| |||||
- 
- ב"ה - Today in Judaism - Today is Sunday, 27 Tevet, 5778 · January 14, 2018Today in Jewish History:
• Passing of R. Samson Raphael Hirsch (1888)
Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888), Talmudist, scholar, philosopher, prolific author and Rabbi of Frankfurt am Main, passed away on this date. He was instrumental in revitalizing German Jewry, bringing thousands back to the teachings of the Torah at a time when assimilationist trends threatened to extinguish Jewish life in Western Europe.
Daily Quote: Do not believe in yourself until the day you die (Hillel (Ethics of the Fathers 2:4))
Daily Torah Study:
Chumash: Bo, 1st Portion Exodus 10:1-10:11 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation
• Video Class
• Daily Wisdom (short insight)
Exodus Chapter 10
1The Lord said to Moses: "Come to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, in order that I may place these signs of Mine in his midst, אוַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה בֹּ֖א אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה כִּֽי־אֲנִ֞י הִכְבַּ֤דְתִּי אֶת־לִבּוֹ֙ וְאֶת־לֵ֣ב עֲבָדָ֔יו לְמַ֗עַן שִׁתִ֛י אֹֽתֹתַ֥י אֵ֖לֶּה בְּקִרְבּֽוֹ:
The Lord said to Moses: Come to Pharaoh: and warn him.
ויאמר ה' אל משה בא אל פרעה: והתרה בו:
that I may place: Heb. שִׁתִי, lit., My placing, that I may place. — [after the targumim]
שתי: שימי שאשית אני:
2and in order that you tell into the ears of your son and your son's son how I made a mockery of the Egyptians, and [that you tell of] My signs that I placed in them, and you will know that I am the Lord." בוּלְמַ֡עַן תְּסַפֵּר֩ בְּאָזְנֵ֨י בִנְךָ֜ וּבֶן־בִּנְךָ֗ אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁ֤ר הִתְעַלַּ֨לְתִּי֙ בְּמִצְרַ֔יִם וְאֶת־אֹֽתֹתַ֖י אֲשֶׁר־שַׂ֣מְתִּי בָ֑ם וִֽידַעְתֶּ֖ם כִּֽי־אֲנִ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:
I made a mockery: Heb. הִתְעַלַלְתִּי, I mocked, like “Because you mocked (הִתְעַלַלְתִּי) me” (Num. 22:29); “Will it not be just as He mocked (הִתְעַלֵל) them” (I Sam. 6:6), stated in regard to Egypt. It is not an expression meaning a “deed and acts (מַעִלָלִים),” however, for were that so, He would have written עוֹלַלְתִּי, like “and deal (וְעוֹלֵל) with them as You have dealt (עוֹלַלְתָּ) with me” (Lam. 1:22); “which has been dealt (עוֹלֵל) to me” (Lam. 1:12).
התעללתי: שחקתי, כמו (במדבר כב כט) כי התעללת בי, (שמואל א' ו ו) הלא כאשר התעולל בהם, האמור במצרים. ואינו לשון פועל ומעללים, שאם כן היה לו לכתוב עוללתי, כמו (איכה א כב) ועולל למו כאשר עוללת לי, (שם כב) אשר עולל לי:
3So Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh and said to him, "So said the Lord, the God of the Hebrews, How long will you refuse to humble yourself before Me? Let My people go, and they will worship Me. גוַיָּבֹ֨א משֶׁ֣ה וְאַֽהֲרֹן֘ אֶל־פַּרְעֹה֒ וַיֹּֽאמְר֣וּ אֵלָ֗יו כֹּֽה־אָמַ֤ר יְהֹוָה֙ אֱלֹהֵ֣י הָֽעִבְרִ֔ים עַד־מָתַ֣י מֵאַ֔נְתָּ לֵֽעָנֹ֖ת מִפָּנָ֑י שַׁלַּ֥ח עַמִּ֖י וְיַֽעַבְדֻֽנִי:
to humble yourself: Heb. לֵעָנֹת, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders, לְאִתְכְּנָעָא, and it is derived from עָנִי. You have refused to be humble and meek before Me.
לענת: כתרגומו לאתכנעא, והוא מגזרת עני, מאנת להיות עני ושפל מפני:
4For if you refuse to let [them] go, behold, tomorrow I am going to bring locusts into your borders. דכִּ֛י אִם־מָאֵ֥ן אַתָּ֖ה לְשַׁלֵּ֣חַ אֶת־עַמִּ֑י הִֽנְנִ֨י מֵבִ֥יא מָחָ֛ר אַרְבֶּ֖ה בִּגְבֻלֶֽךָ:
5And they will obscure the view of the earth, and no one will be able to see the earth, and they will eat the surviving remnant, which remains for you from the hail, and they will eat all your trees that grow out of the field. הוְכִסָּה֙ אֶת־עֵ֣ין הָאָ֔רֶץ וְלֹ֥א יוּכַ֖ל לִרְאֹ֣ת אֶת־הָאָ֑רֶץ וְאָכַ֣ל | אֶת־יֶ֣תֶר הַפְּלֵטָ֗ה הַנִּשְׁאֶ֤רֶת לָכֶם֙ מִן־הַבָּרָ֔ד וְאָכַל֙ אֶת־כָּל־הָעֵ֔ץ הַצֹּמֵ֥חַ לָכֶ֖ם מִן־הַשָּׂדֶֽה:
the view of the earth: Heb. עֵין הָאָרֶץ, the view of the earth.
את עין הארץ: את מראה הארץ:
and no one will be able: Heb. יוּכַל lit., and will not be able. The seer [will not be able] to see the earth, but [the text] speaks briefly.
ולא יוכל וגו': הרואה לראות את הארץ, ולשון קצרה דבר:
6And your houses and the houses of all your servants and the houses of all the Egyptians will be filled, which your fathers and your fathers' fathers did not see since the day they were on the earth until this day.' " [Therewith,] he turned and left Pharaoh. ווּמָֽלְא֨וּ בָתֶּ֜יךָ וּבָתֵּ֣י כָל־עֲבָדֶ֘יךָ֘ וּבָתֵּ֣י כָל־מִצְרַ֒יִם֒ אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹֽא־רָא֤וּ אֲבֹתֶ֨יךָ֙ וַֽאֲב֣וֹת אֲבֹתֶ֔יךָ מִיּ֗וֹם הֱיוֹתָם֙ עַל־הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה עַ֖ד הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה וַיִּ֥פֶן וַיֵּצֵ֖א מֵעִ֥ם פַּרְעֹֽה:
7Pharaoh's servants said to him, "How long will this one be a stumbling block to us? Let the people go and they will worship their God. Don't you yet know that Egypt is lost?" זוַיֹּֽאמְרוּ֩ עַבְדֵ֨י פַרְעֹ֜ה אֵלָ֗יו עַד־מָתַי֙ יִֽהְיֶ֨ה זֶ֥ה לָ֨נוּ֙ לְמוֹקֵ֔שׁ שַׁלַּח֙ אֶת־הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים וְיַֽעַבְד֖וּ אֶת־יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹֽהֵיהֶ֑ם הֲטֶ֣רֶם תֵּדַ֔ע כִּ֥י אָֽבְדָ֖ה מִצְרָֽיִם:
Don’t you yet know: Heb. הִטֶרֶם תֵּדַע, do you not know yet that Egypt is lost?-[Rashi and Rashbam from targumim]
הטרם תדע: העוד לא ידעת כי אבדה מצרים:
8[Thereupon,] Moses and Aaron were brought back to Pharaoh, and he said to them, "Go, worship the Lord your God. Who and who are going?" חוַיּוּשַׁ֞ב אֶת־משֶׁ֤ה וְאֶת־אַֽהֲרֹן֙ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֔ה וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֔ם לְכ֥וּ עִבְד֖וּ אֶת־יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶ֑ם מִ֥י וָמִ֖י הַהֹֽלְכִֽים:
were brought back: They were brought back by a messenger, whom they [the Egyptians] sent after them, and they returned them to Pharaoh.
ויושב: הושבו על ידי שליח ששלחו אחריהם והשיבום אל פרעה:
9Moses said, "With our youth and with our elders we will go, with our sons and with our daughters, with our flocks and with our cattle we will go, for it is a festival of the Lord to us." טוַיֹּ֣אמֶר משֶׁ֔ה בִּנְעָרֵ֥ינוּ וּבִזְקֵנֵ֖ינוּ נֵלֵ֑ךְ בְּבָנֵ֨ינוּ וּבִבְנוֹתֵ֜נוּ בְּצֹאנֵ֤נוּ וּבִבְקָרֵ֨נוּ֙ נֵלֵ֔ךְ כִּ֥י חַג־יְהֹוָ֖ה לָֽנוּ:
10So he [Pharaoh] said to them, "So may the Lord be with you, just as I will let you and your young children out. See that evil is before your faces. יוַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֗ם יְהִ֨י כֵ֤ן יְהֹוָה֙ עִמָּכֶ֔ם כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר אֲשַׁלַּ֥ח אֶתְכֶ֖ם וְאֶת־טַפְּכֶ֑ם רְא֕וּ כִּ֥י רָעָ֖ה נֶ֥גֶד פְּנֵיכֶֽם:
just as I will let you… out: and surely I will not let the flocks and the cattle out as you said.
כאשר אשלח אתכם ואת טפכם: אף כי אשלח גם את הצאן ואת הבקר כאשר אמרתם:
See that evil is before your faces: [Understand this] as the Targum [Onkelos] renders it. I have [also] heard an Aggadic midrash, however [which explains the passage as follows]: There is a star named Ra’ah [i.e., רָעָה meaning evil]. Pharaoh said to them [Moses and Aaron], “With my astrology I see that star ascending toward you in the desert [where you would like to go], and that is a sign of blood and slaughter.” When the Israelites sinned with the calf, and the Holy One, blessed be He, sought to kill them, Moses said in his prayer, “Why should the Egyptians say, ‘With Ra’ah He took them out…?’” (Exod. 32:12) This is what he [Pharaoh] said to them, “See that Ra’ah [evil] is opposite your faces,” [implying that their blood would be shed in the desert]. Immediately, “The Lord repented of the Ra’ah [the sign of the star]” (Exod. 32:14), and He turned the bloodshed [symbolized by this star] into the blood of the circumcision, for Joshua [in fact] circumcised them. This is the meaning of what is said: “This day I have rolled away the reproach of the Egyptians from you” (Josh. 5:9), for they were saying to you, “We see blood over you in the desert.” -[from Midrash Shir Hashirim, Wertheimer 1:2]
ראו כי רעה נגד פניכם: כתרגומו. ומדרש אגדה שמעתי כוכב אחד יש ששמו רעה. אמר להם פרעה רואה אני באיצטגנינות שלי אותו כוכב עולה לקראתכם במדבר, והוא סימן דם והריגה וכשחטאו ישראל בעגל ובקש הקב"ה להרגם אמר משה בתפלתו (שמות לב יב) למה יאמרו מצרים לאמר ברעה הוציאם, זו היא שאמר להם ראו כי רעה נגד פניכם, מיד (שם יד) וינחם ה' על הרעה והפך את הדם לדם מילה, שמל יהושע אותם, וזהו שנאמר (יהושע ה ט) היום גלותי את חרפת מצרים מעליכם, שהיו אומרים לכם דם אנו רואין עליכם במדבר:
11Not so; let the men go now and worship the Lord, for that is what you request." And he chased them out from before Pharaoh. יאלֹ֣א כֵ֗ן לְכ֙וּ נָ֤א הַגְּבָרִים֙ וְעִבְד֣וּ אֶת־יְהֹוָ֔ה כִּ֥י אֹתָ֖הּ אַתֶּ֣ם מְבַקְשִׁ֑ים וַיְגָ֣רֶשׁ אֹתָ֔ם מֵאֵ֖ת פְּנֵ֥י פַרְעֹֽה:
Not so: as you have said [that you want] to take the young children with you, but let the men go and worship the Lord. — [from Jonathan]
לא כן: כאשר אמרתם להוליך הטף עמכם אלא לכו נא הגברים ועבדו את ה':
for that is what you request: ([meaning] that worship) you have requested until now, [telling me,] “Let us offer and sacrifice to our God” (Exod. 5:8), and young children do not usually offer up sacrifices. — [from Exod. Rabbah 13:5]
כי אתה אתם מבקשים: כי אותה בקשתם עד הנה (שמות ה ח) נזבחה לאלהינו, ואין דרך הטף לזבוח:
And he chased them out: This is elliptical, for it does not specify who the chaser was.
ויגרש אתם: הרי זה לשון קצר ולא פירש מי המגרש:
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 120 - 134
• Hebrew text
• English text
Chapter 120
This psalm rebukes slanderers, describing how the deadly effect of slander reaches even further than weapons.
1. A song of ascents. I have called out to the Lord in my distress, and He answered me.
2. O Lord, rescue my soul from the lips of falsehood, from a deceitful tongue.
3. What can He give you, and what [further restraint] can He add to you, O deceitful tongue?
4. [You resemble] the sharp arrows of a mighty one, and the coals of broom-wood.1
5. Woe unto me that I sojourned among Meshech, that I dwelt beside the tents of Kedar.
6. Too long has my soul dwelt among those who hate peace.
7. I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war.
FOOTNOTES
1.Which remain hot on the inside while appearing cool to the touch (Rashi).
Chapter 121
This psalm alludes to the Lower Paradise, from which one ascends to the Higher Paradise. It also speaks of how God watches over us.
2. My help will come from the Lord, Maker of heaven and earth.
3. He will not let your foot falter; your guardian does not slumber.
4. Indeed, the Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps.
5. The Lord is your guardian; the Lord is your protective shade at your right hand.
6. The sun will not harm you by day, nor the moon by night.
7. The Lord will guard you from all evil; He will guard your soul.
8. The Lord will guard your going and your coming from now and for all time.
Chapter 122
The psalmist sings the praises of Jerusalem and tells of the miracles that happened there.
1. A song of ascents by David. I rejoiced when they said to me, "Let us go to the House of the Lord.”
2. Our feet were standing within your gates, O Jerusalem;
3. Jerusalem that is built like a city in which [all Israel] is united together.
4. For there the tribes went up, the tribes of God-as enjoined upon Israel-to offer praise to the Name of the Lord.
5. For there stood the seats of justice, the thrones of the house of David.
6. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem; may those who love you have peace.
7. May there be peace within your walls, serenity within your mansions.
8. For the sake of my brethren and friends, I ask that there be peace within you.
9. For the sake of the House of the Lord our God, I seek your well-being.
Chapter 123
The psalmist laments the length of time we have already suffered in exile.
1. A song of ascents. To You have I lifted my eyes, You Who are enthroned in heaven.
2. Indeed, as the eyes of servants are turned to the hand of their masters, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so are our eyes turned to the Lord our God, until He will be gracious to us.
3. Be gracious to us, Lord, be gracious to us, for we have been surfeited with humiliation.
4. Our soul has been overfilled with the derision of the complacent, with the scorn of the arrogant.
Chapter 124
1. A song of ascents by David. Were it not for the Lord Who was with us-let Israel declare-
2. were it not for the Lord Who was with us when men rose up against us,
3. then they would have swallowed us alive in their burning rage against us.
4. Then the waters would have inundated us, the torrent would have swept over our soul;
5. then the raging waters would have surged over our soul.
6. Blessed is the Lord, Who did not permit us to be prey for their teeth.
7. Our soul is like a bird which has escaped from the fowler's snare; the snare broke and we escaped.
8. Our help is in the Name of the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth.
Chapter 125
1. A song of ascents. Those who trust in the Lord are as Mount Zion which never falters, but abides forever.
2. Mountains surround Jerusalem, and the Lord surrounds His people from this time and forever.
3. For the rod of wickedness will never come to rest upon the lot of the righteous; therefore the righteous need not stretch their hand to iniquity.
4. Be beneficent, O Lord, to the good and to those who are upright in their hearts.
5. But as for those that turn to their perverseness, may the Lord lead them with the workers of iniquity. Peace be upon Israel.
Chapter 126
The psalmist speaks of the future, comparing our Divine service in exile to one who sows arid land, then cries and begs God to send rain upon it so that the seed not be wasted. When he merits to reap the crop, he offers thanks to God.
1. A song of ascents. When the Lord will return the exiles of Zion, we will have been like dreamers.
2. Then our mouth will be filled with laughter, and our tongue with songs of joy; then will they say among the nations, "The Lord has done great things for these.”
3. The Lord has done great things for us; we were joyful.
4. Lord, return our exiles as streams to arid soil.
5. Those who sow in tears will reap with songs of joy.
6. He goes along weeping, carrying the bag of seed; he will surely return with songs of joy, carrying his sheaves.
Chapter 127
King David instructs his generation, and especially his son Solomon, to be sure that all one's actions be for the sake of Heaven. He also criticizes those who toil day and night in pursuit of a livelihood.
