considered as an ohal. For this reason, it does not protect its contents from ritual impurity unless it is sealed close like other containers that protect their contents. We have already explained oven is not considered as a k'li in this context and does serve as an ohel. Therefore it protects its contents from impurity merely by covering them without the cover being sealed close like other ohalim. The covering of an oven is called a serida.ח
החדות הבנוי בתוך הבית וכלי המציל נתון על פיו והיתה טומאה בין שפת הכלי ושפת החדות או בתוך החדות הבית טמא שאין האהל שבתוך הבית מונע הטומאה כמו שביארנו היתה טומאה בבית כלים שבכתלי החדות אם יש במקומן טפח על טפח על רום טפח טהורים ואם לאו טמאים ואם היו כתלי החדות רחבים משל בית בין כך ובין כך טהורים מפני שאינן מכתלי הבית וכשם שמציל החדות בתוכו כך מציל בכתליו כבר ביארנו שהתנור הישן הרי הוא ככל הכלים שהן מביאים את הטומאה ואינן נעשין אהלים ומפני זה אינו מציל על מה שבתוכו אלא אם כן היה מוקף צמיד פתיל כשאר כלים המצילים וכן ביארנו שהתנור החדש אינו ככלים לענין זה אלא נעשה אהל ולפיכך מציל על מה שבתוכו בכיסוי בלבד בלא צמיד פתיל כאהלים וכיסוי התנור הוא נקרא סרידא:
9
The following rules apply when there is impurity in a house and there is an old oven inside a new oven, a serida resting on the new oven and that cover is being supported by the opening of the old oven. We see whether, when the old oven was removed, the cover would fall. If so, it does not protect from impurity and everything inside of it is impure. If the cover would not fall, everything is pure.
When there is a new oven inside an old oven and the serida is resting on the opening of the old oven, if there is less than a handbreadth between the new oven and the cover, everything in the new oven is pure. It is considered as if the covering was resting on its opening.ט
תנור ישן בתוך החדש וסרידא ע"פ החדש והרי הכיסוי נשען על פי התנור הישן רואין אם כשינטל הישן תפול הסרידא לא הציל וכל שבתוכו טמא ואם לאו הכל טהור היה החדש בתוך הישן והסרידא מונחת על פי הישן אם יש בין החדש והכיסוי פחות מטפח כל שבתוך החדש טהור וכאילו הסרידא מונחת על פיו:
10
When there is a covering of earthenware that has a border and extends beyond the edge of the oven and the oven is closed with a sealed covering, even if there is impurity under the covering or on top of it, everything above or below the impurity is impure. Nevertheless, the portion opposite the inner space of the oven is pure.
If there is impurity on the covering above the inner space of the oven, the space above it until the heavens is impure. Anything inside of the oven is pure.י
סרידא של חרס שיש לה שפה והיא עודפת ע"פ התנור ומוקפת צמיד פתיל אפילו היתה טומאה תחתיה או על גבה הכל טמא אבל כנגד אוירו של תנור טהור היתה טומאה כנגד אוירו של תנור מכנגדו עד לרקיע טמא וכל מה שבתוכו טהור:
11
When there is impurity in a house and an earthenware pot was turned over and placed on the opening of a jug and then clay was smeared on its walls and the jug to seal it close, it protects everything inside of it and everything between it and the edge of the jug from impurity.
If one placed it on the opening of the jug upright and smeared clay around it to seal it, it does not protect it. The rationale is that the pot becomes impure from its inner space and an impure utensil does not protect another utensil from impurity, as we explained.יא
קדרה שכפאה על פי החבית ומירח דפנותיה עם החבית מצלת על כל מה שבתוכה ועל מה שבינה ובין שפתות החבית הושיבה על פי החבית כדרכה ומירח אינה מצלת מפני שהקדרה מתטמאה מאוירה ואין כלי טמא מציל כמו שביארנו:
Tum'at Met - Chapter 22
1
The handles of a large earthenware container, the bulges at the bottom of such a container, and the back of its walls do not protect their contents when sealed close in a tent where a corpse is located. If one cut them off, planed them, and made them into containers, they protect their contents if sealed close. The rationale is that the concept of sealing something close applies only to containers.א
שולי המחצין ושולי קרקעות והכלים ודפנותיהן מאחוריהן אין מצילין בצמיד פתיל באהל המת קרסמן ושפן ועשאן כלים מצילין בצמיד פתיל שאין מציל בצמיד פתיל אלא כלים:
2
When clay is put into an earthenware container and filled half of it, it does not nullify it from being considered as a container. If keilim are sunk in that clay and the container is sealed close, the contents are protected from impurity.ב
כלי חרש שנתן בו טיט עד חציו לא ביטלו ואם השקיע בו את הכלים מציל:
3
An earthenware container protects its contents from impurity when sealed close unless it is perforated with a hole large enough for a pomegranate to fall through. If it is large, the majority of it must be damaged and open for it to be disqualified.
What is implied? If there was a large container and half was damaged, it was sealed close, including the damaged portion, it protects its contents from impurity even though it is not considered a utensil with regard to impurity. If, however, a container that was sealed close had a hole or a crack and the hole was not closed, it becomes impure and does not protect its contents.
How large must the hole be to disqualify the container? If the container was used for foods, the measure is a hole large enough for olives to fall through. If it was used for liquids, its measure is that the hole must be large enough to enable liquids to seep in when the container is placed in them. If it is used for both these purposes, we rule stringently and if a hole was made that was large enough for liquids to seep in, it does not protect its contents until the hole is closed or reduced in size.ג
כלי חרש מציל בצמיד פתיל עד שינקב במוציא רמון ובגדול עד שיפחת רובו כיצד כלי גדול שנפחת [חציו] והקיפו צמיד פתיל וסתם מקום הפחת בצמיד פתיל הרי זה מציל אע"פ שאינו חשוב כלי לענין טומאה אבל כלי המוקף צמיד פתיל שהיה נקוב או סדוק ולא סתם הנקב נטמא ואינו מציל וכמה יהיה בנקב אם היה כלי העשוי לאוכלים שיעורו במוציא זיתים היה עשוי למשקה שיעורו בכונס משקה העשוי לכך ולכך מטילין אותו לחומרא ומשינקב בכונס משקה אינו מציל עד שיסתום הנקב או עד שימעטנו:
4
The following rules apply when there was an oven in an ohel where a corpse was located. The oven had a covering upon it, it was sealed close, but it was cracked. If the crack was as wide as the opening of the rod of a plow which is a handbreadth in circumference, the oven is impure even though the rod could not be inserted into the oven through the hole, but the hole was equal to its size. If the hole was smaller than this, the oven is pure.