1. A song of ascents for Solomon. If the Lord does not build a house, then its builders labor upon it in vain. If the Lord will not guard a city, the vigilance of its watchman is in vain.
2. It is in vain for you, you who rise early, who sit up late, and who eat the bread of tension, for in fact He gives His loved ones sleep.
3. Behold, the heritage of the Lord is children; the fruit of the womb is a reward.
4. As arrows in the hand of a mighty man, so are the children of youth.
5. Fortunate is the man who has his quiver full of them; they will not find themselves shamed when they speak with enemies in public places.
Chapter 128
This psalm extols one who enjoys the fruits of his own labor, avoiding theft and deception, even refusing gifts. It also describes behavior appropriate to the God-fearing.
1. A song of ascents. Fortunate is every man who fears the Lord, who walks in His ways.
2. When you eat of the labor of your hands, you will be happy, and you will have goodness.
3. Your wife will be like a fruitful vine in the inner chambers of your house; your children will be like olive saplings around your table.
4. Behold, so will be blessed the man who fears the Lord.
5. May the Lord bless you out of Zion, and may you see the goodness of Jerusalem all the days of your life.
6. And may you see children [born] to your children; peace upon Israel.
Chapter 129
The psalmist laments the troubles of Israel.
1. A song of ascents. Much have they persecuted me from my youth on. Let Israel declare it now-
2. "Much have they persecuted me from my youth on, [but] they have not prevailed against me.”
3. The plowmen plowed upon my back; they wished to make their furrow long.
4. But the Lord is just; He cut the cords of the lawless.
5. They will be humiliated and will be turned back, all the haters of Zion.
6. They will be as grass upon the rooftops that withers before one plucks it,
7. wherewith the reaper has never filled his hand, nor the sheaf-binder his arm;
8. and of which the passers-by never have said: "The blessing of the Lord be upon you; we bless you in the name of the Lord."
Chapter 130
The psalmist prays for an end to this long exile.
1. A song of ascents. Out of the depths I call to You, O Lord.
2. My Lord, hearken to my voice; let Your ears be attentive to the sound of my pleas.
3. God, if You were to preserve iniquities, my Lord, who could survive?
4. But forgiveness is with You, that You may be held in awe.
5. I hope in the Lord; my soul hopes, and I long for His word.
6. My soul yearns for the Lord more than those awaiting the morning wait for the morning.
7. Israel, put your hope in the Lord, for with the Lord there is kindness; with Him there is abounding deliverance.
8. And He will redeem Israel from all its iniquities.
Chapter 131
In this prayer, David declares that never in the course of his life was he haughty, nor did he pursue greatness or worldly pleasures.
1. A song of ascents, by David. O Lord, my heart was not proud, nor were my eyes haughty; I did not seek matters that were too great and too wondrous for me.
2. Surely I put my soul at peace and soothed it like a weaned child with his mother; my soul was like a weaned child.
3. Let Israel hope in the Lord from this time forth and forever.
Chapter 132
David composed this psalm while he and the elders of Israel wore sackcloth, in mourning over the plague that had descended upon the land, and their being distant from the Holy Temple. David therefore offers intense prayers, entreating God to remember the hardship and sacrifice he endured for the sake of the Temple.
1. A song of ascents. O Lord, remember unto David all his suffering,
2. how he swore to the Lord, and vowed to the Mighty Power of Jacob:
3. "I will not enter into the tent of my house; I will not go up into the bed that is spread for me;
4. I will not give sleep to my eyes, nor slumber to my eyelids;
5. until I will have found a place for the Lord, a resting place for the Mighty Power of Jacob.”
6. Lo, we heard of it in Ephrath; we found it in the field of the forest.
7. We will come to His resting places; we will prostrate ourselves at His footstool.
8. Ascend, O Lord, to Your resting place, You and the Ark of Your might.
9. May Your priests clothe themselves in righteousness, and may Your pious ones sing joyous songs.
10. For the sake of David Your servant, turn not away the face of Your anointed.
11. For the Lord has sworn to David a truth from which He will never retreat: "From the fruit of your womb will I set for you upon the throne.
12. If your sons will keep My covenant and this testimony of mine which I will teach them, then their sons, too, will sit on the throne for you until the end of time.
13. For the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His habitation.
14. This is My resting place to the end of time. Here will I dwell, for I have desired it.
15. I will abundantly bless her sustenance; I will satisfy her needy with bread.
16. I will clothe her priests with salvation, and her pious ones will sing joyous songs.
17. There I will cause David's power to flourish; there I have prepared a lamp for My anointed.
18. His enemies will I clothe with shame, but upon him, his crown will blossom."
Chapter 133
1. A song of ascents, by David. Behold, how good and how pleasant it is when brothers dwell together.
2. Like the precious oil [placed] upon the head, flowing [in abundance] down the beard, the beard of Aaron which rests upon his garments.
3. Like the dew of Hermon which comes down upon the mountains of Zion, for there the Lord has commanded blessing, life unto eternity.
Chapter 134
The psalmist exhorts the scholarly and pious to rise from their beds at night, and go to the House of God.
1. A song of ascents. Behold: Bless the Lord, all you servants of the Lord who stand in the House of the Lord in the nights.
2. Lift up your hands in holiness and bless the Lord.
3. May the Lord, Who makes heaven and earth, bless you from Zion.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 17
• English Text (Lessons in Tanya)
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
Sunday, Tevet 27, 5778 · January 14, 2018
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 17
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Yehoshua B. Gordon Watch • Listen
• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Manis Freidman Listen • Download MP3
ובזה יובן מה שכתוב
With this explanation — that even a fear and love of G‑d which remain concealed in one’s mind and heart suffice to infuse one’s fulfillment of the commandments with vitality, thereby perfecting and elevating them, we will understand the verse:1
כי קרוב אליך הדבר מאד, בפיך ובלבבך לעשותו
“For this thing is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.”
The verse states that it is easy for one to fulfill Torah and mitzvot with all three “garments” of the soul — thought, speech and action. The words “with your mouth” refer to speech, “with your heart” — to thought, and “that you may do it” refers to action. In a deeper sense, however, “your heart” refers not only to the power of thought, but also to the heart as the seat of the emotions — love, fear, and so on. The verse is telling us, then, that it is within easy reach of every Jew to fulfill the mitzvot with a feeling of awe and love of G‑d. Concerning this, the Alter Rebbe poses the question:
דלכאורה הוא בלבבך נגד החוש שלנו
At first glance, [the statement that “this thing is very near to you]…in your heart” seems contrary to our experience — in our experience we find that it is no simple feat to acquire a spirit of love and fear of G‑d.
והתורה היא נצחית
(2Yet the Torah is eternal),3 hence it could not refer only to Moses‘ generation — “a generation of understanding” — but must hold true for our own age as well.
שאין קרוב מאד הדבר, להפך לבו מתאוות עולם הזה לאהבת ה׳ באמת
In our experience we see that it is not a “very near thing” to change one’s heart from worldly desires to a sincere love of G‑d, for by nature one is inclined toward the former.
And as is written in The Duties of the Heart,4 “Desires for worldly pleasures are unable to dwell in the heart together with a love of G‑d.” In order to attain a love of G‑d, therefore, it is necessary for one to change his nature from one extreme to the other — by no means an easy matter!
וכמו שכתוב בגמרא: אטו יראה מילתא זוטרתי היא
Indeed, commenting on Moses‘ statement: “What does G‑d ask of you, but to fear Him?” the Talmudqueries:5 “Is fear of heaven a small matter?”
This indicates, as the Rebbe points out, that even in Moses‘ generation (and surely in subsequent generations) it was no simple matter to acquire a fear of G‑d.
וכל שכן אהבה
And if this is true of fear of G‑d, then how much more so — a love of G‑d, for fear of G‑d is generally more easily attainable than love of G‑d.
Thus, not only our experience, but also this quotation from the Talmud seems to contradict the verse which states that fear and love of G‑d are “very near to you.”
וגם אמרו רז״ל דצדיקים דוקא לבם ברשותם
Moreover, our Sages also said6 that only tzaddikim have control over their hearts — to arouse a love and fear of G‑d whenever they so desire.
This latter quotation intensifies the question, as the Rebbe points out. Not only is it not “very near” to us to achieve a love of G‑d, but on the contrary, it is possible only for tzaddikim, who are a minority. Surely the Torah does not address only tzaddikim; how, then, can it state that a love of G‑d is very near to us, indicating that our heart is in our control, that we can divert it from mundane desires to a love of G‑d?
אלא דלעשותו רצונו לומר: האהבה המביאה לידי עשיית המצות בלבד
But the words “that you may do it” refer to a love which merely leads to the fulfillment of the commandments, although, strictly speaking, it is not an actual love.
The author thus interprets the words “that you may do it” as a qualification of the earlier phrase “for it is near to you…with your heart.” What is “near to you with your heart” (i.e., What sort of love is easily attainable)? That love which pertains to action (“that you may do it”).
Thereby we may also understand the order of the words in the verse. The words “in your mouth, in your heart, that you may do it” refer to the three “soul-garments” of thought, speech, and action, as we have observed earlier. However, the order in which they are listed in the verse is difficult to understand, for it seems to be neither an ascending order (action, speech, thought) nor a descending order (thought, speech, action). Why is the middle faculty, speech, put first, followed by thought (“in your heart”), and then action (“that you may do it”)? However, according to the interpretation of the words “that you may do it” given here, this is readily understood. These words follow immediately after the words “in your heart,” for they serve to explain and to qualify them: the love of which the verse speaks here (“in your heart”), is that which leads to action (“that you may do it”).
שהיא רעותא דלבא שבתעלומות לב, גם כי אינה בהתגלות לבו כרשפי אש
This means the hidden desire of the heart; even if it does not burn openly like a flaming fire, yet it can still lead one to fulfill the commandments.
ודבר זה קרוב מאד ונקל לכל אדם אשר יש לו מוח בקדקדו
This matter of arousing a love which remains hidden in the heart is very easy and very near to every man who has a brain in his head.
כי מוחו ברשותו, ויכול להתבונן בו בכל אשר יחפו׳
For his mind is under his control even if his heart is not, and with it he can meditate as he pleases, on any subject.
וכשיתבונן בו בגדולת אין סוף ברוך הוא, ממילא יוליד במוחו על כל פנים האהבה לה׳, לדבקה בו בקיום מצותיו ותורתו
If, then, he will contemplate with it on the greatness of the Almighty, he will inevitably generate — in his mind, at least — a love of G‑d, to cleave to Him through the performance of His commandments and the study of His Torah.
וזה כל האדם, כי היום לעשותם כתיב, שהיום הוא עולם המעשה דוקא
This Torah study and fulfilling the mitzvot constitutes7 “the whole purpose of man,” for it is written:8“I command you these mitzvot, that you do them this day” — “this day” referring specifically to this world of physical action.
The Alter Rebbe’s point is that the main objective in the commandment to love G‑d lies, not in the love itself, but in the practical and wholehearted fulfillment of the commandments that is motivated by this love, for the main thing in this world is action.
ולמחר כו׳ כמו שכתוב במקום אחר
Only “tomorrow” i.e., in the afterlife is the time of reward,9 as is explained elsewhere.
Hence the true love of G‑d, which is in itself a partial reward for one’s serving Him, is not as important in this life as the actual performance of the mitzvot, which can be generated even by a love which remains hidden in the mind and heart. This, then, is the love referred to in the verse, “for it is very near to you in your heart that you may do it” — a love which, though it may not find overt expression in the heart, is yet sufficient to motivate the performance of the mitzvot, and within reach of every Jew.
How does this love motivate one to perform the commandments? This the Alter Rebbe now goes on to explain:
והמוח שליט בטבעו ותולדתו על חלל השמאלי שבלב, ועל פיו ועל כל האברים שהם כלי הנעשה
The mind, by virtue of its inherent nature, is master over the left part of the heart, the seat of the animal soul, whence come one’s mundane desires and evil thoughts, and over the mouth and the other bodily organs, which are the instruments of action.
Hence by having — in his mind, at least — a love of G‑d and a desire to fulfill the mitzvot, one can utilize the natural mastery of the mind to overcome the desires of his heart, and to motivate his mouth and other bodily organs to study Torah and fulfill its commandments. We thus see that this can be done even by one whose heart is not under his control, as is a tzaddik’s.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Devarim 30:14. |
| 2. | Parentheses are in the original text. |
| 3. | Maimonides, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, 9:1. |
| 4. | Chovot HaLevavot, introduction to Shaar Ahavat HaShem. |
| 5. | Berachot 33b; Megillah 25a. |
| 6. | Bereishit Rabbah 34:10; 67:8. |
| 7. | Kohelet 12:13. |
| 8. | Devarim 7:11. |
| 9. | Eruvin 22a. |
• Sefer Hamitzvot:
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassSunday, Tevet 27, 5778 · January 14, 2018
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Mendel Kaplan Watch • Listen
• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Berel Bell Listen • MP3 Download
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 94
Fulfilling Verbal Obligations
"That which issues from your lips you shall keep and perform"—Deuteronomy 23:24.
We are commanded to carry through that which we pledge to do [or not to do].
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Fulfilling Verbal Obligations
Positive Commandment 94
Translated by Berel Bell
The 94th mitzvah is that we are commanded to fulfill every verbal obligation we have taken upon ourselves, whether an oath, a vow, a korban,1 etc.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "You shall be careful to carry out whatever you say."
Although our Sages have split up this verse and explained each word separately as referring to something different, the general meaning of everything they say is: it is a positive commandment for a person to fulfill every verbal obligation he has taken upon himself, and a prohibition not to do so. This will be explained in our discussion of the prohibitions.3
The Sifri says, "The verse, 'Whatever you say,' constitutes a positive commandment." You find it obvious that the words, "whatever you say" by themselves have no meaning whatsoever. The intention [of the Sifri] is therefore as I explained above — that the plain meaning of the verse is that a person is obligated to carry out his verbal commitments.
This commandment is stated a second time in G‑d's statement,4 "A person must fulfill all he has verbally said."
The details of this mitzvah — i.e. how exactly the person must fulfill his obligation, and how he can be released [from his obligation] when in doubt regarding his statement — are explained in a number of passages in Sh'vuos, Nedarim, the end of Menachos, as well as in Kinim.
FOOTNOTES
1.Literally, a sacrifice. When a person says, "a sacrifice that I won't eat something of yours," he means to say that he considers that person's food to be forbidden for him to eat just as a sacrifice is forbidden to him. This constitutes a vow not to eat that person's food.
2.Deut. 23:24.
3.N157.
4.Num. 30:3.
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter A Day: Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Two
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassShabbat - Chapter Two
1
The [laws of] the Sabbath are suspended1 in the face of a danger to life,2 as are [the obligations of] the other mitzvot. Therefore, we may perform - according to the directives of a professional physician3 of that locale4 - everything that is necessary for the benefit of a sick person whose life is in danger.
When there is a doubt whether or not the Sabbath laws must be violated on a person's behalf, one should violate the Sabbath laws on his behalf, for the Sabbath laws are suspended even when there is merely a question of danger to a person's life. [The same principles apply] when one physician says the Sabbath laws should be violated on a person's behalf and another physician states that this is not necessary.5
א
דחויה היא שבת אצל סכנת נפשות כשאר כל המצות. לפיכך חולה שיש בו סכנה עושין לו כל צרכיו בשבת על פי רופא אומן של אותו מקום. ספק שהוא צריך לחלל עליו את השבת ספק שאינו צריך. וכן אם אמר רופא לחלל עליו את השבת ורופא אחר אומר אינו צריך מחללין עליו את השבת שספק נפשות דוחה את השבת:
2
[The following laws apply when physicians] determine on the Sabbath that a person needs [a treatment to be administered] for eight days. We do not say that we should wait until the evening so that it will not be necessary to violate two Sabbaths on his behalf.6 Instead, the treatment is begun immediately, on the Sabbath, and even one hundred Sabbaths may be violated on his behalf.
As long as a person is dangerously [ill] - or even if there is a question whether or not he is dangerously [ill] - and requires treatment, [the Sabbath] should be violated [on his behalf]. A lamp may be lit on his behalf and extinguished on his behalf.7 [Animals] may be slaughtered on his behalf, [food] baked and cooked on his behalf, and water heated for him, whether to drink or to use for bathing.
The general principle for a person who is dangerously ill is that the Sabbath should be considered as a weekday regarding all his needs.8
ב
אמדוהו ביום השבת שהוא צריך לכך וכן לשמנה ימים אין אומרים נמתין עד הערב כדי שלא לחלל עליו שתי שבתות אלא מתחילין מהיום שהוא שבת ומחללין עליו אפילו מאה שבתות כל זמן שהוא צריך ויש בו סכנה או ספק סכנה מחללין. ומדליקין לו את הנר ומכבין מלפניו את הנר ושוחטין לו ואופין ומבשלין ומחמין לו חמין בין להשקותו בין לרחיצת גופו. כללו של דבר שבת לגבי חולה שיש בו סכנה הרי הוא כחול לכל הדברים שהוא צריך להן:
3
When such treatment is administered, it should not be administered by gentiles,9 by children,10 by servants, or by women,11 so that they will not view the Sabbath flippantly.12 Instead, the treatment should be administered by the leaders of Israel13 and the wise.
It is forbidden to hesitate before transgressing the Sabbath [laws] on behalf of a person who is dangerously ill,14 as [reflected in the interpretation in the phrase of Leviticus 18:5,] "which a person shall perform to live through them," as "['to live through them'] and not to die through them."
This teaches that the judgments of the Torah do not [bring] vengeance to the world, but rather bring mercy, kindness, and peace to the world. Concerning those non-believers who say that [administering such treatment] constitutes a violation of the Sabbath and is forbidden,15 one may apply the verse [Ezekiel 20:25]: "[As punishment,] I gave them harmful laws and judgments through which they cannot live."16
ג
כשעושים דברים האלו אין עושין אותן לא ע"י נכרים ולא ע"י קטנים ולא ע"י עבדים ולא ע"י נשים כדי שלא תהא שבת קלה בעיניהם. אלא על ידי גדולי ישראל וחכמיהם. ואסור להתמהמה בחילול שבת לחולה שיש בו סכנה שנאמר אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם. הא למדת שאין משפטי התורה נקמה בעולם אלא רחמים וחסד ושלום בעולם. ואלו האפיקורוסים שאומרים שזה חילול שבת ואסור עליהן הכתוב אומר גם אני נתתי לכם חוקים לא טובים ומשפטים לא יחיו בהם:
4
When a person's eyes are ailing - i.e., when he has a secretion from either one or both of them, when tears flow from them due to great pain, when blood flows from them, or when they are affected by fever,17 or by other afflictions of this like - he is considered among those individuals who are dangerously ill.18 The Sabbath may be violated on his behalf, and anything necessary for his treatment may be performed for him.19
ד
החושש בעיניו והוא שיהיה בשתיהם או באחת מהם ציר או שהיו דמעות שותתות מהן מרוב הכאב או שהיה דם שותת מהן או שהיה בהן קדחת וכיוצא בחלאים אלו הרי זה בכלל חולים שיש בהן סכנה ומחללין עליו את השבת ועושין לו כל צרכי רפואה:
5
Similarly, a person who has a wound20 in his body cavity - from his lips inward,21 whether in his mouth, his digestive organs, his liver or spleen, or any of the other organs in his body cavity - is considered to be dangerously ill and does not require [a physician's] assessment [of his condition]. His ailment is serious, and we should violate the Sabbath laws on his behalf immediately without [waiting for] an assessment.22
A wound on the back of the hand or on the back of the foot is considered equivalent to a wound in the body cavity. It does not require [a physician's] assessment [of his condition] for us to violate the Sabbath laws on his behalf. A fever that causes the flesh to wince23 is considered equivalent to a wound in the body cavity, and we should violate the Sabbath laws on this person's behalf.
Similarly, we should violate the Sabbath laws whenever a physician24 assesses an ailment as dangerous, even when it affects only the exterior of a person's skin.
ה
וכן אם יש מכה בחלל גופו מן השפה ולפנים בין בפיו בין במעיו בין בכבדו וטחולו או בשאר מקומות כל שיש בחללו הרי זה חולה שיש בו סכנה ואינו צריך אומד שחוליו כבד הוא לפיכך מחללין עליו את השבת מיד בלא אמידה. ומכה שהיא בגב היד וגב הרגל הרי היא כמכה של חלל ואינה צריכה אומד ומחללין עליה את השבת. והחום שמסמר את הבשר כמכה של חלל דמי ומחללין עליו את השבת וכן כל חולי שהרופאים אומרין שזה יש בו סכנה אע"פ שהוא בעור הבשר מבחוץ מחללין עליו את השבת על פיהם:
6
When a person swallows a leech, water may be heated for him on the Sabbath, and any medical treatment that is necessary may be administered, since his life is in danger. Similarly, when a person is bitten by a rabid dog25 or a poisonous snake or other reptile, any medical treatment that is necessary to save him may be administered. [The same laws apply] even when there is merely a question of whether or not [the bite] can cause death.
ו
הבולע נימא של מים מחמין לו חמין בשבת ועושין לו כל צרכי רפואה מפני שהיא סכנת נפשות. וכן מי שנשכו כלב שוטה או אחד מזוחלי העפר שממיתין אפילו היו ספק ממיתין ספק אין ממיתין עושין לו כל צרכי רפואה להצילו:
7
When physicians assessed that a sick person required a fig, and ten people ran and brought26 him ten figs at once,27 they are all absolved of liability entirely.28
[The same decision applies] if the ten people brought the figs one after another, even when he recuperated after the first fig, for all of them had license to bring them.
ז
חולה שאמדוהו רופאים להביא לו גרוגרת אחת ורצו עשרה בני אדם והביאו לו עשר גרוגרות בבת אחת כולן פטורין מכלום. ואפילו הביאו בזה אחר זה ואפילו הבריא בראשונה שהרי כולם ברשות הביאו:
8
If a sick person required two figs, and two figs could be found only on two separate stems - while three figs were found on another stem - we should remove the stem that has three figs, even though only two are required.29 [It is preferable] to cut only one stem and not two stems, so as not to increase [the performance of the forbidden labor of] gleaning.30 The same applies in all similar situations.
ח
חולה שהיה צריך לשתי גרוגרות ולא מצאו אלא שתי גרוגרות בשני עוקצין ושלש גרוגרות בעוקץ אחד כורתין העוקץ שיש בו שלש אף על פי שאין צריכין אלא לשתים כדי שלא ירבו בבצירה אלא יכרתו עוקץ אחד ולא יכרתו שנים וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
9
When food is cooked for a sick person on the Sabbath and the sick person leaves some over after eating, a healthy person is forbidden to eat from the remainder, lest [this cause] more food to be added for him.31
When, however, an animal is slaughtered for a sick person on the Sabbath, it is permissible for a healthy person to partake of uncooked meat32 [from that animal].33 A decree was not enacted, because there is no possibility of an additional [activity] being performed [for a healthy person].34 The same applies in all similar situations.
ט
המבשל לחולה בשבת ואכל החולה והותיר אסור לבריא לאכול מן המותר גזרה שמא ירבה בשבילו. אבל השוחט לחולה בשבת מותר לבריא לאכול ממנו בשר חי שאין בדבר תוספת כדי שנגזור שמא ירבה בשבילו וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
10
When a sick person is not dangerously ill,35 all his needs should be cared for by a gentile. What is implied? We may tell a gentile to perform [forbidden labors]36 on his behalf and he performs them. [This includes] cooking, baking, bringing medicine from one domain to another and the like. Similarly, one may have one's eyes treated37 by a gentile on the Sabbath even though there is no danger involved.
Furthermore, if [the sick] require treatment that does not involve the performance of [forbidden] labors,38 they may be treated even by Jews. For this reason, it is permitted to perform [physical activities for the benefit of the sick]; for example, one may lift [the tendons of] the ears, lift up cartilage around the heart,39 restore broken bones to their places, or perform other activities of this like.
י
חולה שאין בו סכנה עושין לו כל צרכיו על ידי נכרי. כיצד אומרין לנכרי לעשות לו והוא עושה לבשל לו ולאפות ולהביא רפואה מרשות לרשות וכיוצא באלו. וכן כוחל עיניו מן הנכרי בשבת אע"פ שאין שם סכנה. ואם היו צריכים לדברים שאין בהן מלאכה עושין אותן אפילו ישראל. לפיכך מעלין אזנים בשבת ומעלין אנקלי ומחזירין את השבר וכל כיוצא בזה מותר:
11
When a woman in the process of childbirth squats to give birth,40 her life is considered in danger and the Sabbath laws may be violated on her behalf. A midwife may be called from a distant place41 and the umbilical cord may be cut and tied.
If she requires a light when she cries out because of labor pains, a candle may be lit for her. [This leniency is granted] even if she is blind, because light has a calming influence42 even if she does not see.
If she needs oil or the like, it may be brought for her. If possible, the items that are brought should be brought in an uncharacteristic manner; for example, a friend should bring a utensil tied in her hair.43 If this not possible, it may be brought in the ordinary manner.44
יא
היולדת כשכורעת לילד הרי היא בסכנת נפשות ומחללין עליה את השבת. קוראין לה חכמה ממקום למקום וחותכים את הטבור וקושרין אותו, ואם היתה צריכה לנר בשעה שהיא צועקת בחבליה מדליקין לה את הנר. ואפילו היתה סומא מפני שדעתה מתיישבת עליה בנר ואף על פי שאינה רואה. ואם היתה צריכה לשמן וכיוצא בו מביאין לה. וכל שאפשר לשנות משנין בשעת הבאה כגון שתביא לה חברתה כלי תלוי בשערה ואם אי אפשר מביאה כדרכה:
12
We should not help an idolatress45 give birth on the Sabbath, even if payment is offered. We do not worry about the possibility of ill-feelings being aroused.46 [This applies even when] there is no violation [of the Sabbath laws] involved.
[In contrast,] one may offer assistance to a daughter of a ger toshav who gives birth, since we are commanded to secure his well-being.47 We may not, however, violate the Sabbath laws on her behalf.
יב
אין מילדין את העובדת כוכבים ומזלות בשבת ואפי' בשכר ואין חוששין לאיבה ואע"פ שאין שם חילול. אבל מילדין את בת גר תושב מפני שאנו מצווין להחיותו ואין מחללין עליה את השבת:
13
From the time a woman in childbirth has a flow of blood48 until the birth - [and indeed,] after birth for three days49 - the Sabbath laws may be violated on her behalf, and all her needs should be met.50 [This applies] regardless of whether she says she requires such treatment or she maintains that she does not require such treatment.
Between the third and the seventh day [after childbirth], if she maintains that she does not require treatment, the Sabbath laws should not be violated on her behalf. If she remains silent,51 and certainly if she maintains that she requires treatment,52 the Sabbath laws should be violated on her behalf. Between the seventh and the thirtieth day, her status is analogous to that of a sick person who is not dangerously ill. Even if she maintains that she requires treatment, [forbidden] labors should be performed on her behalf only by a gentile.53
יג
חיה משיתחיל הדם להיות שותת עד שתלד ואחר שתלד עד שלשה ימים מחללין עליה את השבת ועושין לה כל צרכיה. בין שאמרה צריכה אני בין שאמרה איני צריכה. ומשלשה עד שבעה אם אמרה איני צריכה אין מחללין עליה את השבת. ואם שתקה ואין צריך לומר אם אמרה צריכה אני שמחללין עליה את השבת. ומשבעה ועד שלשים יום הרי היא כחולה שאין בו סכנה ואפילו אמרה צריכה אני אין עושין לה מלאכה אלא על ידי נכרים:
14
A fire may be kindled54 for a woman after she has given birth55 even in the summer, since cold is very difficult for a woman to bear after childbirth in the cold regions. In contrast, a fire should not be kindled for other sick people to warm themselves.56 Nevertheless, if a person let blood and became chilled, a fire may be kindled for him even in the summer.
After cutting his umbilical cord,57 we may wash a new born baby on the day he is born, even when this requires heating the water on the Sabbath.58 Herbal powder59 can be applied to his skin and his limbs can be tied,60 for it is dangerous not to perform these activities for him.
Similarly, a baby may be washed before circumcision, after circumcision,61 and on the third day after circumcision62 with water that is heated on the Sabbath,63 because of the danger [to him].
יד
עושין מדורה לחיה ואפילו בימות החמה מפני שהצנה קשה לחיה הרבה במקומות הקרים. אבל אין עושין מדורה לחולה להתחמם בה. הקיז דם ונצטנן עושין לו מדורה אפילו בתקופת תמוז. ומרחיצין את הולד בשבת ביום שנולד אחר שחותכין את טיבורו אפילו בחמין שהוחמו בשבת. ומולחין אותו ומלפפין אותו מפני שסכנה היא לו אם לא יעשו לו כל אלו. וכן מרחיצים אותו לפני המילה ולאחר המילה וביום השלישי למילה בחמין שהוחמו בשבת מפני הסכנה:
15
When a woman dies while in labor on the Sabbath, a knife should be brought - even if it must be carried through the public domain - and the woman's womb cut open and the fetus removed, for it is possible that it will still be alive.64
[The rationale for this ruling is] that the Sabbath laws are violated even when there is only a possibility of saving a life,65 and even in such instances, where there is no chazakah on which to base our presumption that the fetus is alive.66
טו
האשה שישבה על המשבר ומתה מביאין סכין בשבת אפילו דרך רשות הרבים וקורעין את כריסה ומוציאין את הולד שמא ימצא חי שספק נפשות דוחה את השבת ואפילו לזה שאין חזקתו חי:
16
[All] activities necessary to save a life should be performed on the Sabbath; there is no necessity to receive license from the court. The more zealous one is [in this regard], the more praiseworthy.
What is implied?67 If one sees that a child has fallen into the sea, one may spread out a net and hoist him up, although one catches fish together with him. If a person hears that a child fell into the sea and spreads out a net to hoist him up, but raises up only fish, he is absolutely free of liability.68
If he intended to raise up fish and [in fact] lifted up both fish and a child, he is not held liable.69 Since he lifted up a child together with the fish, he is not held liable even when he did not hear that the child had fallen into the water.70
טז
מפקחין פיקוח נפש בשבת ואין צריך ליטול רשות מבית דין. והמקדים להציל הנפש הרי זה משובח. כיצד ראה תינוק שנפל לים פורש מצודה ומעלהו ואע"פ שהוא צד הדגים עמו. שמע שטבע תינוק בים ופרש מצודה להעלותו והעלה דגים בלבד פטור מכלום. נתכוין להעלות דגים והעלה דגים ותינוק פטור אפילו לא שמע שטבע הואיל והעלה תינוק עם הדגים פטור:
17
If71 a child fell into a pit, a person may dislodge a clod of earth, and lift [the child] up, even though he creates a step when he dislodges it. If a door was locked with a child inside, a person may break the door down and take the child out, even though he chops it into pieces of wood which are appropriate to use for work,72 lest the child become frightened and die.
If a fire broke out and a person is inside the building and we fear that he may be consumed by the flames,73 a person may extinguish the fire to save him, although he prepares a pathway while extinguishing the fire. Whoever acts first to save him is praiseworthy. One does not need to ask permission from the court in all instances when there is a danger to a person's life.
יז
נפל תינוק לבור עוקר חוליא ומעלהו ואע"פ שהוא מתקן בה מדרגה בשעת עקירתו. ננעל דלת בפני תינוק שובר הדלת ומוציאו ואע"פ שהוא מפצל אותה כמין עצים שראויין למלאכה שמא יבעת התינוק וימות. נפלה דליקה ויש שם אדם שחוששין שמא ישרף מכבין אותה להצילו מן האש ואע"פ שהוא כובש דרך ומתקנה בשעת כיבוי. וכל הקודם להציל הרי זה משובח ואינו צריך ליטול רשות מבית דין בכל דבר שיש בו סכנה:
18
When an avalanche has fallen, and there is a doubt whether or not74 it has fallen over a person,75 it may be cleared. If the person was discovered to be alive, but was crushed [by the fallen debris] to the extent that it is impossible that he will recover, [the debris] may be cleared and the person taken out to enable him to live [however] long he does.76
יח
מי שנפלה עליו מפולת ספק הוא שם ספק אינו שם מפקחין עליו. מצאוהו חי אף על פי שנתרוצץ ואי אפשר שיבריא מפקחין עליו ומוציאין אותו לחיי אותה שעה:
19
If [in the process of clearing the debris,] they [reached] his nose and saw that he was not breathing, he should be left there,77 for he has died already.78
Although it is discovered that people on the upper level of a landslide have died, one should not assume that those on the lower levels have died. Instead, [the debris] should be cleared away from all of the people, for in a landslide it is possible that those on the upper level will die, while those on the lower level will remain alive.
יט
בדקו עד חוטמו ולא מצאו בו נשמה מניחין אותו שם שכבר מת. בדקו ומצאו עליונים מתים לא יאמרו כבר מתו תחתונים אלא מפקחין על הכל שאפשר במפולת שימות העליון ויהיה התחתון חי:
20
When an avalanche fell on a courtyard in which were located both gentiles and Jews - even if there were a thousand gentiles and only one Jew, we should remove all [the debris] for the sake of the Jew.79 Should one80 of the individuals leave and enter another courtyard and that courtyard collapse upon him, we should remove [the debris]. Perhaps the person who departed was a Jew, and [all] those who remain were gentiles.81
כ
היתה חצר שיש בה עובדי כוכבים ומזלות וישראלים אפילו ישראל אחד ואלף עובדי כוכבים ומזלות ונפלה עליהם מפולת מפקחין על הכל מפני ישראל. פירש אחד מהם לחצר אחרת ונפלה עליו אותה חצר מפקחים עליו שמא זה שפירש היה ישראל והנשארים עובדי כוכבים ומזלות.