If the covering was cracked to the extent that the rod of a plow could enter, it is impure. If it is less, it protects its contents with a sealed covering. If the crack is round, we do not consider it as if it was long. Instead, the measure is dependent on whether the opening of the rod of a plow could be inserted.ד
תנור שהיתה סרידא על פיו ומוקף צמיד פתיל ונתון באהל המת ונסדק התנור אם היה הסדק מלא פי מרדע שהוא היקף טפח נטמא התנור ואף על פי שאין המרדע יכול להכנס בסדק אלא הרי הוא כמותו בשוה פחות מכאן התנור טהור נסדקה הסרידא שעל פיו כמלא פי מרדע נכנס הרי זה טמא פחות מכאן ניצל בצמיד פתיל היה הסדק עגול אין רואין אותו ארוך אלא שיעורו כמלא פי מרדע נכנס:
5
The following rules apply when an oven that is sealed close has an eye that was partially closed with clay. If the hole was large enough for a reed to be inserted and taken out while it was burning, the contents of the oven are impure. If the hole is smaller than this, the contents are protected.ה
תנור המוקף צמיד פתיל שניקב נקב בעינו של תנור הטוחה אם היה הנקב מלא כוש נכנס ויוצא כשהוא דולק ה"ז נטמא ואם היה הנקב פחות מזה ניצל:
6
When an oven has a hole at its side, the size of the hole that causes it to not to be considered as sealed is enough space for a reed to be inserted and taken out even when it was not burning. Similarly, when the clay seal of a jug was perforated, the measure is space for the second joint of a rye stalk to be inserted in the hole. Similarly, when large casks were perforated, the measure is space for the second joint of a reed to be inserted. If they are less than this, they are pure.
When does the above apply? When they were made to store wine. If, however, they were made to store other liquids, a hole of even the slightest size causes them to contract impurity and the fact that they are sealed close is not effective unless the hole was closed. Moreover, even if they were made for wine, the above applies only when they were not perforated by human hands. If, however, they were perforated by human hands, even the slightest hole causes them to contract impurity and they are not protected unless the hole is closed.ו
ניקב התנור מצדו שיעורו מלא כוש נכנס ויוצא שלא דולק וכן מגופת החבית שניקבה שיעורה כדי שתכנס מיצה שנייה של שיפון בנקב וחצבים גדולים שניקבו שיעורן כדי שתכנס מיצה שנייה של קנה פחות מכאן טהורין במה דברים אמורים בזמן שנעשו ליין אבל אם נעשו לשאר המשקין אפילו ניקבו בכל שהן נטמאו ואין הצמיד פתיל מועיל להם עד שיסתום הנקב ואף בזמן שנעשו ליין לא אמרו אלא שניקבו שלא בידי אדם אבל אם נעשו בידי אדם אפילו כל שהן טמאים ואינן ניצלין עד שיסתם הנקב:
7
When a jug that is filled with pure liquids has an earthenware tube in it, it is considered as sealed close. If it is located in an ohel where a corpse is found, the jug and the liquid are pure. The tube is impure, because one end of it is in the jug which is sealed close and the second end is open in the ohel where the corpse is found and it is not closed. Even though it is crooked, this does not cause it to be considered as closed.ז
חבית שהיא מלאה משקין טהורין ומניקת של חרס בתוכה והחבית מוקפת צמיד פתיל ונתונה באהל המת החבית והמשקין טהורין והמניקת טמאה מפני שקצתה האחת בתוך החבית המוקפת והקצה השני פתוח לאהל המת ואינו סתום אע"פ שהיא עקומה אין העקום כסתום:
8
When a jug that was sealed close had a hole on its side, but that hole was closed by wine dregs, it protects its contents from impurity. If the owner plugged half the hole and the dregs closed the other half, there is an unresolved question whether the contents are protected or not.
If one plugged the hole with a twig, it is not considered as closed unless one smears clay around the sides. If one closed it with two slivers of wood, one must smear clay from the sides and between one sliver and the other. Similarly, if a board was placed over the opening to an oven and one smeared clay at the sides, it is protected from impurity. If there were two boards, one must smear clay from the sides and between one board and the other. If, however, one joined the boards together with wooden pegs or the like or with cork, it is not necessary to smear clay in the middle.
With what can a jug be sealed close? With lime, clay, gypsum, pitch, wax, mud, filth, mortar, or any substance that can be smeared. We do not seal with tin or lead, because it will not be a seal, nor will it close the container tightly. A plump fig that was not prepared to contract ritual impurity may be used as a seal. This also applies with regard to a dough that was kneaded with fruit juice so that it will not become impure. These qualifications are necessary, because an impure object cannot intervene in the face of impurity.ח
חבית המוקפת צמיד פתיל שניקבה מצדה וסתמו שמרים את הנקב הציל אגף חצי הנקב וסתם חציו ה"ז ספק אם הציל אם לא הציל סתם את הנקב בזמורה עד שימרח מן הצדדין סתמו בב' קסמים עד שימרח מן הצדדין ובין זמורה לחבירתה וכן נסר שנתון על פי התנור ומירח מן הצדדין [הציל היו שתי נסרים עד שימרח מן הצדדין ובין] נסר לחבירו חיבר את שני נסרים במסמרים של עץ וכיוצא בהן או שלפף עליהן שוגמין א"צ למרח מן האמצע במה מקיפין בסיד ובחרסית ובגפסין בזפת ובשעוה בטיט ובצואה ובחמר ובכל דבר המתמרח ואין מקיפין לא בבעץ ולא בעופרת מפני שהוא פתיל ואינו צמיד ומקיפין בדבילה שמנה שלא הוכשרה ובבצק שנילושה במי פירות כדי שלא יטמא שדבר טמא אינו חוצץ:
9
When the covering of a jug has become loose, even when it does not slip off, it no longer protects the contents, for it is not considered as sealed.
When a rubber ball or strands tied together were placed on a jug and clay was smeared at the sides, it does not protect the contents unless clay was smeared on the entire ball or collection of strands from below upward. Similar concepts apply with regard to a patch of cloth that was tied to a container. If a covering of paper or leather was tied over a container with string, it protects the contents if one merely smeared clay at the sides.ט
מגופת החבית שנתחלחלה אף על פי שאינה נשמטת אינה מצלת שהרי נתרעע הצמיד הכדור והבקעת של גמי שנתן ע"פ החבית ומירח מן הצדדין לא תציל עד שימרח על כל הכדור ועל כל הבקעת ממטה למעלה וכן במטלת של בגד שקשרה ע"פ הכלי היתה של נייר או של עור וקשרה במשיחה אם מירח מן הצדדין הציל:
10
When a jug was enwrapped in a container made from the skin of a fish or from paper and it was tied close from below, the contents are protected. If it was not tied, it does not protect the contents, even if clay was smeared at the sides.י
חמת של עור הדג או הנייר שהלביש בהן את החבית וצררה מלמטה ה"ז מצלת ואם לא צררה אף ע"פ שמירח מן הצדדין לא תציל:
11
The following rules apply when there was a jug that was covered with pitch from the inside and then a portion of the clay of the jug was peeled off, but the pitch remained standing. If one placed a covering on the pitch and pressed it down until it became attached to the pitch and thus the pitch was standing between the covering and the based of the jug, its contents are protected.
Similar concepts apply with regard to a container used for fish brine or the like. If one of the substances that is smeared as insulation for the container was standing between the covering and the container like a border, since everything was attached together, the contents are protected.יא
חבית זפותה שנתקלף החרס מלמעלה והזפת שלה עומד ונתן הכיסוי על הזפת ודחקו עד שידבק בזפת ונמצא הזפת עומד בין הכיסוי ובין קרקע החבית הרי זה מציל וכן בכלי המורייס וכיוצא בהן מדברים המתמרחין שהיה המתמרח בין הכיסוי ובין הכלי כמו זר הואיל והכל דבוקין ה"ז מציל:
Tum'at Met - Chapter 23
1
When the contents of any implement that is sealed close are protected from impurity, all of the contents are protected: food, liquids, clothes, and keilim that can be purified in a mikveh.