21
When they all left this courtyard to go to another courtyard, and as they were proceeding, one of them whose identity is unknown departed and entered a third courtyard and was covered by an avalanche, [the debris] should not be removed from him.82
Since they left their original place, [the presence of] a Jew is not accepted as an established fact. Hence, we assume that anyone who separated from this group as it was proceeding was part of the majority. Accordingly, if the majority were Jewish,83 even a person separated from them [who entered] another courtyard after they left their original place - should he be covered by an avalanche, we should remove [the debris] from him.
כא
נעקרו כולן מחצר זו לילך לחצר אחרת ובעת עקירתם פירש אחד מהן ונכנס לחצר אחרת ונפלה עליו מפולת ואין ידוע מי הוא אין מפקחין עליו. שכיון שנעקרו כולם אין כאן ישראל וכל הפורש מהן כשהן מהלכין הרי הוא בחזקת שפירש מן הרוב. לפיכך אם היה הרוב ישראל אע"פ שנעקרו כולם ופירש אחד מהם לחצר אחרת ונפלה עליו מפולת מפקחין:
22
A person who is traveling in the desert and does not know which day is the Sabbath should count84 six days and consider the seventh day as holy. He should recite the blessing of the day [Kiddush] and recite Havdalah at the conclusion of this "Sabbath" day.85
Every day, even on the day on which he recites Kiddush and after which he recites Havdalah, he is allowed86 to earn87 only enough for his livelihood, so that he will not die. It is forbidden for him to earn more than his livelihood, for there is a possibility that every day is the Sabbath.
If the person knows that the day is the eighth day or the fifteenth day after his departure, he is allowed to work on that day, for it is certain that he did not depart on the Sabbath.88 On the other days, he is allowed to earn merely his livelihood.
כב
המהלך במדבר ולא ידע מתי הוא יום שבת מונה מיום שטעה ששה ומקדש שביעי ומברך בו ברכות היום ומבדיל במוצאי שבת. ובכל יום ויום ואפילו ביום זה שהוא מקדש ומבדיל בו מותר לו לעשות כדי פרנסתו בלבד כדי שלא ימות. ואסור לו לעשות יותר על פרנסתו שכל יום ויום ספק שבת הוא. ואם ידע שהוא שמיני ליציאתו או חמשה עשר ליציאתו וכיוצא בזה המנין הרי זה מותר לעשות מלאכה באותו היום שהרי הדבר ודאי שלא יצא בשיירא בשבת. ושאר הימים חוץ מיום זה עושה כדי פרנסה בלבד:
23
[The following rules apply] when gentiles lay siege to Jewish cities:89 If their intent was financial gain, the Sabbath laws should not be violated because of them, nor are we allowed to wage war against them.90 If a city is located near the border, however, we should march against them with weapons and wage war against them even when they are demanding hay or straw.91
In any location, if the gentiles' intent was Jewish lives, or if they engaged in battle with a city or laid siege to it without stating a specific intention,92 we must wage war against them, and the Sabbath laws should be violated because of them. It is a mitzvah93 for every member of the Jewish people who can come [to their assistance] to go out and aid their brethren who are under siege and save them from the gentiles [although it is the] Sabbath. It is forbidden to wait until Saturday night.
After they have saved their brethren, they may return home with their weapons on the Sabbath, so that a dangerous situation will not be created in the future.94
כג
עובדי כוכבים ומזלות שצרו על עיירות ישראל אם באו על עסקי ממון אין מחללין עליהן את השבת ואין עושין עמהן מלחמה. ובעיר הסמוכה לספר אפי' לא באו אלא על עסקי תבן וקש יוצאין עליהן בכלי זיין ומחללין עליהן את השבת. ובכל מקום אם באו על עסקי נפשות או שערכו מלחמה או שצרו סתם יוצאין עליהן בכלי זיין ומחללין עליהן את השבת. ומצוה על כל ישראל שיכולין לבוא ולצאת ולעזור לאחיהם שבמצור ולהצילם מיד העובדי כוכבים ומזלות בשבת. ואסור להן להתמהמה למוצאי שבת. וכשיצילו את אחיהן מותר להן לחזור בכלי זיין שלהן למקומם בשבת כדי שלא להכשילן לעתיד לבוא:
24
Similarly, if a ship is sinking at sea95 or a city is surrounded by a [flooding] river, it is a mitzvah to go out on the Sabbath and use every possible means to save them.
Even when a single individual is being pursued by gentiles, by a snake, or by a bear with the intent to kill him, it is a mitzvah to save him, even when it is necessary to perform several forbidden labors on the Sabbath. It is even permitted to forge weapons to save him. Similarly, we should cry out [to God] on their behalf, make supplications,96 and sound the trumpets97 to summon help for them.98
We should not cry out [to God] or make supplications because of plague99 on the Sabbath.
כד
וכן ספינה המטורפת בים או עיר שהקיפה כרקום או נהר מצוה לצאת בשבת להצילן בכל דבר שיכול להצילן. ואפילו יחיד הנרדף מפני העובדי כוכבים ומזלות או מפני נחש או דוב שהוא רודף אחריו להרגו מצוה להצילו. ואפילו בעשיית כמה מלאכות בשבת ואפילו לתקן כלי זיין להצילו מותר. וזועקים עליהן ומתחננים בשבת ומתריעין עליהן לעזור אותם. ואין מתחננים ולא זועקין על הדבר בשבת:
25
We should lay siege to gentile cities [at least] three days before the Sabbath.100 We may wage war with them on any day, even on the Sabbath, until we conquer [the city], even if the war is voluntary in nature.101 The oral tradition,102 interprets [Deuteronomy 20:20] "until you have subjugated it," as teaching that [one should wage war] even on the Sabbath.
Surely, the above applies103 with regard to a war that we are obligated to wage. Indeed, it was on the Sabbath that Joshua conquered Jericho.104
144
כה
צרין על עיירות העובדי כוכבים ומזלות שלשה ימים קודם לשבת. ועושין עמהן מלחמה בכל יום ויום ואפילו בשבת עד שכובשין אותה ואע"פ שהיא מלחמת הרשות. מפי השמועה למדו עד רדתה ואפילו בשבת ואין צריך לומר במלחמת מצוה. ולא כבש יהושע יריחו אלא בשבת
FOOTNOTES
1.
The Rambam uses the expression דחויה, which, as evident from Pesachim 77a and Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:15, implies that although a prohibition is not enforced, it has not been lifted entirely. In contrast, the term הותרה would imply that no trace of the prohibition remains.
The Kessef Mishneh and other authorities question the implications and the appropriateness of the Rambam's choice of terms. [In a responsum (Vol. 1, 689), the Rashba illustrates the difference between these terms. A person was in need of meat on the Sabbath and there was non-kosher meat available. If the Sabbath laws are דחויה, it would be proper to eat the non-kosher meat. If the Sabbath laws are הותרה, it would be preferable to slaughter a kosher animal on the sick person's behalf. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 328:14) states that, in such a situation, one should slaughter a kosher animal, implying that the laws are הותרה. (Note, however, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 328:16 and the Mishnah Berurah 328:39.)]
See the Avnei Nezer, Orach Chayim, Responsa 455, which explains the concept of הותרה as meaning that, with regard to this person, it is as if the laws of the Sabbath were never commanded. (See also Chiddushim UVeurim BaShas, Vol. 3, which explains that although the Rambam stated that a threat to Jewish life overrides the observance of all the mitzvot of the Torah in Hilchot Yesodei Torah, Chapter 5, he emphasizes this concept with regard to the Sabbath laws for the following reason. The other prohibitions are דחויה in the face of a threat to life, while the Sabbath laws are הותרה.
2.
Yoma 85b uses the expression, "Violate one Sabbath on his behalf, so that he will be able to observe many Sabbaths [in the future]." This expression, however, is not halachically exact. Even when one knows that the person will not live to observe many other Sabbaths, as long as he is alive we are obligated to violate the Sabbath laws on his behalf. See Halachah 18.
3.
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 328:10), which cites an opinion that states that we may rely on the evaluation of experienced God-fearing individuals, even if they are not physicians.
4.
Rav Kapach explains that, with this expression, the Rambam implies that we may rely on a local physician and need not seek the advice of a greater expert who lives further away.
5.
See Hilchot Sh'vitat Asor 2:8, which gives further details regarding a difference of opinion between physicians.
6.
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 328:13 states that this applies even if there is no danger that the person will die immediately. Since there is a danger that he may die later if the treatment is not administered at this time, the Sabbath laws may be violated.
7.
Note that the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 2:5, specifies that the leniency to extinguish a lamp is granted only when it is impossible to move it - or, alternatively, the sick person - to another place or veil the lamp's light.
8.
There is a question among the Rabbis if this statement is to be interpreted literally or not. As mentioned in the commentary on the previous halachah, there is a difference of opinion if the Sabbath laws are דחויה or הותרה in the face of a danger to life. According to the opinion that they are merely דחויה, an attempt should be made to minimize the violation of the Sabbath laws if doing so does not constitute a threat to the person's life. (See Tzafenat Paneach, Shulchan Aruch HaRav, ibid. and the Mishnah Berurah 328:14.)
9.
Gentiles are not obligated to observe the Sabbath, and thus having them administer the treatment would not involve the violation of a Torah commandment. Nevertheless, they should not be entrusted with the care of the sick for the reason stated by the Rambam.
10.
Since they are below the age of Bar or Bat Mitzvah, according to the Torah itself the observance of the mitzvot is not incumbent upon them, and only a Rabbinic prohibition is involved.
11.
Although women and servants are obligated to observe the Sabbath laws, since in many areas of Torah and mitzvot, their obligations are less than men, having them violate the Sabbath laws in this instance could cause the Sabbath to be regarded flippantly, as explained in the next note.
12.
The Rambam's choice of wording, based on Yoma 84b, has raised several questions among the commentaries. The most literal interpretation is given by the Merkevat HaMishneh, who explains that when people see that the Sabbath laws are violated by the gentiles for Jews or by women or children, they may get the impression that the observance of these laws is not very crucial, and leniencies may be taken on other occasions - even when there is no valid reason. If, however, it is Torah Sages who violate the laws, the common people will realize that it is only the seriousness of the situation that allowed for this leniency.
Among the other interpretations given why the laws should not be violated by women and children, is that this might cause them to violate the Sabbath laws in the future (Kessef Mishneh).
Significantly, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 328:12) explains that the reason the treatment should not be administered by gentiles is the possibility for delay. Accordingly, if there is no delay involved and one can be sure that the same quality of treatment will be given, it is preferable that the treatment be administered by gentiles.
The commentaries explain that the difference between his opinion and that of the Rambam (quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.) depends on the question discussed above: Are the Sabbath laws הותרה or merely דחויה in the face of a danger to life.
[See also Chiddushim UVeurim BaShas, Vol. 3, which states that the Rambam's wording here indicates that he sees the violation of the Sabbath laws in such situations as an expression of reverence and regard for the Sabbath.]
13.
This also is based on the Rambam's interpretation of Yoma, ibid. Others (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 328:12) understand the phrase גדולי ישראל in that passage as meaning simply "adult males."
14.
The Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma 8:5) states, "A person who [administers treatment] quickly is praiseworthy, and one who raises questions is considered as if he shed blood.
15.
The Rambam is referring to the Sadducees, the Karaites, and others who do not accept the oral tradition.
16.
The Rambam seems to be interpreting the verse as meaning that since these individuals purposefully misinterpret the Torah, God causes their misinterpretations to be cruel and harsh so that they will not live and spread such an approach.
17.
Significantly, the Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah state קדח, "piercing pain" (the commentary of Rabbenu Chanan'el on Avodah Zarah 28b), rather than קדחת, "fever."
18.
Avodah Zarah, loc. cit., explains that there is a connection between the eyes and the heart, and such a person is therefore considered to be dangerously ill.
19.
From the wording of the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 328:9), it appears that once an eye ailment is nearly healed, we may not violate the Sabbath laws to treat it. See also Hilchot Milah 16.
20.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 328:3) states that this can also apply to an infection. Disquiet and pain are not, however, considered sufficient cause to violate the Sabbath laws.
21.
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) substitutes "teeth" for "lips," and explains that a toothache can also be considered cause to violate the Sabbath laws. The Ramah and subsequent commentaries, however, qualify this statement, explaining which types of toothaches can be treated by Jews and which can be treated only by gentiles. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 328:3 and Mishneh Berurah 328:8.)
22.
The Maggid Mishneh cites the Ramban as explaining that this applies only when we are unsure if the wound is dangerous or not. In such a situation, we are not required to wait for a physician's assessment and may treat the wound immediately. If, however, we know - or a physician says - that a wound is not dangerous, a Jew may not violate the Sabbath laws to treat it. It may, however, be treated by a gentile. This ruling is also quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.:4).
23.
This phrase is based on the Rambam's interpretation of Avodah Zarah 28a and refers to an extremely high fever. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.:7) appears to interpret it as referring to a type of malaria that causes fever and chills simultaneously.
24.
From the statements of the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.:5), it would appear that if the sick person himself says that the Sabbath laws should be violated on his behalf, his word should be heeded.
25.
See Yoma 10:4 and the Rambam's commentary on that mishnah.
26.
Either they brought the figs from the public domain or picked them from the tree. Both of these activities involve the performance of labors forbidden on the Sabbath.
27.
This situation refers to an instance where none of the ten know of the others' activities. Alternatively, each one thought that he would be able to bring the fig before the other person (Mishnah Berurah 328:42).
28.
I.e., they need not bring a sin offering, nor do their actions cause them any spiritual blemishes. Indeed, to quote the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 328:15), "all of them receive a bountiful reward from God" for their actions. 29. If, however, there are two figs on a single stem, it would be preferable to pick them so as not to bring any additional figs (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 328:16). (See also Halachah 9.)
29.
30.
The Ramah (Orach Chayim, loc. cit.) emphasizes that if there is any danger of delay or difficulty, the threat to a Jew's life overrides all these considerations.
31.
On Saturday night, however, a healthy person may eat from the remainder. Moreover, there is no need for him to wait the amount of time necessary to cook the food [(כדי שיעשו) Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, 318:2, and commentaries].
32.
The meat need not be salted to remove the blood. Although this is generally done as a preparation for the cooking process, it is necessary only because blood will move from place to place within the meat during cooking. There is no prohibition against eating raw meat even though it has not been salted (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 67:1-2).
The Kiryat Melech Rav notes that this explanation is appropriate according to the interpretation of the Tosafot (Chulin 14a). The Rambam (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 6:12), however, requires even uncooked meat to be salted before one partakes of it. Several different explanations are offered for this difficulty. See Chapter 11, Halachah 5.
33.
For this leniency to be granted, the Ra'avad requires that the sick person have been ill before the commencement of the Sabbath, and his attendants to have thought of slaughtering the animal for him at that time. Otherwise, the animal is considered muktzeh. Although the latter prohibition is waived on behalf of the sick person, it is still enforced as regards the healthy individual.
The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 318:2 and Shulchan Aruch Harav ibid 318:5) explain that in this instance, the prohibition of muktzeh does not apply at all.
34.
Slaughtering an animal is a single activity which will provide enough meat for both the sick person and the healthy individual. Allowing the healthy person to eat from the meat will not cause any increase in the violation of the Sabbath laws.
35.
This refers to ailments which, although not threatening to a person's life, are after all serious, and cause him to be confined to bed (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 328:17) or which cause him to feel weakness throughout his entire body (Ramah, loc. cit.). In contrast, if the person merely feels ill or has a minor ailment in a particular limb, there is a Rabbinic prohibition against taking medication even when the performance of forbidden labors is not involved. (See Chapter 21, Halachah 31.)
36.
As is explained in Chapter 6, the Rabbis forbade a Jew to tell a gentile to perform work on his behalf on the Sabbath. This prohibition is, however, relaxed because of the sick person's condition.
37.
The Hebrew word כוחל refers to the application of powder or eye-paint to the area around the eyes. Although certain Talmudic passages appear to indicate that this was merely a cosmetic practice, in certain instances it had medical value. The leniency to treat the eyes is granted, because, as explained in the notes on Halachah 4, there is a connection between the eyes and the heart.
38.
There is a question regarding activities in which a Rabbinic prohibition must be transgressed. Although asking a gentile to perform a forbidden labor is also prohibited by the Rabbis, some commentaries make a distinction between such a prohibition and a prohibition that involves the performance of an activity.
The wording chosen by the Rambam in this halachah and in Chapter 21, Halachah 31, has left room for speculation concerning his ruling on this question. The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam allows the performance of any activity even when there is a Rabbinic prohibition involved. The Kessef Mishneh differs, and explains that according to the Rambam, any activity forbidden by the Rabbis may not be performed despite the fact that a person is bedridden by illness.