This is the Scriptural Law. According to Rabbinic Law, however, earthenware containers which are sealed close protect only foods, liquids, and other earthenware containers inside of it. If, however, keilim that can be purified in a mikveh or garments were in an earthenware container that was sealed close, they are impure.
Why did the Sages decree that they do not protect everything like other containers that protect their contents from impurity? Because the other containers that protect their contents do not contract impurity and earthenware containers do contract impurity. An impure container does not intervene in the face of impurity and all of the containers of the common people can be assumed to be ritually impure, as will be explained.
Why did the Sages not decree: an earthenware container of a common person does not protect anything from impurity, but a container belong to a chaver does protect everything because it is pure? Because a common person does not consider himself as impure. He will say: Since an earthenware container that is sealed close protects all its contents, there is no difference between me and a chaver. Therefore the Sages decreed that the seal should not protect everything.
Why did they say that it protects food, liquids, and earthenware containers from impurity? Because these three types of entities are impure because they come from a common person regardless, before they were in an ohel where a corpse is located or after they were though they were in a container that was sealed close. A chaver will never borrow food, liquids, or earthenware containers from a common person except under the assumption that they are impure, for these entities can never be purified. Thus a stumbling block will never arise.
A chaver will, however, borrow keilim that can be purified in a mikveh from a common person. He will immerse them in a mikveh to purify them from the impurity they contracted from being touched by a common person, leave them until the evening and then use them for pure food. Therefore our Sages were concerned that a chaver will borrow keilim that can be purified in a mikveh from a common person that were sealed close in one of his earthenware containers. Now the common person will think that this container was protected, when in truth it has contracted the impurity that lasts seven days. The chaver will immerse these containers, leave them until the evening and then use them for pure food. Thus a stumbling block will arise. This is the reason it was decreed that sealing an earthenware container close would not protect the keilim that can be purified in a mikveh which were in it.א
כל הכלים המצילים בצמיד פתיל מצילין על כל מה שבתוכן בין אוכלין בין משקין בין בגדים וכלי שטף זהו דין תורה אבל מדברי סופרים שכלי חרס המוקף צמיד פתיל אינו מציל אלא על האוכלין ועל המשקין ועל כלי חרס אחרים שיהיו בתוכו אבל אם היו בתוך כלי חרס המוקף כלי שטף או בגדים הרי אלו טמאים ומפני מה אמרו שלא יציל על הכל כשאר כלים המצילין מפני ששאר הכלים המצילין אין מקבלין טומאה וכלי חרס מקבלין טומאה וכלי טמא אינו חוצץ וכל כלי ע"ה בחזקת טומאה כמו שיתבאר ולמה לא אמרו כלי חרס של ע"ה לא יציל על הכל ושל חבר יציל על הכל שהרי הוא טהור מפני שאין עם הארץ טמא בעיני עצמו שאומר הואיל וכלי חרס מציל על הכל אחד אני ואחד החבר ולפיכך חשו וגזרו שלא יציל על הכל ולמה אמרו מציל על האוכלין ועל המשקין ועל כלי חרס מפני שאלו הג' טמאים הן ע"ג ע"ה בין קודם שיהיו באהל המת בין אחר שיהיו שם תחת צמיד פתיל ולעולם לא ישאל החבר מע"ה לא אוכלין ולא משקין ולא כלי חרס אלא על דעת שהן טמאין שהרי אין להן טהרה לעולם ולא יבא בהן לידי תקלה אבל כלי שטף שואל אותם החבר מע"ה ומטבילן מפני מגע עם הארץ ומעריב שמשו ומשתמש בהן בטהרות לפיכך חשו חכמים שמא ישאל ממנו כלי שטף שכבר היה תחת צמיד פתיל בכלי חרס שלו שהרי עם הארץ הזה מדמה שניצל והרי הוא טמא טומאת שבעה ויטביל החבר ויעריב שמשו וישתמש בו בטהרות ויבוא לידי תקלה ומפני זה גזרו שלא יציל כלי חרס על כלי שטף שבתוכו:
2
When a person was placed inside a cask that was sealed close, he is pure. This applies even if the cask was made a covering for a grave. It appears to me that the Sages did not decree that an earthenware container sealed close would not protect a person from impurity, because it is an infrequent situation. And our Sages did not enact decrees concerning infrequent situations.ב
אדם שהיה נתון בתוך החבית ומוקפת צמיד פתיל טהור ואפילו עשאה גולל לקבר ויראה לי שזה שלא גזרו על כלי חרס שלא יציל על האדם מפני שהוא דבר שאינו מצוי וכל דבר שאינו מצוי לא גזרו בו:
3
The word of common people is accepted with regard to a container used for the ashes of the red heifer or sacred foods if they say they are pure. The rationale is that even common people are very careful in this regard. Therefore all entities are protected from impurity when their container is sealed close even though it is of earthenware.ג
כלי חרס שמשתמשין בהן באפר הפרה או בקדשים עמי הארץ נאמנים על טהרתם מפני שהן נזהרים בהן הרבה ולפיכך יצילו על הכל בצמיד פתיל אע"פ שהן חרס:
4
The following laws apply when there is an aperture between a home and a loft and there is an earthenware dish placed over the aperture. If the dish has a hole large enough to allow liquids to seep in, the dish is impure, but the loft is pure.
If the dish is intact, everything in the loft - food, liquids, and earthenware containers - is pure, but a person and keilim that can be purified in a mikveh are impure, for an earthenware container intervenes in the face of impurity only for food, liquids, and earthenware containers. Everything in the loft is pure, as if it is in an earthenware container that is sealed close. A person in the loft was deemed impure, because that is a common situation. Therefore if there was a metal container or the like filled with liquids in this loft, the container contracts the impurity that lasts seven days, but the liquids are pure.
If there was a woman kneading dough in a wooden kneading trough in this loft, the woman and the kneading trough contract the impurity that lasts seven days, but the dough is pure as long as the woman is kneading it. If she ceased and then touched it again, she imparts impurity to it. Similarly, if one moved the dough or the liquids to another one of the keilim that can be purified in a mikveh that were in the loft, they become impure due to contact with the other container.