The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) does not follow either of the interpretations of the Rambam's view, but instead suggests following the opinion of the Ramban, who permits the performance of any activity forbidden by the Rabbis, provided that it is performed in an abnormal manner. Furthermore, if there is a danger to a specific limb, the Rabbinic prohibitions are waived, and such activities may be performed in the normal manner. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 328:19 is even more lenient and allows one to perform activities that are forbidden by the Torah itself, provided one performs them in an uncharacteristic manner.
39.
There are times when the cartilage around the heart becomes compressed against the body and it must be lifted up in order to facilitate breathing (Avodah Zarah 29a).
40.
Our translation is based on the description of the techniques of midwifery used in Talmudic and post-Talmudic times. Others translate the term as a woman being bent over with labor pains. Compare to Halachah 13, which mentions the possibility of performing forbidden labors on a woman's behalf from the time "when there is a show of blood." See Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 330:3), which mentions both these terms and also refers to the condition when a woman is overcome by labor pains to the point where she must be carried by her friends. Any one of these three conditions constitutes a danger to life for which the Sabbath laws may be broken.
41.
The Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 18:3) states that this leniency applies even when she lives beyond the Sabbath limits (see Chapter 27). Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 330:3 and the Mishnah Berurah 330:9, which state that a mid-wife may be called in the preliminary stages of labor.
42.
She feels more secure knowing that she will be cared for properly in the light than if she were cared for in the dark (Tosafot, Shabbat 128b).
43.
These rulings are based on Shabbat, ibid. In his commentary on that text, the Ramban explains that this principle applies regarding all instances when the Sabbath laws are violated because of a danger to life. If it is possible to reduce the extent to which they are violated, one should do so.
The Maggid Mishneh postulates that the Rambam would not require such stringencies at all times. Were that the case, the Rambam would have stated this principle earlier. Instead, this is a specific ruling applicable with regard to a woman in childbirth. Greater stringency is applied in this instance, because although there is a threat to the woman's life, the probability of a woman's actually dying is very low. (It can be explained that the difference of opinion between the Ramban and the Maggid Mishneh revolves around the question whether the Sabbath laws are דחויה or הותרה in the face of a danger to life, as explained in the notes on Halachot 1 and 2.)
44.
Note Sefer HaChasidim, which states that it is preferable that a woman prepare everything necessary for childbirth from the ninth month onward, so that if she gives birth on the Sabbath, only a minimal amount of forbidden labor will have to be performed.
45.
The term "idolatress" is used here to refer to a gentile who actually worships idols. In contrast, the term ger toshav refers to a gentile who accepts the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants. (See Hilchot Melachim 9:1-2 and Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:6.)
In Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:2, the Rambam writes that it is forbidden to offer medical treatment to an idolater even for a fee. Accordingly, this halachah extends that principle to include a woman in childbirth. The question is raised, however, concerning the majority of the gentiles in the present age. Although the Rambam considers Christianity as idol worship, many authorities do not. According to the latter opinions, although these gentiles are not idolaters, they have not gone through the formal process of acceptance of the seven laws commanded to Noach and cannot therefore be considered as gerim toshavim.
Many authorities (see the commentary on the Moznaim edition of Hilchot Avodat Kochavim) maintain that it is permitted to treat such people during the week. On the Sabbath, however, one may not perform forbidden labors on their behalf. (See the Mishnah Berurah 330:8, which speaks very critically about physicians who violate the Sabbath laws on behalf of gentiles.) According to these authorities, one would be allowed to treat these gentiles on the Sabbath provided that there was not any forbidden labor involved. Note, however, Rav Kapach, who quotes Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah that state "gentile" instead of "idolatress."
46.
According to the generally accepted interpretation of Avodah Zarah 26b, the intent is that the non-Jews will understand that the Sabbath is a sacred day for the Jews. Even when they see that the Sabbath laws are violated for the sake of saving a Jew's life, they will accept the rationalization that the Sabbath laws may be violated only on behalf of an individual who observes the Sabbath.
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 330:2 and the Mishnah Berurah 330:8 mention that if a physician fears that ill-feeling will be generated by his refusal to care for gentiles, he may deliver their babies, provided that he does not perform labors that are forbidden by the Torah itself.
47.
Based on Leviticus 25:35, Avodah Zarah 65a states that the Jews are required to maintain the well-being of such gentiles and, if necessary, the Jews should support the gentiles from their charitable funds.
48.
The Rambam chooses the more lenient of the opinions mentioned in Shabbat 129a, for a woman can begin bleeding well before she gives birth.
49.
Although the Lechem Mishneh states that the counting of the three days should begin from the time the uterus opens, the consensus of halachic opinion is that the three days start from birth. (See the Be'ur Halachah 330.)
50.
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 330:4 and the Mishnah Berurah 330:12 explain that this refers to activities that a woman's friends will customarily perform on her behalf after she gives birth. A doctor need not be consulted about these matters. Nevertheless, if a doctor says that these activities are unnecessary, they should not be performed.
51.
From the Rambam's wording (and indeed, this is the ruling of Shulchan Aruch HaRav 330:5 and the Mishnah Berurah 330:14), it appears that the woman is still considered to be dangerously ill. Hence, unless she protests to the contrary, it is assumed that this treatment is necessary.
52.
Shulchan Aruch HaRav and the Mishnah Berurah, loc. cit., state that the woman's word is accepted even against the opinions of many doctors.
53.
According to the halachic authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 330:5 and the Mishnah Berurah 330:21), there is one exception. A fire may be kindled for a woman within thirty days after she has given birth. See the notes on the following halachah.
54.
Preferably, the fire should be kindled by a gentile. If, however, there is no gentile available, the fire may be kindled by a Jew (Mishnah Berurah 330:21).
55.
The Maggid Mishneh states that it appears to him that the Rambam (and Shabbat 129b, upon which this halachah is based) is speaking about a woman who gave birth less than a week previously. Although weight is given to this view (see Be'ur Halachah 330), the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 330:6) states that it refers to a woman within a month of childbirth.
56.
The commentaries question whether this refers to a person who is dangerously ill or to a person who is merely seriously ill, but in no danger of dying. According to the latter view, a fire may be kindled on behalf of someone who is dangerously ill.
57.
Sefer HaKovetz states that cutting the umbilical cord involves the violation of a forbidden labor and is permitted only because of the danger involved. Most authorities, however, maintain that only a Rabbinic prohibition is involved.
58.
As mentioned above, most authorities maintain that only a Rabbinic prohibition may be waived on behalf of a new-born. Thus, this is interpreted as referring to water that was heated on the Sabbath by a gentile.
59.
מלח is usually rendered as "salt." Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 18:3. (See also Mishnah Berurah 330:24.)
60.
This is useful in straightening the child's limbs.
61.
See Hilchot Milah 2:8. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 331:9) writes that although in Talmudic times, washing a baby at this time was considered as a matter of vital importance, it is no longer common practice. The Ramah (loc. cit.) explains that it is customary to wash the baby before the circumcision with water that was heated on Friday, and to wash him after the circumcision on Saturday night.
62.
There is greater discomfort on the third day after the circumcision, as explained by the commentaries on Genesis 18:1 and 34:25.
63.
At present, the Ramah (loc. cit.) states that if it appears necessary, the baby may be washed with water that was heated before the Sabbath. Needless to say, in all situations, should a doctor state that such a washing is necessary, his advice should be followed.
64.
The Ramah (Orach Chayim 330:5) states that it is no longer customary to follow this practice even during the week. We wait a considerable time after the woman loses consciousness, because we are afraid that she did not die, but merely fainted. Hence, by the time we are certain that she has died, we can assume that the fetus is also no longer alive.
Needless to say, at present, when our improved technology makes it possible to monitor the physical functioning of both the mother and the fetus, the physicians should decide on the basis of the information before them. Regardless of the practical application of this ruling today, the principles on which it is based are significant and should be applied in other circumstances.
65.
Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 330:7, which adds that this ruling is granted despite the fact that the fetus will normally die in such a situation. Although probability (רוב in Hebrew) is a significant factor in halachah, the possibility of saving a life overweighs it.
66.
Generally, a living person can be assumed to continue to live (chezkat chayim) until we are certain that he has died. Although such a presumption cannot be made with regard to this fetus, permission is, nevertheless, granted for the Sabbath laws to be violated on its behalf.
67.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 328:13) rephrases the concepts stated in this halachah slightly, connecting the praise given a person for being zealous in saving a life with the situation concerning catching fish described afterwards. According to the Shulchan Aruch, this situation teaches us that a person is considered praiseworthy for saving a life on the Sabbath even if he accrues personal benefit through his actions - for example, in the case at hand, in addition to saving a life, the person also receives a catch of fish.
68.
The Rambam adds the term "absolutely" to indicate that it is desirable to spread out and raise one's nets to try to save the child (Lechem Mishneh). Significantly, the Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 13:6, states that the person is not held liable even if he intended to catch the fish together with the child.
69.
The Or Sameach writes that he is given "stripes for rebelliousness" (the punishment usually given for the violation of a Rabbinic ordinance), since he intended to perform a forbidden activity. See a parallel ruling, Hilchot Nedarim 12:18.
Significantly, when mentioning this instance in Hilchot Shegagot 2:15, the Rambam states that the person acted בשוגג when catching the fish - i.e., he was unaware that it was the Sabbath or was unaware that it is forbidden to fish on the Sabbath.
70.
This reflects the Rambam's decision regarding a difference of opinion between the Sages in Menachot 64a. One opinion holds the person liable for it considers his intent of primary importance, while the other frees him of liability for it views his actions as most significant.
71.
These instances are cited by Yoma 84b as a continuation of the development of the concept mentioned in the previous halachah, that one may perform an activity to save someone else's life, although in the process of doing so, one derives benefit. The Talmud explains why it is necessary to mention all these different instances.
72.
The Lechem Mishneh notes that the Rambam alters the text of the Talmud slightly to imply that the person breaking down the door did not do so with the intent of using the wood. Rav Kapach differs, noting that, as mentioned in the commentary on the previous halachah, the Rambam absolves the person of liability even when he has an intent to benefit from his actions. (See also the notes of Rabbi Akiva Eiger.)
73.
Yoma, ibid., explains that this leniency is granted even when the fire breaks out in a courtyard other than that in which the person was located. If the fire appears to pose a danger to his life, it may be extinguished.
74.
I.e., a person was seen in the vicinity of the avalanche and we are unsure whether or not he was able to escape or not.
75.
The Maggid Mishneh mentions that this leniency is granted even when there are several doubts involved: Perhaps the person was not trapped under the avalanche. Even if he was trapped, perhaps he is no longer alive and the performance of the labor of clearing will be to no avail.
76.
This communicates a fundamental concept in Torah law: Even a fleeting moment of a Jew's life is precious enough for all possible efforts to be performed to save him even if it is necessary to violate Torah law.
77.
Although we are commanded to show respect for a corpse and not to leave it exposed, we are not allowed to violate the Sabbath laws for such a purpose. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Yoma 8:5.)
78.
Based on Genesis 7:22, "all that has the breath of the spirit of life," Yoma 88b states that whether a person is breathing or not is the determining factor of whether he is considered alive or not. Significantly, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 329:3 and the Mishnah Berurah 329:11 rule that even if we see that his heart is not beating, he is not considered dead until we are certain that he is not breathing.
The conception of breath as the determinant of life is significant in the present age, when it is possible that a person will continue to breathe despite brain death. The question of whether such a person is considered alive has been raised today within the context of many contemporary medical issues. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe, Yoreh De'ah, Vol. II, Responsum 174) and other authorities of the present age have ruled that breath is still the fundamental determinant whether or not a person is alive.
79.
This halachah is based on the following principles:
a) As mentioned in Halachah 12, we may not violate the Sabbath laws to save a gentile's life.
b) כל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה - "Whenever there is a doubt concerning the identity of objects in a fixed position, we consider the probability as 50%." Since there is at least one Jew in this courtyard, until his body is located, it is considered as if there is a 50% probability that every body found is the Jew. (See also Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 8:11.)
80.
Even if several people departed, the same rule would apply, as long as the entire group did not leave its original place. See the following halachah.
81.
The Rambam's decision depends on Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's text of Yoma 84b. There the Talmud explains that although in general we follow the principle, כל דפריש מרובא פריש - "Whenever an entity separates itself from a group, we assume that it was part of the majority" - in this instance, since the matter involves a possible threat to a Jewish life, this principle is given a slightly different interpretation. Since the group remains in its place, its fixed nature (קביעות) is not disrupted.
It must be emphasized that the Ra'avad, Rashi, and the Ramban have a different approach to the passage in Yoma. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 329:2) follows the opinion quoted by the Rambam.
82.
Again this ruling depends on Rav Yitzchak Alfasi's interpretation of Yoma 84b. Other authorities differ, as mentioned above.
83.
This implies that if a person of unknown origin is found buried under a landslide in a place whose population is primarily gentile, we are not allowed to remove the debris from him. (See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 15:26.) This is a matter of question on which there is a responsum attributed to the Rambam (although its origins are disputed). (See also Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 4:34, which quotes the Rambam's opinion, and the Ramah, loc. cit., who allows the debris to be removed.)
84.
He should start counting the six days immediately on the day on which he realizes that he has lost touch with the weekly calendar.
85.
Similarly, in his daily prayers, he should recite the prayers of the Sabbath on that day. The recitation of these prayers was instituted so that the person should not lose consciousness of the observance of the Sabbath entirely.
86.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 344:1) states that as long as the person has means, he is not allowed to work at all. Permission to work is granted only when it is a life and death matter. This explains why this halachah is included in this chapter.
87.
The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) emphasize that although there is a prohibition against walking beyond the Sabbath limits, it is not as serious as the prohibition against forbidden labors. Hence, it is waived in order to allow this person the opportunity to reach a settled area and observe the Sabbath in a proper manner.
88.
If he earns enough on that day to support himself for several days, he must cease work until his means are exhausted (Mishnah Berurah 344:11).
89.
Although these laws surely apply to Jewish communities in Eretz Yisrael, these same laws are also relevant to Jewish communities in the diaspora.
90.
Since their intent is only financial, the Sabbath laws may not be violated for this reason. Note, however, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 329:7 and the Mishnah Berurah 329:17, which state that at present, even when gentiles initially come only for pillage and plunder, since they have no compunctions about killing Jews, particularly if one will defend his property, any gentile raid on a Jewish community is considered a question of life and death warranting the violation of the Sabbath laws.
91.
The rationale is that if a border city is conquered, the enemies will have a vantage point from which to conquer the entire land. This concept has relevance beyond the Sabbath laws. For example, the Lubavitcher Rebbe Shelita has explained that these principles are relevant to the territorial disputes between Jews and gentiles in Eretz Yisrael today. Returning any territory to the Arabs would jeopardize the safety of the entire land.
92.
War must be waged against them because it is possible that their intent is to kill. Hence, we follow the principle that the Sabbath laws may be violated even where there is merely a question of a threat to life.
93.
I.e., an obligation. See Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat HaNefesh 1:14, which describes the mitzvah (Leviticus 19:16): "Do not stand by idly while your neighbor's life is in danger."
It is told that in the Maccabean revolt, the Greeks once attacked the Jews on the Sabbath. The people, unaware of this law, refused to take up arms in defense and thousands died. Afterwards, the Rabbis publicized this ruling.
94.
Eruvin 45a relates that originally it was forbidden for the people to return with their weapons, and they would leave them in a home within the city's wall. Once the enemy forces saw that the Jews were returning unarmed and attacked them. More Jews were killed in the confused scramble for their weapons than by the enemy attack. After this event, the Sages allowed those who come to assist a besieged city to return with their weapons.
95.
Rabbi Akiva Eiger states that this applies only when one knows that there are Jews on the ship. If we do not have such information, it would appear that we should assume that the passengers of the ship are gentiles and should not endeavor to save their lives.
96.
Hilchot Ta'aniot 1:1 states that it is a mitzvah to cry out to God for assistance in the event of any distressing situation that affects a Jewish community. On the Sabbath, however, it is only proper to make such requests when there is an immediate threat to human life. Just as such requests are made on behalf of a community, they should also be made on behalf of a single individual whose life is threatened (Hilchot Ta'aniot 1:6, Hilchot Shabbat 30:12).
97.
Hilchot Ta'aniot 1:1 states that, as part of the mitzvah of entreating God's mercy, trumpets should be sounded. Nevertheless, trumpets should be not be sounded for this purpose on the Sabbath, since sounding the trumpets violates a Rabbinic prohibition (Hilchot Shofar 2:7). Here, however, the intent in sounding the trumpets is to alert the Jews in the surrounding area and to summon them. The prohibition is waived for this purpose. (See Hilchot Ta'aniot 1:6.)
98.
Just as one may violate the Sabbath laws to save a Jew's life, one may violate the Sabbath laws to save a Jew who is being forced to adopt a gentile way of life (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 306:29 and the Mishnah Berurah 306:57).
99.
See Ta'anit 22b.
100.
In Chapter 30, Halachah 13, the Rambam states that this requirement was instituted "so that the soldiers' minds will be settled and they will not be overly preoccupied on the Sabbath." Although the war will require violation of the Sabbath laws, efforts should be made to minimize the tension and anxiety experienced by the soldiers to the greatest degree possible.
See Hilchot Melachim 6:11 which states that we can lay siege to gentile cities "on the Sabbath." The Kessef Mishneh notes the contradiction and suggests amending the text of Hilchot Melachim in light of our halachah. The Lechem Mishneh, however, explains that this clause of our halachah speaks of a milchemet reshut, a war which we are not obligated to wage, while Hilchot Melachim speaks of a milchemet mitzvah, a war which we are obligated to wage.
101.
Hilchot Melachim describes a voluntary war, a milchemet reshut, as a war fought "to expand the borders of Israel or magnify [the king's] greatness and reputation." In contrast, a war that is obligatory in nature, a milchemet mitzvah, refers to "the war against the seven nations [who occupied Eretz Yisrael], the war against Amalek, and [a war] fought to assist Israel against an enemy which attacks her."
102.
Sifre on Deuteronomy (loc. cit.), Shabbat 19a.
103.
According to the Kessef Mishneh's (Hilchot Melachim 6:11), this refers to the leniency of waging war on the Sabbath. The restriction of laying siege to a city three days before the Sabbath, in contrast, applies only with regard to voluntary wars. In an obligatory war, we may lay siege to a city even on the Sabbath itself.
104.
Rav Kapach notes that the citation of a historical event as proof of a law is extremely out of character for the Rambam in the Mishneh Torah. He explains that the Rambam's statements are directed against statements of Rav Sa'adiah Gaon, who writes that Jericho did not fall on the Sabbath.
It is possible to explain the Rambam's statements from another perspective. Joshua was instructed concerning the conquest of Jericho by Divine command. Indeed, according to human reason, there was no reason why Jericho should have been conquered on the Sabbath. Hence, the fact that God delivered such a command is a clear directive that one may begin a milchemet mitzvah on the Sabbath.
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters A Day: Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 4, Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 5, Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 6
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassNedarim - Chapter 4
1
Vows taken because of coercion,1 vows taken unintentionally,2 and vows involving exaggerations are permitted,3 as we explained with regard to oaths.4
If men of coercion or customs collectors made him take a vow, saying: "Take a vow to us that meat is forbidden to you if you possess something on which customs duty is due," should he take a vow and say: "Bread, meat, and wine are forbidden to me...", he is permitted [to partake of] all of them5 even though he added to what they asked him [to say].6 Similarly, if they asked him to take a vow [on the condition] that his wife not benefit and he took a vow [on the condition] that his wife, his children, and his brothers not benefit from him, they are all permitted. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
א
נדרי אונסין ונדרי שגגות ונדרי הבאי הרי אלו מותרים כדרך שבארנו בשבועות הרי שהדירוהו האנסין והמוכסין ואמרו לו נדור לנו שהבשר אסור עליך אם יש עמך דבר שחייב במכס ונדר ואמר הרי הפת והבשר והיין אסורין עלי הרי זה מותר בכל ואע"פשהוסיף על מה שבקשו ממנו וכן אם בקשו ממנו שידור שלא תהנה אשתו לו ונדר שלא תהנה לו אשתו ובניו ואחיו כולן מותרין וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
2
In all vows of this type, he must have the intent at heart for something that is permitted,7 for example, that they be forbidden for him for that day alone or for that hour alone or the like. He may rely on the intent in his heart, since he is being compelled by forces beyond his control.8 Thus at the time he is taking the vow for them, his mouth and his heart are not in concord. [This is required,] as we explained with regard to vows.9
ב
ובכל הנדרים האלו צריך שיתכוין בלבו לדבר המותר כגון שישים בלבו שיהיו אסורין עליו אותו היום בלבד או אותה שעה וכן כיוצא בזה וסומך על דברים שבלבו הואיל והוא אנוס ואינו יכול להוציא בשפתיו ונמצא בשעה שידור להן אין פיו ולבו שוין כמו שבארנו בשבועות:
3
Similarly, vows of encouragement are permitted.10 What does this imply? One administered a vow to a colleague to eat at his [home] and that colleague took a vow not to eat there, because he did not want to trouble him. Whether he eat or did not eat, they are both exempt.
Similarly, if a merchant took a vow that he would not sell an article for less than a sela and a purchaser took a vow that he would not buy it for more than a shekel,11 if they agree on three dinarim,12 they are both exempt.13 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. [The rationale is that] neither of them made a definite conclusion in his heart. He took the vow only to encourage his colleague without making a definite conclusion in his heart.14
ג
וכן נדרי זרוזין מותרין כיצד כגון שהדיר חבירו שיאכל אצלו ונדר זה שלא יאכל מפני שאינו רוצה להטריח עליו בין אכל בין לא אכל שניהן פטורין וכן המוכר שנדר שלא ימכור חפץ זה אלא בסלע והלוקח נדר שלא יקחנו אלא בשקל ורצו בשלשה דינרין שניהן פטורין וכן כל כיוצא בזה לפי שכל אחד מהם לא גמר בלבו ולא נדר אלא כדי לזרז את חבירו ולא גמר בלבו:
4
What is the source which teaches that it is forbidden for a person to take even these four types of vows which are permitted with the intent of nullifying them? It is written [Numbers 30:3): "He shall not desecrate his word," i.e., he should not make his word an inconsequential matter.
ד
ומנין שאפילו ארבעה מיני נדרים אלו שהן מותרים שאסור לו לאדם להיות נודר בהן על מנת לבטלן תלמוד לומר לא יחל דברו לא יעשה דבריו חולין:
5
When a person took a vow and then [changed his mind and] regretted his vow, he may approach a sage and ask for its release. The laws pertaining to the release of vows are the same as those applying to the release of oaths.15 A vow can be released only by a distinguished sage or by three ordinary men in a place where there are no sages.16 The same wording is used to release a vow as is used to release an oath.17 Similarly, all of the other concepts that we explained with regard to oaths apply to vows in the same way as they apply to oaths.
ה
מי שנדר וניחם על נדרו הרי זה נשאל לחכם ומתירו ודין היתר נדרים כדין היתר שבועות שאין מתיר אלא חכם מובהק או שלשה הדיוטות במקום שאין חכם ובלשון שמתירין השבועה מתירין הנדר וכן שאר הענינות שפירשנו בשבועות כולן בנדרים כדרך שהן בשבועות:
6
We do not release a vow until it takes effect, as is the law pertaining to an oath.18
ו
ואין מתירין הנדר עד שיחול כשבועה:
7
Just as we may ask for the release of vows involving prohibitions and they are repealed, so, too, may we ask for the release of vows involving consecrated property and they are repealed.19 This applies both to [articles] consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple and [animals] consecrated to [be sacrificed] on the altar. When the holiness of a sacrifice is transferred from one animal to another, that holiness cannot be released.20
ז
וכשם שנשאלים על נדרי האיסר ומתירין אותו כך נשאלים על נדרי הקדש ומתירין אותו בין נדרי קדשי בדק הבית בין קדשי מזבח ואין נשאלין על התמורה:
8
Just as a father or a husband can nullify [a woman's] vows involving prohibitions,21 so, too, they can nullify vows of consecration that resemble vows involving prohibitions.
ח
וכשם שהאב או הבעל מפר נדרי איסר כך מפר נדרי הקדשות הדומין לנדרי האיסר:
9
When a person takes a vow, a colleague hears and says, "And also me," a third person hears and says, "And also me,"22 if the first asks for the release of his vow and it is released, all the others are also released.23
If [the one who agreed to the vow] last asks for a release and it was granted, he alone is released and the others are still bound by the vow.24 If the second person asks for a release and it was granted, he and all those after him are released,25 but the first is still bound by the prohibition.
ט
מי שנדר ושמע חבירו ואמר ואני ושמע שלישי ואמר ואני ונשאל הראשון על נדרו והותר הותרו כולן נשאל האחרון והותר האחרון מותר וכולן אסורין נשאל השני והותר השני ושל אחריו מותרין והראשון אסור:
10
Similar principles apply when one has attached many entities to a single vow, e.g., he took a vow [forbidding] bread and extended it to meat,26 if he asks for release of [the prohibition against] bread and it is granted, the [prohibition against] meat is also released.27 If he asks for release of [the prohibition against] meat and it is granted, the [prohibition against] bread is not released.28
י
וכן המתפיס דברים הרבה בנדר כגון שנדר על הפת והתפיס הבשר ונשאל על הפת והותר בה הותר הבשר נשאל על הבשר והותר בו לא הותר הפת:
11
When a person takes an oath or a vow saying: "I will not benefit from any one of you," if he asks for the release of his vow or oath concerning one of them and the release was granted, they are all released. [The rationale is that] when a vow is released in part, all of its [particulars] are also released.29
When a person says: "I will not benefit from this person, and from this person, and from this person," if [the prohibition against] the first is released, [the prohibitions against] all of them are released.30 If the prohibition against the last is released, that prohibition is released, but the others remain binding. If he said: "I will not benefit from this one; nor from this one; nor from this one," he must ask for a release for each one indidivually.31 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.32
יא
הנשבע או הנודר שאיני נהנה לכולכם ונשאל על נדרו או על שבועתו על אחד מהם והתירו הותרו כלם שהנדר שהותר מכללו הותר כולו אמר שאיני נהנה לזה ולזה ולזה הותר הראשון הותרו כולן הותר אחרון האחרון מותר וכולן אסורין שאיני נהנה לזה לזה לזה צריכין פתח לכל אחד ואחד וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
12
When a person took a nazirite vow, a vow to bring a sacrifice, and an oath [forbidding himself from partaking of something], or he took a vow, but does not know concerning which of these he took the vow, one request for release [can release] all of them.33
יב
נדר בנזיר ובקרבן ובשבועה או שנדר ואין ידוע באי זה מהן נדר פתח אחד לכולן:
13
When a person takes a vow [not to benefit] from the people of a city and he ask for the release of that vow from the sage of that city34 or he took a vow [not to benefit] from the Jewish people and asks for the release of the vow from a Jewish sage,35 the vow is released.
יג
הנודר מאנשי העיר ונשאל לחכם שבעיר או שנדר מישראל והרי הוא נשאל לחכם שבישראל הרי נדרו מותר:
14
If one says: "This produce is forbidden to me today if I go to this-and-this place tomorrow," he is forbidden to partake of them that day. [This is a] decree lest he go that place tomorrow.36 If he transgressed and partook of it that day and then undertook the journey on the morrow, he is liable for lashes.37 If he did not go, he is not liable for lashes.38
יד
האומר פירות אלו אסורין עלי היום אם אלך למחר למקום פלוני הרי זה אסור לאכלם היום גזירה שמא ילך למחר לאותו מקום ואם עבר ואכלן היום והלך למחר לוקה ואם לא הלך אינו לוקה:
15
If one says: "This produce will be forbidden to me tomorrow if I go to this-and-this place today," he is permitted to go that place today and the produce will be forbidden for him tomorrow. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. [The rationale is that] a person is careful about not violating a prohibition,39 but he is not careful in keeping a condition that will cause a permitted entity to become forbidden.40
טו
אמר הרי הן אסורין למחר אם אלך היום למקום פלוני הרי זה מותר לילך היום לאותו המקום ויאסרו עליו אותן הפירות למחר וכן כל כיוצא בזה מפני שאדם זהיר בדבר האסור שלא לעשותו ואינו זהיר בתנאי שגורם לאסור דבר המותר:
16
When a person takes a vow to fast for ten days,41 whenever he desires and he was fasting one day and had [to interrupt the fast] for the sake of a mitzvah42 or to honor a person of stature, he may eat and repay [the fast] on another day. [The rationale is that] he did not specify the days [he would fast] when he took the vow initially.43
If he took a vow that he would fast today, but forgot and ate, he must continue to refrain from eating.44 If he took a vow to fast for a day or two and when he began to fast, forgot and ate, he forfeits his fast and is obligated to fast again.45
טז
הנודר לצום עשרה ימים באי זה יום שירצה והיה מתענה ביום אחד מהם והוצרך לדבר מצוה או מפני כבוד אדם גדול הרי זה אוכל ופורע יום אחר שהרי לא קבע הימים בתחלת הנדר נדר שיצום היום ושכח ואכל משלים לצום נדר שיצום יום אחד או שנים וכשהתחיל לצום שכח ואכל אבד תעניתו וחייב לצום יום אחר:
FOOTNOTES
1.
As explained immediately below.
2.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 3.
3.
Note, however, Halachah 4.
4.
Hilchot Sh'vuot 3:1, 5.
5.
Even though he possessed items for which customs duty was due. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 3:2.
6.
I.e., one might think that since he was not compelled to mention the other substances, the vow would take effect with regard to them. Hence, the Rambam explains that since he was compelled to take the vow, his additions do not change its status.
7.
See Hilchot Sh'vuot 3:3.
8.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 232:14) emphasizes that the statement he makes may not be a direct contradiction to the intent in his heart. He also emphasizes that the vow may not be broken in a way that the gentile who forced the vow to be taken will be become aware of its violation. For this would lead to the desecration of God's name.
9.
See Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:12.
10.
The laws of this halachah do not apply with regard to oaths. Since an oath involves the mention of God's name, taking an oath for this purpose would be taking God's name in vain. A vow does not require the mention of God's name. Hence, this is permitted (Radbaz).
11.
I.e., two dinarim which are half a sela.
12.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 232:2) quotes opinions that maintain that each one can fluctuate slightly past the midway point, but may not accept the other's position completely. He also quotes other more lenient views.
13.
For neither definitely meant what he said. Taking the vow was just a bargaining technique. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 232:2) which states that this applies when they continue negotiating after taking the vow. Then it is clear that they were merely bargaining. If, however, they broke off negotiations, the vow is considered binding.
14.
Thus it could be said that his heart and his mouth were not in concord (Radbaz).
15.
See Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:1.
16.
See Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:1.
17.
See Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:4.
18.
See Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:14.
19.
Nevertheless, it is undesirable to do so. One should seek their release only in a pressing situation. See Chapter 13, Halachah 25.
Since ultimately, the person did not desire to make the vow, it is as if the article were consecrated in error. In such an instance, the consecration is not effective (Radbaz, based on Ketubot 78a).
20.
The rationale is that the release of vows is based on the principle that after the person changes his mind and regrets having made the vow, it is as if the vow was made in error. Since the transfer of holiness from a sacrificial animal to another animal is binding even if it is done in error (Temurah 17a), there is no reason why a release is possible after such a transfer has been effected (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh). Nevertheless, if one regrets the original consecration, that can be nullified and then, as a matter of course, the animal to which the holiness was transferred will also lose its status (see Mishneh LeMelech).
21.
See chs. 11-13.
22.
The latter two are bound by the vow taken by the first, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 3.
23.
For the vows of the latter individuals are dependent on the vow of the first. Once the first vow is nullified, they no longer have any basis on which they can stand.
24.
For their vows are not dependent on his.
25.
For his vow serves as the basis for theirs.
26.
See Chapter 3, Halachah 4.
27.
For it is dependent on the prohibition against bread.
28.
For it is not dependent on the prohibition against meat.
29.
I.e., at the outset, his intent was that the oath or vow include all the individuals in the group, once that intent is no longer valid, it is as if the entire vow or oath was taken in error. Hence, it is no longer binding. The Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 1:1) derives this concept from the exegesis of Numbers 30:3: "He should act according to everything that he uttered from his mouth." Since "everything" he uttered from his mouth need not be fulfilled, nothing must be fulfilled. If part of a vow is nullified, the entire vow is nullified.
30.
Since the person said "and" between each one, he made the latter individuals dependent on the first. Nevertheless, in contrast to the first clause, all of the individuals are not considered as being included in the same vow.
31.
Since he did not associate them by saying "and," it is considered as if he took a vow concerning each person individually. See also Hilchot Sh'vuot 7:10.
32.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 6.
33.
They are all considered as one vow. Hence, as in the previous halachah, once a portion of a vow is nullified, the entire vow is nullified. Even if he only has a reason to regret the last portion of the vow, the entire vow is nullified (Radbaz).
34.
As the Rambam states in Chapter 7, Halachah 9, initially, it is forbidden for the person to ask such a sage to release his vow, for in this way, he is benefiting from the people of the city. After the fact, however, the vow is released, because retroactively, it is as if the vow were never taken.
35.
In this instance, he may initially ask a Jewish sage to have his vow released, for he has no alternative. Only a Jewish sage can release a vow. In the previous instance, by contrast, he can ask a sage from another city to release the vow (Radbaz).
36.
And then the vow would take effect retroactively.
37.
As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Sh'vuot 4:16, to be liable for lashes, one must be given a warning. This law indicates that even if the warning was delivered conditionally, the person can be held liable for lashes.
38.
Despite the fact that he violated the advice of our Sages, since he did not violate a Scriptural commandment, he is not liable for lashes.
39.
Hence, we do not fear that he will partake of the produce on the following day.
40.
Therefore, in the previous halachah, he is forbidden to partake of the produce at the outset.
41.
I.e., not consecutively.
42.