If the k'li covering the aperture was one that was not susceptible to impurity and which protect their contents when sealed close, as we explained, in which instance, contact with a common person does not render them impure, or the k'li was an earthenware container that was pure and intended to be used for the ashes of the red heifer or for consecrated foods, in which instance everyone's word is accepted with regard to their purity, it protects everything in the loft. even though its roof is not positioned over the loft. The rationale is that a tent protects when it covers, as we explained.ד
ארובה שבין בית לעלייה וטומאה בבית וקדירה נתונה על פי הארובה ונקובה בכונס משקה הקדירה טמאה והעלייה טהורה היתה שלימה כל שבעלייה מאוכלין ומשקין וכלי חרס טהור אבל אדם וכלי שטף שבעלייה טמאים שאין כלי חרס חוצץ אלא על האוכלים ועל המשקין וכלי חרס וכל שבעלייה טהור כאילו הוא תחת צמיד פתיל בכלי חרס וטמאו האדם שבעלייה זו מפני שהוא דבר המצוי לפיכך אם היה בעלייה זו כלי מתכות וכיוצא בו מלא משקין הכלי טמא טומאת שבעה והמשקין טהורין היתה בה אשה לשה בעריבה של עץ האשה והעריבה טמאין טומאת שבעה והבצק טהור כל זמן שעוסקת בו פירשה וחזרה ונגעה בו טמאתו וכן אם פינה הבצק או המשקין לכלי אחר מכלי שטף שבעלייה נטמאו במגע הכלי האחר היה ע"פ ארובה זו שאר כלים המצילים בצמיד פתיל שאין מקבלין טומאה כמו שביארנו ולפיכך אין מגע עם הארץ מטמא או שהיה כלי חרס הטהור לפרה אדומה או לקודש שהכל נאמנין על טהרתן ה"ז מציל על כל מה שבעלייה היה אהל נטוי בעלייה ומקצתו מרודד על הארובה שבין בית לעלייה ה"ז מציל ואף על פי שאין גגו על הארובה שהאהל מציל בכיסוי כמו שביארנו:
Tum'at Met - Chapter 21
1
What is the source that teaches that a sealed covering saves the contents of a container from contracting ritual impurity in a shelter in which a corpse is located? Numbers 19:15 states: "Any open container that does not have a sealed covering on top of it is impure." One can derive from this that if there is a sealed covering on it, it is pure.
According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that the verse is speaking only about an earthenware container, for it is a container that contracts impurity only through its opening. Therefore, if its opening is closed with a sealed covering, all of its contents are protected.
From this, we can infer that the contents of any of the containers which are not susceptible to ritual impurity are protected when the container is closed with a sealed covering. Such containers include: containers made from cow turds, stone containers, containers made from earth, containers made from the bones or skin of a fish or the bones of a fowl, oversized wooden containers, wooden boards that are flat and are not containers, metal keilim which have not been completely fashioned. The contents of all of these are protected by a sealed covering.
Now if the contents of a utensil closed with a sealed covering are protected, we can infer that this also applies to keilim that are swallowed or under an ohel. What is the difference between ohalim and containers that protect because of a sealed covering? That the covering of the containers must be sealed close, while for an ohel, any covering is sufficient.א
מנין לצמיד פתיל שמציל באהל המת שנאמר וכל כלי פתוח אשר אין צמיד פתיל עליו טמא הוא הא יש צמיד פתיל עליו טהור ומפי השמועה למדו שאין הכתוב מדבר אלא בכלי חרש בלבד כלי שאינו מטמא אלא דרך פתחו לפיכך אם היה פתחו סתום ומוקף צמיד פתיל הציל על כל שבתוכו ק"ו לכל הכלים שאין מקבלין טומאה שיצילו בצמיד פתיל והם כלי גללים כלי אבנים כלי אדמה וכלי עצמות הדג ועורו ועצמות העוף וכלי עץ הבא במדה ונסרים של עץ שהן פשוטין ואינן כלים וגלמי כלי מתכת כל אלו מצילין בצמיד פתיל אם הדברים שבתוך הכלי המוקף נצלו ק"ו לבלועין ולכלים שתחת האהלים מה בין אהלים לכלים שמצילין בצמיד פתיל שהכלים אינן מצילין אלא בצמיד פתיל והאהלים מצילין בכיסוי בלבד:
2
If a funnel is turned upside down, it protects anything it covers from impurity. Although its other end has a small hole, it is considered as if it were closed.ב
משפך שכפהו מציל בכיסוי אף על פי שקצתו נקוב נקב קטן הרי הוא כסתום:
3
All containers that protect their contacts when sealed close also protect anything that is under them to the very depths if they are turned upside down and stood on the earth, when their inner space is a handbreadth by a handbreadth by a handbreadth, even though one did not spread clay around the sides to seal them. The rationale is, in that position, they are like an ohel and an ohel protects from impurity. The only exception is an earthenware container, for an ohel formed by an earthenware container does not protect from impurity.
What is implied? When an earthenware jug is turned upside down, even if one smeared clay on its sides everything under it is impure, for the prooftext speaks of "a sealed covering on top of it," and not a closed covering on its back. If one attached its opening to the wall and smeared clay on its sides, If one did not smear clay on its sides, it does not protect its contents, because an earthenware container does not protect as an ohel, as we explained.
All of the other containers that protect their contents when sealed close protect their contents when their openings are attached to the walls of a house even when they do not have a sealed covering, because they protect as an ohel. Therefore it is necessary that the walls of the utensil be at least a handbreadth high, for containers do not protect their contents with their walls as an ohel unless the wall of the container is at least a handbreadth.
If the wall of the container was half a handbreadth, there was a border of half a handbreadth protruding from the wall, and they were attached to each other, it is not considered as an ohel and does not protect its contents even though there is a handbreadth of empty space. It is necessary that the handbreadth come from one entity.ג
כל הכלים המצילין בצמיד פתיל אם היו בהן טפח על טפח על רום טפח וכפאן על פיהם על הארץ אע"פ שלא מירח בצמיד פתיל מן הצדדין הרי אלו מצילין כל מה שתחתיהן עד התהום מפני שהן כאהל והאהל מציל אא"כ היה הכלי כלי חרש שאין אהלי כלי חרש מצילין כיצד חבית שכפויה על פיה אף ע"פ שמירחה בטיט מן הצדדין כל מה שתחתיה טמא שנאמר צמיד פתיל עליו ולא צמיד פתיל על גבו הדביק פיה לכותל ומירחה מן הצדדים מצלת על כל מה שבתוכה ועל כל שכנגדה בכותל ואם לא מירח מן הצדדין אינה מצלת שאין כלי חרש מציל משום אהל כמו שביארנו אבל שאר כל הכלים המצילין בצמיד פתיל שהיו פיותיהן דבוקות בדפני הבית מצילין בלא צמיד פתיל מפני שהן מצילין משום אהל לפיכך צריך שיהיה בדופן הכלי טפח שאין הכלים מצילין עם דפנות אהלים עד שיהיה להן דופן [טפח] היה לכלי דופן חצי טפח והיה יוצא מדופן האהל שפה חצי טפח והדביק זה לזה אף על פי שיש שם חלל טפח אינו מציל עד שיהיה טפח ממקום אחד:
4
Just as such containers protect their contents from impurity when they are inside an ohel and attached to its walls, so too, do they protect their contents when they are outside the ohel if they are attached to the ohel, for the ohel is considered as a covering in all instances.