I.e., to participate in a feast celebrating the observance of a mitzvah, e.g., a circumcision or the completion of a Talmudic tractate (Mishnah Berurah 568:9).
43.
Since he did not stipulate the day on which he would fast, even though he began fasting on a particular day, he can change his mind and switch the fast to another day.
44.
Since he took a vow against eating that day, the fact that he broke his fast does not make it permissible for him to eat afterwards. This applies even if he is willing to fast another day instead. Compare to Hilchot Ta'aniot 1:14. the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 568:1) quotes the Rambam's ruling. The Rama adds that there are some who accept upon themselves to fast another day to compensate for the fast he did not keep.
45.
Nevertheless, since he did not specify a particular day at the time of his vow, once he ate, he may eat on the day he began fasting.
Nedarim - Chapter 5
1
When Reuven tells Shimon: "I [am forbidden] to you like a dedication offering"1 or "You are forbidden to benefit from me," it is forbidden for Shimon to benefit from Reuven.2 If he transgresses and benefits from him, he is not liable for lashes, because Shimon did not say anything.3 Reuven is permitted to derive benefit from Shimon, because he did not forbid this to himself.
א
ראובן שאמר לשמעון הריני עליך חרם או הרי אתה אסור בהנייתי נאסר על שמעון שיהנה בראובן ואם עבר ונהנה אינו לוקה שהרי לא אמר שמעון כלום ומותר לראובן ליהנות בשמעון שהרי לא אסר עצמו בהנייתו:
2
If he tells Shimon: "You [are forbidden] to me like a dedication offering" or "I am forbidden to benefit from you," Reuven is forbidden to benefit from Shimon. If he derives benefit, he is liable for lashes, because he desecrated his word. Shimon is permitted to benefit from Reuven.
If he tells him: "I [am forbidden] to you like a dedication offering and you are [forbidden] to me" or "I am forbidden to benefit from you and you are forbidden to benefit from me," they are both forbidden to benefit from each other. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
ב
אמר לשמעון הרי אתה עלי חרם או הריני אסור בהנייתך הרי נאסר ראובן מליהנות בשמעון ואם נהנה לוקה שהרי חלל דברו ושמעון מותר בהניית ראובן אמר לו הריני עליך חרם ואתה עלי או הריני אסור בהנייתך ואתה אסור בהנייתי שניהם אסורין זה בזה וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
3
If Reuven tells Shimon: "So-and-so's produce is forbidden to you" or "You are forbidden to benefit from so-and-so," his words are of no consequence. For a person cannot cause his colleague to be prohibited with regard to a matter that is not his unless [that person] responds Amen, as we explained.4
ג
ראובן שאמר לשמעון הרי פירות פלוני אסורין עליך או הרי אתה אסור בהניית פלוני אין זה כלום שאין אדם אוסר חבירו בדבר שאינו שלו אא"כ ענה שמעון אמן כמו שבארנו:
4
When a person tells a colleague: "This loaf [of bread] mine is forbidden to you," it [remains] forbidden to him even if he gives it to him as a present.5 If he dies, and [the other person] inherits it or [it is acquired by a third party] who gives it to him as a present, he is permitted. For [the one taking the vow said] "My loaf," and now it is not his.6
ד
האומר לחבירו ככרי זו אסורה עליך אף על פי שנתנה לו במתנה הרי זו אסורה עליו מת ונפלה לו בירושה או שנתנה לו אחר במתנה הרי זו מותרת שלא אמר לו אלא ככרי והרי אינה עתה שלו:
5
If he tells him: "This produce is forbidden to you," but does not say: "My produce," even if he sold it or died and it became the property of another person,7 it [remains] forbidden to him. For when a person causes his property to be forbidden to a colleague, it remains forbidden unless he says: "my property," "my house," "my produce," or uses another similar term. For in those instances, he only forbade [using] the articles while they were in his possession.8
ה
אמר לו פירות אלו אסורין עליך ולא אמר לו פירותי אע"פשמכרן או שמת ונפלו לאחר הרי אלו אסורין עליו שהאוסר דבר שהוא שלו על חבירו אף על פי שיצא מרשותו הרי הוא באיסורו עומד אלא אם כן אמר נכסי או ביתי או פירותי וכיוצא בלשונות אלו שהרי לא אסרן אלא כל זמן שהן ברשותו:
6
When a person tells his son: "You are forbidden to benefit from me" or he takes and oath that his son is forbidden to benefit from him, when he dies, the son may inherit his property. For this is as if he says: "My property is forbidden to you." If he forbade [the son] from benefiting from him and specified: "During my lifetime and after my death," if he dies, [the son] should not inherit his [estate].9 For this is as if he said: "This property is forbidden to you."
ו
האומר לבנו הרי את אסור בהנייתי או שנשבע שלא יהנה בו אם מת יירשנו שזה כאומר נכסי עליך אסורין אסר עליו הנייתו ופירש בין בחיי בין במותי אם מת לא יירשנו שזה כמי שאמר לו נכסים אלו אסורין עליך:
7
When a person forbids his son from benefiting from him10 and says: "If this son's son will be a Torah scholar,11 this son will acquire this property to transfer it to his son,"12 this is permissible. The son is forbidden [to benefit] from his father's estate and the grandson is permitted to derive such benefit13 if he is a Torah scholar as was stipulated.
ז
אסר בנו בהנייתו ואמר אם יהיה בן בני זה תלמיד חכם יקנה בני זה נכסי כדי להקנותן לבנו הרי זה מותר ויהיה הבן אסור בנכסי האב ובן הבן מותר בהן אם יהיה תלמיד חכם כמו שהתנה:
8
If this son who is forbidden to benefit from his father's estate gives14 [the property] he inherits from his father to his brother or his sons, they are permitted to benefit from them.15 This also applies if he paid a debt with them or paid [the money due] his wife [by virtue of] her ketubah.16He must tell [the recipients] that [the payment they receive] is from the estate of his father which was forbidden to him. [The rationale for this leniency is that] when a person takes an oath that a colleague will not benefit from his property, he may pay that colleague's debt, as will be explained.17
ח
זה הבן האסור בירושת אביו אם נתן ירושת אביו לאחיו או לבניו הרי זה מותר וכן אם פרעם בחובו או בכתובת אשתו וצריך להודיען שאלו נכסי אבי שאסרן עלי שהנשבע שלא יהנה בו חבירו מותר לו לפרוע את חובו כמו שיתבאר:
9
When a person was forbidden - either through a vow or an oath - to partake of a type of food, he is permitted to partake of other types of food that were cooked or mixed together with [the forbidden] food, even though it has [acquired] the flavor of the forbidden food.18 If he was forbidden to partake of specific produce19 and that produce became mixed with others, if they have the flavor of the forbidden food, [the other food] is forbidden. If not,20 it is permitted.
ט
מי שנאסר עליו מין ממיני מאכל בין בנדר בין בשבועה ונתבשל עם מינים אחרים או נתערב עמהן הרי זה מותר במינים המותרים אף על פי שיש בהן טעם המין האסור ואם נאסר בפירות אלו ונתערבו באחרים אם יש בהן טעם דבר האסור אסורין ואם לאו מותרין:
10
What is implied? A person who is forbidden to partake of meat or wine may partake of soup or vegetables that were cooked with meat or wine. [This applies] even if they have the flavor of meat or wine. He is forbidden only to eat meat alone or drink wine alone.
י
כיצד נאסר בבשר או ביין הרי זה מותר לאכול מרק וירקות שנתבשלו עם הבשר ועם היין אע"פ שיש בהן טעם הבשר או טעם היין ואינו אסור אלא באכילת בשר בפני עצמו או לשתות יין בפני עצמו:
11
If, however, he forbade himself [to partake of] "this meat" or "this wine,"21 if the vegetables have the flavor of meat or wine, they are forbidden. If not, they are permitted. For this meat or this wine become considered like the meat of nevelot, teeming animals, or the like. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. Therefore if one says: "This meat is forbidden for me," he is forbidden to partake of it, its sauce, and the spices [cooked] with it.22
יא
נאסר בבשר זה או ביין זה ונתבשל עם הירק אם יש בירקות טעם בשר או טעם היין אסורין ואם לאו מותרין שזה הבשר וזה היין נעשה כמו בשר נבלות ושקצים וכיוצא בהן וכן כל כיוצא בזה לפיכך האומר בשר זה אסור עלי הרי זה אסור בו ובמרק שבו ובתבלין שבו:
12
If the wine which he forbade himself23 became mixed with other wine,24 even one drop in an entire barrel, the entire quantity becomes forbidden. [The rationale is that] since he has the possibility to ask for the release of his vow, [the forbidden substance] is considered as an entity that can be permitted and hence, never becomes nullified in [a majority of permitted] substances of its own kind, as explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot.25
יב
נתערב יין זה שאסרו על עצמו ביין אחר אפילו טיפה בחבית נאסר הכל מפני שיש לו להשאל על נדרו נעשה כדבר שיש לו מתירין שאינו בטל במינו כמו שבארנו בהלכות מאכלות אסורות:
13
When a person says: "This produce is like a sacrifice for me," "...a sacrifice to my mouth,"26 or "...a sacrifice because of my mouth," he is forbidden to partake of anything exchanged for them or produce that grows from them.27 Needless to say, this applies to juices produced by them.
יג
האומר פירות האלו קרבן עלי או קרבן הן לפי או קרבן הן על פי הרי זה אסור בחילופיהן ובגדוליהם ואין צריך לומר במשקין היוצאין מהן:
14
[The following rules apply] if a person took a vow or an oath not to eat [produce] or not to taste it. If it is an entity whose seed decomposes when it is sown like wheat or barley, he is permitted [to partake of] the articles exchanged for it28 and the produce that grows from it.29 If it was an entity whose seed does not decompose in the earth when it is sown, like onions or garlic,30 even the produce that grows from the produce that grows from it is forbidden.31 In all situations, there is a doubt [whether he is forbidden to drink] the juices they produce.32 Therefore, if he drinks them, he is not liable for lashes.
יד
נדר או נשבע שאיני אוכל אותם או שאיני טועם אותם אם היה דבר שזרעו כלה כשיזרע כגון חטה ושעורה הרי זה מותר בחילופיהן ובגדוליהן ואם היה הדבר שאין זרעו כלה בארץ כשיזרע כגון בצלים ושומין אפילו גדולי גדולין אסורין ובין כך ובין כך משקין היוצאין מהן ספק לפיכך אם שתה מהן אינו לוקה:
15
Similarly, if a person tells his wife: "The work produced by your hands33 is like a sacrifice to me," "...a sacrifice to my mouth," or "...a sacrifice because of my mouth," he is forbidden to partake of anything exchanged for [her earnings] or produce that grows from her work.34 If he says that he will not to eat [from the work of her hands], nor taste it, if the produce [that grew from] the work of her hands is an entity whose seed decomposes, he is permitted [to partake of] articles exchanged for it and the produce that grows from it. If it was an entity whose seed does not decompose, even the produce that grows from the produce that grows from them is forbidden.
Why do we not consider the original produce that is forbidden insignificant because of the [new] growth that is larger than it? Because the original produce is an entity whose prohibition can be released, which is not nullified [when mixed] with a majority [of permitted substances], as explained.35
טו
וכן האומר לאשתו מעשה ידיך עלי קרבן או קרבן הן לפי או קרבן הן על פי אסור בחלופיהן ובגדוליהן שאיני טועם שאיני אוכל אם היו פירות מעשה ידיה דבר שזרעו כלה מותר בחלופיהן ובגדוליהן ואם היה דבר שאין זרעו כלה אפילו גדולי גדולין אסורין ולמה לא יבטל העיקר האסור בגדולין שרבו עליו שהרי הן דבר שיש לו מתירין שאינו בטל ברוב כמו שבארנו:
16
When a person forbids his produce to a colleague, whether by vow or by an oath, there is an unresolved question if the produce that grows from it36 and articles exchanged for it [are permitted to the colleague].37 Therefore the produce that grows from it and articles exchanged for it are forbidden to his colleague. If he transgresses and benefits, he has benefited.38
טז
האוסר פירותיו על חבירו בין בנדר בין בשבועה הרי גדוליהן וחלופיהן ספק לפיכך חבירו אסור בגדולי פירות אלו ובחלופיהן ואם עבר ונהנה נהנה:
FOOTNOTES
1.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 14; Chapter 2, Halachah 8.
2.
It is as if Reuven designated his property as consecrated with regard to Shimon (Or Sameach).
3.
And the prohibition which Reuven established does not make Shimon liable. If, however, Shimon said Amen, he would be liable, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
See Chapter 10, Halachah 12, from which it is apparent that if Reuven voluntarily allows Shimon to benefit from his property, Reuven is liable for lashes, for he is desecrating his own vow.
As indicated by Hilchot Meilah 4:9, even though the person is not liable for lashes, he is liable to bring a sacrifice for atonement, since with regard to him, it is as if he benefited from consecrated property.
4.
Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
5.
For there is no way that he can acquire it in a permitted manner.
6.
I.e., once he dies, the loaf no longer belongs to him.
7.
The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 216) states that this applies when the person taking the vow says: "During my lifetime and after my death." From the Rambam's words and a comparison to Halachah 6, it is apparent that he need not make such a specification. See Turei Zahav 216:10 which discusses these two perspectives.
8.
For that is the implication of the term "my." Compare to Chapter 8, Halachah 11.
9.
See Halachah 8 which explains that the estate does become the son's property and he may use it in certain ways.
10.
And specifies that this applies after his death as well, as in the previous halachah.
11.
This is speaking about a situation in which the grandson is not born yet or is still a minor in which instance, the grandfather cannot transfer the property to him directly Alternatively, he is not yet a Torah scholar (Radbaz).
12.
The Ra'avad and others question the Rambam's ruling, for seemingly, it does not involve any new concept. The son becomes the owner of the estate regardless. Although he is forbidden to benefit from it, he has the right to give it to his son whether he is a Torah scholar or not as stated in the following halachah. The Kessef Mishneh explains that ordinarily, the son may use the estate to pay a debt or to give it to his brother as a present. If, however, the grandson is a Torah scholar, this is forbidden and it is as if the estate was transferred to him directly and the father cannot use it for other purposes. The Radbaz explains that this is speaking about a situation where the father had two sons and if this son's son was not a Torah scholar, he would give his entire estate to the other son.
13.
The Kessef Mishneh interprets this as meaning that the estate will be given to the grandson. The Bayit Chadash (Yoreh De'ah 223) explains that implicit in the grandfather's statement is the stipulation that if the grandson is not a Torah scholar, he - like his father - will be forbidden to benefit from the estate. See Siftei Cohen 223:4.
14.
Rabbenu Nissim explains that the intent is not that he actually gives the money to the recipients, but he informs them of where it is and allows them to take it. See Siftei Cohen 223:3.
15.
Here also, the son must tell the recipients that they are receiving property that he is forbidden to benefit from. Implied is that the estate becomes the son's property. He is forbidden to benefit from it. Nevertheless, as indicated here, he may receive indirect benefit, for certainly the recipients of his gifts will be thankful to him and repay him in some way or other.
16.
For this also considered as another debt.
17.
Chapter 6, Halachah 4. The person is not considered to have received benefit from the payment of his debt, since holding back a creditor from pressing claim is not considered as benefit (Radbaz).
The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 223) questions the Rambam's ruling, explaining that although the father would have been permitted to pay the son's debt, for the son to pay his own debt with the estate's money is considered as benefiting from the estate. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 223:4) accepts the Rambam's ruling.
18.
For his vow involved only the food itself - i.e., something that people would have in mind when using that term - but not its flavor. It does not become like forbidden food, in which case, even the flavor is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
19.
That produce is considered as if it was inherently forbidden and hence, even its flavor is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
20.
I.e., a person who had not taken the vow tasted the food and said that the flavor of the forbidden food could not be detected. Alternatively, there was more than 60 times the amount of the forbidden food.
21.
I.e., designating a particular piece of meat or quantity of wine.
22.
For these other entities will derive the flavor of the meat.
23.
The Or Sameach emphasizes that the Rambam is speaking about a vow which a person made himself, for he can have such a vow released. If, however, he responds to another person, he cannot ask for the vow's release.
24.
If, however, the wine becomes mixed with a liquid of another type, its presence becomes nullified if its taste is no longer detectable (Turei Zahav 216:13).
25.
Chapter 15, Halachah 10. The rationale is that since the prohibition can be released, it is preferable to do that rather than have the prohibition nullified.
26.
I.e., just as he may not partake of a sacrifice with his mouth, he may not partake of this produce.
27.
I.e., if the produce forbidden because of the vow was sown and other produce grew from it, that produce is also forbidden.
Since the produce forbidden by the vow is equated to a sacrifice, like a sacrifice, it is forbidden to derive any benefit from it (Kessef Mishneh).