What is implied? A samovar that has walls that are a cubit high was placed on its side on staves outside an ohel and its opening was placed immediately next to the wall of the tent. If there is impurity under it, the keilim inside of it are pure. If it was placed next to the wall of a courtyard or the wall of a garden, it does not protect its contents, because these are not the walls of a tent. Therefore any keilim in the container are impure, for they were held above the impurity.ד
כשם שמצילין מבפנים עם דפנות האהל כך מצילין חוץ לאהל אם סמכן לאהל שהרי האהל נעשה כסוי מ"מ כיצד כלי מיחם שיש לו דופן טפח שהניחו ע"ג יתדות חוץ לאהל וסמך פיו לדופן האהל והיתה טומאה תחתיו כלים שבתוכו טהורין ואם היה סמוך לכותל חצר או לכותל גינה אינו מציל לפי שאינן כותל אהל ולפיכך כלים שבתוך הכלי טמאים שהרי האהילו על הטומאה:
5
If there is a beam that is a handbreadth wide running from wall to wall, there is impurity below it, a pot was hanging from the beam and the beam was touching the entire opening of the pot and covering it, the keilim in the pot are pure. The rationale is that they were saved by the ohel covering them. If the opening of the pot was not covered by the beam, but instead there was some empty space between them, everything in the pot is impure and the pot itself is impure.ה
קורה שיש בה פותח טפח והיא נתונה מכותל לכותל וטומאה תחתיה וקדרה תלויה מן הקורה והיתה הקורה נוגעת בפי הקדרה כולה ומכסה אותה כלים שבקדרה טהורים שהרי הוצלו בכיסוי האהל להם ואם לא היה פי הקדרה מכוסה בקורה אלא ביניהם ריוח כל מה שבקדרה טמא והקדרה עצמה טמאה:
6
The following laws apply when there is a cistern in a building, there is impurity in the building, and there are keilim in the cistern. If the cistern was covered with a flat board or a container that can protect its contents from impurity because it has a wall that is a handbreadth high, everything that is in the cistern is pure. If the cistern had a border built around its opening that was a handbreadth above the ground, whether he covered it with a container that can protect from impurity because it has a wall or whether the container did not have a wall, the container protects the contents of the cistern from impurity, because there is a wall of a handbreadth from another source.ו
בור שבתוך הבית וטומאה בבית וכלים בבור אם היה מכוסה בנסר חלק או בכלי המציל שיש לו דופן טפח הרי כל מה שבבור טהור היה לבור בניין סביב לפיו גבוה טפח על הארץ בין שכסהו בכלי המציל שיש לו דופן בין שלא היתה לו דופן ה"ז מציל שהרי יש לו דופן טפח ממקום אחר:
7
The following rules apply when a cistern is built inside a building and there is a lamp in it with its flower protruding and covering the opening of the cistern. One placed a container that can protect from impurity in an ohel where a corpse is located over the opening to the cistern and it is resting on the flower of the lamp. We see if the container that can protect from impurity would remain in its position if the lamp was removed. When this is the case, it protects everything that is in the cistern from impurity. The keilim that are between the edge of the container that serves as a cover and the edge of the cistern are pure until the very depths. Even the lamp is pure despite the fact that the edge of the flower is visible between the covering and the cistern. If the container would not remain in position, everything is impure.ז
חדות הבנוי בתוך הבית ומגורה בתוכו והפרח שלה יוצא ומכסה פי החדות ונתן כלי המציל באהל המת על פי החדות והרי הוא נשען על פרח המנורה רואין אם תנטל מנורה והכלי המציל עומד ה"ז מציל על כל שבחדות וכלים שבין שפת הכלי ושפת החדות טהורים עד התהום ואף המנורה טהורה אע"פ ששפת הפרח נראה בין הכסוי והחדות ואם לאו הכל טמא:
8
The following laws apply when a cistern is built inside a house and a container that could protect its contents from ritual impurity was placed over its opening. If there was impurity between the edge of the container and the edge of the cistern or within the cistern, the house is impure. The rationale is that an ohel inside a building does not prevent the spread of impurity, as we explained.
If there was impurity in the house and there is a handbreadth by a handbreadth by a handbreadth of empty space in the cistern, the keilim stored in the walls of the cistern are pure. If not, they are impure.
If the width of the walls of the cistern extends outside the house, they are nevertheless pure. The rationale is that they are not the walls of the house and just as the inside of the cistern is protected from impurity, so too, its walls protect.
We have already explained that an old oven is like all other keilim that convey impurity and is not considered as an ohal. For this reason, it does not protect its contents from ritual impurity unless it is sealed close like other containers that protect their contents. We have already explained oven is not considered as a k'li in this context and does serve as an ohel. Therefore it protects its contents from impurity merely by covering them without the cover being sealed close like other ohalim. The covering of an oven is called a serida.ח
החדות הבנוי בתוך הבית וכלי המציל נתון על פיו והיתה טומאה בין שפת הכלי ושפת החדות או בתוך החדות הבית טמא שאין האהל שבתוך הבית מונע הטומאה כמו שביארנו היתה טומאה בבית כלים שבכתלי החדות אם יש במקומן טפח על טפח על רום טפח טהורים ואם לאו טמאים ואם היו כתלי החדות רחבים משל בית בין כך ובין כך טהורים מפני שאינן מכתלי הבית וכשם שמציל החדות בתוכו כך מציל בכתליו כבר ביארנו שהתנור הישן הרי הוא ככל הכלים שהן מביאים את הטומאה ואינן נעשין אהלים ומפני זה אינו מציל על מה שבתוכו אלא אם כן היה מוקף צמיד פתיל כשאר כלים המצילים וכן ביארנו שהתנור החדש אינו ככלים לענין זה אלא נעשה אהל ולפיכך מציל על מה שבתוכו בכיסוי בלבד בלא צמיד פתיל כאהלים וכיסוי התנור הוא נקרא סרידא:
9
The following rules apply when there is impurity in a house and there is an old oven inside a new oven, a serida resting on the new oven and that cover is being supported by the opening of the old oven. We see whether, when the old oven was removed, the cover would fall. If so, it does not protect from impurity and everything inside of it is impure. If the cover would not fall, everything is pure.
When there is a new oven inside an old oven and the serida is resting on the opening of the old oven, if there is less than a handbreadth between the new oven and the cover, everything in the new oven is pure. It is considered as if the covering was resting on its opening.ט
תנור ישן בתוך החדש וסרידא ע"פ החדש והרי הכיסוי נשען על פי התנור הישן רואין אם כשינטל הישן תפול הסרידא לא הציל וכל שבתוכו טמא ואם לאו הכל טהור היה החדש בתוך הישן והסרידא מונחת על פי הישן אם יש בין החדש והכיסוי פחות מטפח כל שבתוך החדש טהור וכאילו הסרידא מונחת על פיו:
10
When there is a covering of earthenware that has a border and extends beyond the edge of the oven and the oven is closed with a sealed covering, even if there is impurity under the covering or on top of it, everything above or below the impurity is impure. Nevertheless, the portion opposite the inner space of the oven is pure.
If there is impurity on the covering above the inner space of the oven, the space above it until the heavens is impure. Anything inside of the oven is pure.י
סרידא של חרס שיש לה שפה והיא עודפת ע"פ התנור ומוקפת צמיד פתיל אפילו היתה טומאה תחתיה או על גבה הכל טמא אבל כנגד אוירו של תנור טהור היתה טומאה כנגד אוירו של תנור מכנגדו עד לרקיע טמא וכל מה שבתוכו טהור:
11
When there is impurity in a house and an earthenware pot was turned over and placed on the opening of a jug and then clay was smeared on its walls and the jug to seal it close, it protects everything inside of it and everything between it and the edge of the jug from impurity.
If one placed it on the opening of the jug upright and smeared clay around it to seal it, it does not protect it. The rationale is that the pot becomes impure from its inner space and an impure utensil does not protect another utensil from impurity, as we explained.יא
קדרה שכפאה על פי החבית ומירח דפנותיה עם החבית מצלת על כל מה שבתוכה ועל מה שבינה ובין שפתות החבית הושיבה על פי החבית כדרכה ומירח אינה מצלת מפני שהקדרה מתטמאה מאוירה ואין כלי טמא מציל כמו שביארנו:
Tum'at Met - Chapter 22
1
The handles of a large earthenware container, the bulges at the bottom of such a container, and the back of its walls do not protect their contents when sealed close in a tent where a corpse is located. If one cut them off, planed them, and made them into containers, they protect their contents if sealed close. The rationale is that the concept of sealing something close applies only to containers.א
שולי המחצין ושולי קרקעות והכלים ודפנותיהן מאחוריהן אין מצילין בצמיד פתיל באהל המת קרסמן ושפן ועשאן כלים מצילין בצמיד פתיל שאין מציל בצמיד פתיל אלא כלים:
2
When clay is put into an earthenware container and filled half of it, it does not nullify it from being considered as a container. If keilim are sunk in that clay and the container is sealed close, the contents are protected from impurity.ב
כלי חרש שנתן בו טיט עד חציו לא ביטלו ואם השקיע בו את הכלים מציל:
3
An earthenware container protects its contents from impurity when sealed close unless it is perforated with a hole large enough for a pomegranate to fall through. If it is large, the majority of it must be damaged and open for it to be disqualified.
What is implied? If there was a large container and half was damaged, it was sealed close, including the damaged portion, it protects its contents from impurity even though it is not considered a utensil with regard to impurity. If, however, a container that was sealed close had a hole or a crack and the hole was not closed, it becomes impure and does not protect its contents.
How large must the hole be to disqualify the container? If the container was used for foods, the measure is a hole large enough for olives to fall through. If it was used for liquids, its measure is that the hole must be large enough to enable liquids to seep in when the container is placed in them. If it is used for both these purposes, we rule stringently and if a hole was made that was large enough for liquids to seep in, it does not protect its contents until the hole is closed or reduced in size.ג
כלי חרש מציל בצמיד פתיל עד שינקב במוציא רמון ובגדול עד שיפחת רובו כיצד כלי גדול שנפחת [חציו] והקיפו צמיד פתיל וסתם מקום הפחת בצמיד פתיל הרי זה מציל אע"פ שאינו חשוב כלי לענין טומאה אבל כלי המוקף צמיד פתיל שהיה נקוב או סדוק ולא סתם הנקב נטמא ואינו מציל וכמה יהיה בנקב אם היה כלי העשוי לאוכלים שיעורו במוציא זיתים היה עשוי למשקה שיעורו בכונס משקה העשוי לכך ולכך מטילין אותו לחומרא ומשינקב בכונס משקה אינו מציל עד שיסתום הנקב או עד שימעטנו:
4
The following rules apply when there was an oven in an ohel where a corpse was located. The oven had a covering upon it, it was sealed close, but it was cracked. If the crack was as wide as the opening of the rod of a plow which is a handbreadth in circumference, the oven is impure even though the rod could not be inserted into the oven through the hole, but the hole was equal to its size. If the hole was smaller than this, the oven is pure.
If the covering was cracked to the extent that the rod of a plow could enter, it is impure. If it is less, it protects its contents with a sealed covering. If the crack is round, we do not consider it as if it was long. Instead, the measure is dependent on whether the opening of the rod of a plow could be inserted.ד
תנור שהיתה סרידא על פיו ומוקף צמיד פתיל ונתון באהל המת ונסדק התנור אם היה הסדק מלא פי מרדע שהוא היקף טפח נטמא התנור ואף על פי שאין המרדע יכול להכנס בסדק אלא הרי הוא כמותו בשוה פחות מכאן התנור טהור נסדקה הסרידא שעל פיו כמלא פי מרדע נכנס הרי זה טמא פחות מכאן ניצל בצמיד פתיל היה הסדק עגול אין רואין אותו ארוך אלא שיעורו כמלא פי מרדע נכנס:
5
The following rules apply when an oven that is sealed close has an eye that was partially closed with clay. If the hole was large enough for a reed to be inserted and taken out while it was burning, the contents of the oven are impure. If the hole is smaller than this, the contents are protected.ה
תנור המוקף צמיד פתיל שניקב נקב בעינו של תנור הטוחה אם היה הנקב מלא כוש נכנס ויוצא כשהוא דולק ה"ז נטמא ואם היה הנקב פחות מזה ניצל:
6
When an oven has a hole at its side, the size of the hole that causes it to not to be considered as sealed is enough space for a reed to be inserted and taken out even when it was not burning. Similarly, when the clay seal of a jug was perforated, the measure is space for the second joint of a rye stalk to be inserted in the hole. Similarly, when large casks were perforated, the measure is space for the second joint of a reed to be inserted. If they are less than this, they are pure.
When does the above apply? When they were made to store wine. If, however, they were made to store other liquids, a hole of even the slightest size causes them to contract impurity and the fact that they are sealed close is not effective unless the hole was closed. Moreover, even if they were made for wine, the above applies only when they were not perforated by human hands. If, however, they were perforated by human hands, even the slightest hole causes them to contract impurity and they are not protected unless the hole is closed.ו
ניקב התנור מצדו שיעורו מלא כוש נכנס ויוצא שלא דולק וכן מגופת החבית שניקבה שיעורה כדי שתכנס מיצה שנייה של שיפון בנקב וחצבים גדולים שניקבו שיעורן כדי שתכנס מיצה שנייה של קנה פחות מכאן טהורין במה דברים אמורים בזמן שנעשו ליין אבל אם נעשו לשאר המשקין אפילו ניקבו בכל שהן נטמאו ואין הצמיד פתיל מועיל להם עד שיסתום הנקב ואף בזמן שנעשו ליין לא אמרו אלא שניקבו שלא בידי אדם אבל אם נעשו בידי אדם אפילו כל שהן טמאים ואינן ניצלין עד שיסתם הנקב:
7
When a jug that is filled with pure liquids has an earthenware tube in it, it is considered as sealed close. If it is located in an ohel where a corpse is found, the jug and the liquid are pure. The tube is impure, because one end of it is in the jug which is sealed close and the second end is open in the ohel where the corpse is found and it is not closed. Even though it is crooked, this does not cause it to be considered as closed.ז
חבית שהיא מלאה משקין טהורין ומניקת של חרס בתוכה והחבית מוקפת צמיד פתיל ונתונה באהל המת החבית והמשקין טהורין והמניקת טמאה מפני שקצתה האחת בתוך החבית המוקפת והקצה השני פתוח לאהל המת ואינו סתום אע"פ שהיא עקומה אין העקום כסתום:
8
When a jug that was sealed close had a hole on its side, but that hole was closed by wine dregs, it protects its contents from impurity. If the owner plugged half the hole and the dregs closed the other half, there is an unresolved question whether the contents are protected or not.