The Ra'avad (in his gloss to Halachah 16) asks: Why is the produce that grows from the forbidden produce prohibited. Seemingly, we should follow the principle: Zeh vizeh goraim mutar, when an entity is produced by two factors, one permitted and one forbidden, it is permitted. Here as well, since the second generation produce was produced by the forbidden produce and also by the earth, it should be permitted.
The Radbaz explains that since a vow is involved, we follow the principle mentioned in Halachah 12, that since the prohibition involved can be released entirely, we do not consider it nullified because another factor is also involved.
28.
For his vow specified only eating or tasting the produce, not benefiting from it. Nor is there any taste of the original produce in the produce that grows from its seeds.
29.
For the second generation produce is not the same substance concerning which the vow was taken.
30.
The onion or the garlic head is put in the ground and a new plant grows from it.
31.
For ultimately, even the third generation produce has the flavor of the first generation produce. As the Rambam explains at the conclusion of Halachah 15, we do not say that its flavor will be nullified because the greater portion of the substance of the new produce is permitted, because, as stated in Halachah 12, the forbidden fruit is an entity whose prohibition could be released.
32.
Nedarim 52b leaves unresolved the question whether in this context the juice produced from the fruit is considered as the fruit or not. Hence, because of the doubt, one is forbidden to partake of it, but cannot be held liable for punishment. This refers to fruits other than grapes or olives. In the latter instances, the liquid is considered as the fruit.
33.
The Siftei Cohen 216:8 states that we are referring to an instance that the husband uses wording similar to that suggested in Chapter 3, Halachah 11; alternatively, that he is referring to work which his wife already performed. Otherwise, there would be a difficulty because a vow is not effective unless the object concerned already exists.
34.
I.e., if she planted a tree, he is forbidden to partake of its fruit. The Rambam (based on Nedarim 57a) is restating the concepts mentioned in the previous halachah in a different context.
35.
See Halachah 12 which explains that he has the potential to have his vow released.
36.
The Ra'avad protests the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that based on Nedarim 47a, it appears that the produce grown from the fruits of his efforts is definitely forbidden. The Radbaz, however, explains that the Rambam has a different way of understanding that Talmudic passage.
37.
Nedarim, loc. cit., explains that the question is: Since these entities have not come into existence as of yet, can he cause them to be forbidden to his colleague.
38.
I.e., he is not liable. Firstly, lashes are not given when an unresolved question is involved. Also, as stated in Halachah 1, when a person becomes forbidden because of another person's vow, he is not liable for lashes unless he responds Amen.
Nedarim - Chapter 6
1
When a person tells a colleague: "Benefit that leads to your food is forbidden to me," or "Benefit that leads to my food is forbidden to you," the person who is forbidden should not borrow from the other person: a sifter, a strainer, a hand mill, an oven, or any other utensil used to prepare food. He may, however, borrow from him bracelets, rings, and other articles that are not used to produce food. He is forbidden to borrow from him a sack or a donkey to carry produce.1
א
האומר לחבירו הנאה המביאה לידי מאכלך אסורה עלי או הנאה המביאה לידי מאכלי אסורה עליך הרי זה הנאסר לא ישאל מן האסור לו נפה וכברה ורחיים ותנור וכל דבר שעושין בהן אוכל נפש אבל משאילו נזמים וטבעות וכלים שאין עושין בהן אוכל נפש ואסור לשאול ממנו שק להביא בו פירות וחמור להביא עליו פירות:
2
[In the above situation,] in a place where utensils are given out only for a fee, it is forbidden to borrow [without charge] even utensils that are not used to produce food.2If they were in a place where a fee is not charged and he borrowed from him utensils that are not used to produce food to look impressive to others because of them so that he will receive benefit from them3 or he sought to pass through his property so that he could reach a place where he would derive benefit,4 there is an unresolved question whether it is prohibited.5 Therefore, if he transgresses, he is not liable for lashes.
ב
מקום שדרכן שאין משאילין כלים אלא בשכר אסור לשאול ממנו אף כלים שאין עושין בהן אוכל נפש הרי שהיו במקום שאין נוטלין שכר ושאל ממנו כלים שאין עושין בהן אוכל נפש כדי להראות בהן בפני אחרים עד שיהנה מהם או שבקש לעבור בארצו כדי שילך במקום שיהנה בו הרי זה אסור מספק לפיכך אם עבר אינו לוקה:
3
There is no difference between one who takes a vow not to benefit from a colleague and one who takes a vow not to derive benefit that leads to food except [permission to] pass through [property]6 and borrowing utensils that are not used to produce food in a place where they are borrowed without charge.7
ג
אין בין מודר הנאה מחבירו למודר ממנו הניית מאכל אלא דריסת הרגל וכלים שאין עושין בהן אוכל נפש במקום שמשאילין אותם שם בחנם:
4
When Reuven was forbidden to benefit from Shimon, either through a vow or through an oath, Shimon may give the half-shekel which Reuven is obligated to give.8 Similarly, he may pay a debt that he owes. [The rationale is that] Reuven does not receive anything, all [Shimon does] is prevent a claim from being lodged against him. And preventing a claim from being lodged is not included in the prohibition against [giving] benefit.9
Therefore [Shimon] may provide food for [Reuven's] wife,10 his sons, and his servants, even his Canaanite servants,11 even though [Reuven] is obligated to provide for their sustenance. He may not, however, provide food for [Reuven's] animal, whether a kosher animal or a non-kosher one,12 for any increase in the animal's weight is benefit given to Reuven.
ד
ראובן שנאסרה עליו הניית שמעון בין בנדר בין בשבועה מותר לו שיתן שמעון על ידו מחצית השקל שראובן חייב בה וכן פורע חוב שעליו שהרי לא הגיע ליד ראובן כלום אלא מנע ממנו התביעה ומניעת התביעה אינה בכלל אסור הנייה לפיכך מותר לו לזון את אשתו ואת בניו ועבדיו אפילו הכנענים אף על פי שהוא חייב במזונותם אבל לא יזון את בהמתו בין טמאה בין טהורה שכל שמוסיף בבשרה היא הנייה שהגיע ליד ראובן:
5
If Shimon was a priest, he is permitted to offer sacrifices brought by Reuven. [The rationale is that] the priests are agents of God and not the agents of the person bringing the sacrifice.13
Shimon may marry off his daughter who is passed majority to Reuven with her consent.14 If, however, she is a na'arah,15 she is under his domain. [Hence,] it is forbidden [to marry her to him],16 because this is like giving him a maid-servant to serve him.
ה
היה שמעון כהן הרי הוא מותר להקריב קרבנות ראובן שהכהנים שלוחי שמים הם ואינם שלוחי בעל הקרבן ומשיא שמעון בתו הבוגרת לראובן מדעתה אבל אם היתה נערה שהרי עדיין היא ברשותו אסור שזה כמוסר לו שפחה לשמשו:
6
Shimon may separate terumah on behalf of Reuven and separate his tithes with his consent.17 What is meant by "with his consent"? For example, Reuven said: "Whoever desires to separate terumah [from my produce] may do so." He may not, however, tell Shimon to separate terumah on his behalf, for then he is making him his agent and this is [deriving] benefit from him.
ו
ותורם שמעון תרומת ראובן ומפריש לו מעשרותיו מדעתו כיצד מדעתו כגון שאמר ראובן כל הרוצה לתרום יבוא ויתרום אבל לא יאמר לשמעון לתרום לו שהרי עושה אותו שליח וזה הנייה לו:
7
[Shimon] may instruct [Reuven] in the Oral Law,18 for it is forbidden to charge a wage for teaching it.19 The Written Law, by contrast, may not be taught by him, because a wage can be charged for teaching it.20 If it is not customary [in that community] to charge for instruction in the Written Law, this is permitted. Regardless of [the local custom with regard to payment], [Shimon] may teach [Reuven's] son.21
ז
ומלמדו תורה שבעל פה שהרי אסור ליטול עליה שכר אבל לא תורה שבכתב שנוטלין עליה שכר ואם אין דרכן שם ליטול שכר על תורה שבכתב הרי זה מותר ובין כך ובין כך מותר ללמד את בנו:
8
If Reuven becomes ill, Shimon may come and visit him.22 In a place where one who sits with a person who is ill to keep him company receives a wage, Shimon should not sit with him. Instead, he should visit him and stand.23 He may personally give him medical treatment, for this fulfills a mitzvah.24
ח
חלה ראובן נכנס שמעון לבקרו ובמקום שנוטל שכר מי שישב עם החולה לצוות לו לא ישב שמעון אלא מבקרו ועומד ומותר לו לרפאתו בידו שזו מצוה היא:
9
When an animal belonging to Reuven becomes ill,25 Shimon should not give it veterinary attention. He may, however, tell him: "Do such and such for it."26
[Shimon] may wash with Reuven in a large bath,27 but not in a small bath, because he gives him pleasure by raising the water over him.28 He may sleep in the same bed as him in the summer,29 but not in the winter, because he warms him.30 He may sit on the same couch as him and eat at the same table,31but may not eat from the same plate or from the same food trough that is placed before workers. [The rationale is that we fear that] Shimon will leave a nice piece of meat and refrain from eating it so that Shimon will eat it or move it closer to him and in this way, bring him benefit.32 Similar concepts apply with regard to produce in a food trough. It is, however, permitted for Shimon to eat from a plate even though he knows that when he returns it to the host, the host will place it before Reuven. We do not fear that [Shimon] will leave a choice cut of meat for [Reuven].33
ט
חלתה בהמת ראובן לא ירפא אותה שמעון אבל אומר לו עשה לה כך וכך ורוחץ עמו באמבטי גדולה אבל לא בקטנה מפני שמהנהו בשעה שמגביה עליו המים וישן עמו במטה בימות החמה אבל לא בימות הגשמים מפני שמחממו ומסב עמו על המטה ואוכלין על שולחן אחד אבל לא מקערה אחת ולא מאבוס שלפני הפועלים שמא יניח שמעון חתיכה אחת טובה ולא יאכל אותה כדי שיאכל אותה ראובן או יקרב אותה לפניו ונמצא מהנהו וכן בפירות שבאבוס אבל אם אכל שמעון מקערה שהוא יודע שכשיחזירנה לבעה"ב יחזור בעה"ב ויניחנה לפני ראובן ה"ז מותר ואין חוששין שמא הניח נתח טוב בשבילו:
10
It is permitted for Reuven to drink a cup of comfort34 of his own [wine] from Shimon's hand. Similarly, he may give him the cup of the bathhouse,35 for this does not involve satisfaction.36
י
ומותר ראובן לשתות כוס של תנחומין מידו של שמעון משל ראובן וכן כוס של בית המרחץ שאין בזה הנייה:
11
Reuven is forbidden to use Shimon's coal, but he is permitted to use his flame.37
יא
ואסור ראובן בגחלתו של שמעון ומותר בשלהבת שלו:
12
[The following laws apply if] Shimon owned a bathhouse or an olive press that were hired out [to others] in the city. If Shimon retains a hold on them, e.g., he left a portion for himself and did not hire it out, it is forbidden for Reuven to enter that bathhouse or tread in that olive press.38 [This applies] even if he retains merely one tub in the bathhouse or one press39 in the olive press. If he did not retain anything for himself, but rather hired it out in its entirety, it is permitted [for Reuven to enter].40
יב
היה לשמעון מרחץ או בית הבד מושכרים בעיר אם היה לשמעון בהן תפיסת יד כגון שהניח מהן כל שהוא לעצמו ולא שכרו אפילו הניח במרחץ אמבטי אחת ובבית הבד עקל אחד אסור לראובן להכנס לאותה מרחץ ולדרוך בגת ואם לא הניח לעצמו כלום אלא שכר הכל הרי זה מותר:
13
It is forbidden for Reuven to partake of the produce of Shimon's field, even during the Sabbatical year when everything is ownerless, for he took the vow before the beginning of the Sabbatical year.41 If he took the vow in the Sabbatical year itself, [Reuven] may partake of the produce that hangs outside the field.42 He may not, however, enter the field even though the land is ownerless. [This is] a decree lest he remain there after he partook of [the produce],43 for the Torah declared [the land] ownerless only during the time the produce is found within it.
יג
ואסור לראובן לאכול מפירות שדה שמעון ואפילו בשביעית שהכל הפקר שהרי לפני שביעית נדר אבל אם נדר בשביעית אוכל מן הפירות הנוטות חוץ לשדה אבל לא יכנס לשדה אע"פ שהקרקע הפקר גזירה שמא ישהה שם אחר שיאכל ולא הפקירה אותה תורה אלא כל זמן שהפירות בתוכה:
14
When does the above apply? When he told him: "Benefit from this property is forbidden to you."44 If, however, [Shimon] told [Reuven]: "It is forbidden for you to benefit from my property,"45 or Reuven took an oath or a vow [prohibiting him from benefiting] from Shimon's property, when the Sabbatical year begins, he may partake of the produce of his field, for they have left Shimon's domain.46 He may not, however, enter his field for the reasons we explained [in the previous halachah].
יד
במה דברים אמורים כשאמר לו הניית הנכסים האלו אסורין עליך אבל אם אמר לו הניית נכסי אסורין עליך או שנשבע ראובן או שנדר מנכסי שמעון כיון שהגיעה שביעית אוכל מפירות שדהו שהרי יצאו מרשות שמעון אבל לא יכנס לשדהו מן הטעם שבארנו:
15
[Different laws apply if] only benefiting from Shimon's food was forbidden to Reuven,47 If, either because of a vow or an oath, the prohibition took effect before the Sabbatical year, he may enter his field,48 but may not eat his produce.49If the prohibition took effect in the Sabbatical year, he may enter his field and partake of his produce, for this produce does not belong to Shimon. Instead, it is ownerless.50
טו
נאסרה על ראובן הניית מאכל שמעון בלבד אם לפני שביעית נאסרה בין בנדר בין בשבועה הרי זה יורד לתוך שדהו אבל אינו אוכל מפירותיו ואם בשביעית נאסרה יורד ואוכל מפירותיו שאין פירות אלו של שמעון אלא של הפקר הן:
16
It is forbidden for Reuven to lend [articles] to Shimon. [This is] a decree, lest he borrow from him although it is forbidden for him to benefit from him. Similarly, it is forbidden for [Reuven] to give [Shimon] a loan. [This is] a decree, lest he borrow from him.51 Similarly, he may not sell something to him. [This is] a decree, lest he buy from him.52
טז
ואסור לראובן להשאיל לשמעון גזירה שמא ישאל ממנו והרי הוא אסור בהנאתו וכן אסור להלוותו גזירה שמא ילוה ממנו ולא ימכור לו גזירה שמא יקח ממנו:
17
If it happened that [Shimon] was working with [Reuven], e.g., they were harvesting together, he should work far from him. [This is] a decree, lest he help him.
When [a father] takes a vow, forbidding his son to benefit from him because the son does not occupy himself in Torah study, the father is permitted to fill up a jug of water [for his son], light a lamp [for him], or roast a small fish. For [the father's] intent was only to forbid [his son] from deriving significant pleasure and these matters are not considered important by the son.53
יז
נזדמנה לו מלאכה עמו כגון שהיו קוצרים כאחד עושה ברחוק ממנו גזירה שמא יסייענו המדיר את בנו מפני שאינו עוסק בתורה ונאסר בהניית אביו הרי האב מותר למלאות לו חבית של מים ולהדליק לו את הנר ולצלות לו דג קטן שאין כוונתו אלא להנאה גדולה ודברים אלו לגבי הבן אינן חשובין:
18
When a person took an oath or a vow not to speak to a colleague,54 he may write to him55 or speak to another person even though [the person whom he forbade] hears the idea he wants to communicate to him.56 The Geonim ruled in this manner.
יח
מי שנשבע או נדר שלא ידבר עם חבירו הרי זה מותר לו לכתוב בכתב ולדבר עם אחר והוא שומע הענין שירצה להשמיעו וכזה הורו הגאונים:
FOOTNOTES
1.
For this also leads to him deriving pleasure from food.
2.
For the money that he saved by not paying the fee could be used to purchase food.
3.
E.g., he lent him attractive clothing which created a favorable impression on others who gave him gifts as a result.
4.
To attend a feast, but not when going to his business as stated in the notes to the following halachah.
5.
In both cases, he did not give him direct benefit, but he did enable him to receive benefit.
6.
I.e., to tend to his business. If he took a vow against benefiting from him, he may not pass through the property, for he is deriving some benefit. Nevertheless, that benefit does not lead to food. Hence, one who prohibits all benefit is forbidden, but one who forbids benefit that leads to food is permitted. If, however, he wishes to pass through his property to attend a feast, he is forbidden in all instances, as stated in the previous halachah (Radbaz).
7.
This is benefit, but not benefit that leads to food.
8.
I.e., the half-shekel which every Jew is obligated to pay to the Temple treasury as his share in the communal sacrifices. See Hilchot Shekalim 1:1.
9.
See Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 26:6 where the Rambam states that if "a person pays a promissory note of a colleague without that colleague's knowledge, even if it is a debt for which security was given, the borrower is not required to pay him anything. The borrower may take his security.... The other person forfeits his money. [The