If one plugged the hole with a twig, it is not considered as closed unless one smears clay around the sides. If one closed it with two slivers of wood, one must smear clay from the sides and between one sliver and the other. Similarly, if a board was placed over the opening to an oven and one smeared clay at the sides, it is protected from impurity. If there were two boards, one must smear clay from the sides and between one board and the other. If, however, one joined the boards together with wooden pegs or the like or with cork, it is not necessary to smear clay in the middle.
With what can a jug be sealed close? With lime, clay, gypsum, pitch, wax, mud, filth, mortar, or any substance that can be smeared. We do not seal with tin or lead, because it will not be a seal, nor will it close the container tightly. A plump fig that was not prepared to contract ritual impurity may be used as a seal. This also applies with regard to a dough that was kneaded with fruit juice so that it will not become impure. These qualifications are necessary, because an impure object cannot intervene in the face of impurity.ח
חבית המוקפת צמיד פתיל שניקבה מצדה וסתמו שמרים את הנקב הציל אגף חצי הנקב וסתם חציו ה"ז ספק אם הציל אם לא הציל סתם את הנקב בזמורה עד שימרח מן הצדדין סתמו בב' קסמים עד שימרח מן הצדדין ובין זמורה לחבירתה וכן נסר שנתון על פי התנור ומירח מן הצדדין [הציל היו שתי נסרים עד שימרח מן הצדדין ובין] נסר לחבירו חיבר את שני נסרים במסמרים של עץ וכיוצא בהן או שלפף עליהן שוגמין א"צ למרח מן האמצע במה מקיפין בסיד ובחרסית ובגפסין בזפת ובשעוה בטיט ובצואה ובחמר ובכל דבר המתמרח ואין מקיפין לא בבעץ ולא בעופרת מפני שהוא פתיל ואינו צמיד ומקיפין בדבילה שמנה שלא הוכשרה ובבצק שנילושה במי פירות כדי שלא יטמא שדבר טמא אינו חוצץ:
9
When the covering of a jug has become loose, even when it does not slip off, it no longer protects the contents, for it is not considered as sealed.
When a rubber ball or strands tied together were placed on a jug and clay was smeared at the sides, it does not protect the contents unless clay was smeared on the entire ball or collection of strands from below upward. Similar concepts apply with regard to a patch of cloth that was tied to a container. If a covering of paper or leather was tied over a container with string, it protects the contents if one merely smeared clay at the sides.ט
מגופת החבית שנתחלחלה אף על פי שאינה נשמטת אינה מצלת שהרי נתרעע הצמיד הכדור והבקעת של גמי שנתן ע"פ החבית ומירח מן הצדדין לא תציל עד שימרח על כל הכדור ועל כל הבקעת ממטה למעלה וכן במטלת של בגד שקשרה ע"פ הכלי היתה של נייר או של עור וקשרה במשיחה אם מירח מן הצדדין הציל:
10
When a jug was enwrapped in a container made from the skin of a fish or from paper and it was tied close from below, the contents are protected. If it was not tied, it does not protect the contents, even if clay was smeared at the sides.י
חמת של עור הדג או הנייר שהלביש בהן את החבית וצררה מלמטה ה"ז מצלת ואם לא צררה אף ע"פ שמירח מן הצדדין לא תציל:
11
The following rules apply when there was a jug that was covered with pitch from the inside and then a portion of the clay of the jug was peeled off, but the pitch remained standing. If one placed a covering on the pitch and pressed it down until it became attached to the pitch and thus the pitch was standing between the covering and the based of the jug, its contents are protected.
Similar concepts apply with regard to a container used for fish brine or the like. If one of the substances that is smeared as insulation for the container was standing between the covering and the container like a border, since everything was attached together, the contents are protected.יא
חבית זפותה שנתקלף החרס מלמעלה והזפת שלה עומד ונתן הכיסוי על הזפת ודחקו עד שידבק בזפת ונמצא הזפת עומד בין הכיסוי ובין קרקע החבית הרי זה מציל וכן בכלי המורייס וכיוצא בהן מדברים המתמרחין שהיה המתמרח בין הכיסוי ובין הכלי כמו זר הואיל והכל דבוקין ה"ז מציל:
Tum'at Met - Chapter 23
1
When the contents of any implement that is sealed close are protected from impurity, all of the contents are protected: food, liquids, clothes, and keilim that can be purified in a mikveh.
This is the Scriptural Law. According to Rabbinic Law, however, earthenware containers which are sealed close protect only foods, liquids, and other earthenware containers inside of it. If, however, keilim that can be purified in a mikveh or garments were in an earthenware container that was sealed close, they are impure.
Why did the Sages decree that they do not protect everything like other containers that protect their contents from impurity? Because the other containers that protect their contents do not contract impurity and earthenware containers do contract impurity. An impure container does not intervene in the face of impurity and all of the containers of the common people can be assumed to be ritually impure, as will be explained.
Why did the Sages not decree: an earthenware container of a common person does not protect anything from impurity, but a container belong to a chaver does protect everything because it is pure? Because a common person does not consider himself as impure. He will say: Since an earthenware container that is sealed close protects all its contents, there is no difference between me and a chaver. Therefore the Sages decreed that the seal should not protect everything.
Why did they say that it protects food, liquids, and earthenware containers from impurity? Because these three types of entities are impure because they come from a common person regardless, before they were in an ohel where a corpse is located or after they were though they were in a container that was sealed close. A chaver will never borrow food, liquids, or earthenware containers from a common person except under the assumption that they are impure, for these entities can never be purified. Thus a stumbling block will never arise.
A chaver will, however, borrow keilim that can be purified in a mikveh from a common person. He will immerse them in a mikveh to purify them from the impurity they contracted from being touched by a common person, leave them until the evening and then use them for pure food. Therefore our Sages were concerned that a chaver will borrow keilim that can be purified in a mikveh from a common person that were sealed close in one of his earthenware containers. Now the common person will think that this container was protected, when in truth it has contracted the impurity that lasts seven days. The chaver will immerse these containers, leave them until the evening and then use them for pure food. Thus a stumbling block will arise. This is the reason it was decreed that sealing an earthenware container close would not protect the keilim that can be purified in a mikveh which were in it.א
כל הכלים המצילים בצמיד פתיל מצילין על כל מה שבתוכן בין אוכלין בין משקין בין בגדים וכלי שטף זהו דין תורה אבל מדברי סופרים שכלי חרס המוקף צמיד פתיל אינו מציל אלא על האוכלין ועל המשקין ועל כלי חרס אחרים שיהיו בתוכו אבל אם היו בתוך כלי חרס המוקף כלי שטף או בגדים הרי אלו טמאים ומפני מה אמרו שלא יציל על הכל כשאר כלים המצילין מפני ששאר הכלים המצילין אין מקבלין טומאה וכלי חרס מקבלין טומאה וכלי טמא אינו חוצץ וכל כלי ע"ה בחזקת טומאה כמו שיתבאר ולמה לא אמרו כלי חרס של ע"ה לא יציל על הכל ושל חבר יציל על הכל שהרי הוא טהור מפני שאין עם הארץ טמא בעיני עצמו שאומר הואיל וכלי חרס מציל על הכל אחד אני ואחד החבר ולפיכך חשו וגזרו שלא יציל על הכל ולמה אמרו מציל על האוכלין ועל המשקין ועל כלי חרס מפני שאלו הג' טמאים הן ע"ג ע"ה בין קודם שיהיו באהל המת בין אחר שיהיו שם תחת צמיד פתיל ולעולם לא ישאל החבר מע"ה לא אוכלין ולא משקין ולא כלי חרס אלא על דעת שהן טמאין שהרי אין להן טהרה לעולם ולא יבא בהן לידי תקלה אבל כלי שטף שואל אותם החבר מע"ה ומטבילן מפני מגע עם הארץ ומעריב שמשו ומשתמש בהן בטהרות לפיכך חשו חכמים שמא ישאל ממנו כלי שטף שכבר היה תחת צמיד פתיל בכלי חרס שלו שהרי עם הארץ הזה מדמה שניצל והרי הוא טמא טומאת שבעה ויטביל החבר ויעריב שמשו וישתמש בו בטהרות ויבוא לידי תקלה ומפני זה גזרו שלא יציל כלי חרס על כלי שטף שבתוכו:
2
When a person was placed inside a cask that was sealed close, he is pure. This applies even if the cask was made a covering for a grave. It appears to me that the Sages did not decree that an earthenware container sealed close would not protect a person from impurity, because it is an infrequent situation. And our Sages did not enact decrees concerning infrequent situations.ב
אדם שהיה נתון בתוך החבית ומוקפת צמיד פתיל טהור ואפילו עשאה גולל לקבר ויראה לי שזה שלא גזרו על כלי חרס שלא יציל על האדם מפני שהוא דבר שאינו מצוי וכל דבר שאינו מצוי לא גזרו בו:
3
The word of common people is accepted with regard to a container used for the ashes of the red heifer or sacred foods if they say they are pure. The rationale is that even common people are very careful in this regard. Therefore all entities are protected from impurity when their container is sealed close even though it is of earthenware.ג
כלי חרס שמשתמשין בהן באפר הפרה או בקדשים עמי הארץ נאמנים על טהרתם מפני שהן נזהרים בהן הרבה ולפיכך יצילו על הכל בצמיד פתיל אע"פ שהן חרס:
4
The following laws apply when there is an aperture between a home and a loft and there is an earthenware dish placed over the aperture. If the dish has a hole large enough to allow liquids to seep in, the dish is impure, but the loft is pure.
If the dish is intact, everything in the loft - food, liquids, and earthenware containers - is pure, but a person and keilim that can be purified in a mikveh are impure, for an earthenware container intervenes in the face of impurity only for food, liquids, and earthenware containers. Everything in the loft is pure, as if it is in an earthenware container that is sealed close. A person in the loft was deemed impure, because that is a common situation. Therefore if there was a metal container or the like filled with liquids in this loft, the container contracts the impurity that lasts seven days, but the liquids are pure.
If there was a woman kneading dough in a wooden kneading trough in this loft, the woman and the kneading trough contract the impurity that lasts seven days, but the dough is pure as long as the woman is kneading it. If she ceased and then touched it again, she imparts impurity to it. Similarly, if one moved the dough or the liquids to another one of the keilim that can be purified in a mikveh that were in the loft, they become impure due to contact with the other container.
If the k'li covering the aperture was one that was not susceptible to impurity and which protect their contents when sealed close, as we explained, in which instance, contact with a common person does not render them impure, or the k'li was an earthenware container that was pure and intended to be used for the ashes of the red heifer or for consecrated foods, in which instance everyone's word is accepted with regard to their purity, it protects everything in the loft. even though its roof is not positioned over the loft. The rationale is that a tent protects when it covers, as we explained.ד
ארובה שבין בית לעלייה וטומאה בבית וקדירה נתונה על פי הארובה ונקובה בכונס משקה הקדירה טמאה והעלייה טהורה היתה שלימה כל שבעלייה מאוכלין ומשקין וכלי חרס טהור אבל אדם וכלי שטף שבעלייה טמאים שאין כלי חרס חוצץ אלא על האוכלים ועל המשקין וכלי חרס וכל שבעלייה טהור כאילו הוא תחת צמיד פתיל בכלי חרס וטמאו האדם שבעלייה זו מפני שהוא דבר המצוי לפיכך אם היה בעלייה זו כלי מתכות וכיוצא בו מלא משקין הכלי טמא טומאת שבעה והמשקין טהורין היתה בה אשה לשה בעריבה של עץ האשה והעריבה טמאין טומאת שבעה והבצק טהור כל זמן שעוסקת בו פירשה וחזרה ונגעה בו טמאתו וכן אם פינה הבצק או המשקין לכלי אחר מכלי שטף שבעלייה נטמאו במגע הכלי האחר היה ע"פ ארובה זו שאר כלים המצילים בצמיד פתיל שאין מקבלין טומאה כמו שביארנו ולפיכך אין מגע עם הארץ מטמא או שהיה כלי חרס הטהור לפרה אדומה או לקודש שהכל נאמנין על טהרתן ה"ז מציל על כל מה שבעלייה היה אהל נטוי בעלייה ומקצתו מרודד על הארובה שבין בית לעלייה ה"ז מציל ואף על פי שאין גגו על הארובה שהאהל מציל בכיסוי כמו שביארנו:
-------
Hayom Yom
Today's Hayom Yom
Thursday, Iyar 15, 5777 · 11 May 2017
Hayom Yom
Today's Hayom Yom
Thursday, Iyar 15, 5777 · 11 May 2017
Thursday, Iyar 15, 30th day of the omer
Thursday, Iyar 15, 30th day of the omer 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: B'har, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 77-78.
Tanya: The Holy One, (p. 253)...vegetable matter alone. (p. 255).
In the days of the Alter Rebbe the Chassidim had a familiar saying: "The piece of bread that I have is yours just as it is mine." And they would say the word "yours" first, "...yours just as it is mine."
-------Daily Thought:
The River from Eden
A river went out from Eden to water the garden.[Genesis 2:10]
There is Eden, and there is the garden.
Eden is a place of delight, far beyond the garden, beyond all created things. Yet its river nurtures all that grows in that garden.
The garden is wisdom, understanding, knowing—where all of creation begins.
Adam is placed in the garden, to work with his mind and to discover the transcendent Eden flowing within.
So too, that is the objective of all man’s toil in this world: To reach beyond his own mind. Not to a place where the mind is ignored, but rather to its essence, to the inner sense of beauty and wonder that guides it. To Eden.
-------
Thursday, Iyar 15, 30th day of the omer 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: B'har, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 77-78.
Tanya: The Holy One, (p. 253)...vegetable matter alone. (p. 255).
In the days of the Alter Rebbe the Chassidim had a familiar saying: "The piece of bread that I have is yours just as it is mine." And they would say the word "yours" first, "...yours just as it is mine."
-------Daily Thought:
The River from Eden
A river went out from Eden to water the garden.[Genesis 2:10]
There is Eden, and there is the garden.
Eden is a place of delight, far beyond the garden, beyond all created things. Yet its river nurtures all that grows in that garden.
The garden is wisdom, understanding, knowing—where all of creation begins.
Adam is placed in the garden, to work with his mind and to discover the transcendent Eden flowing within.
So too, that is the objective of all man’s toil in this world: To reach beyond his own mind. Not to a place where the mind is ignored, but rather to its essence, to the inner sense of beauty and wonder that guides it. To Eden.
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment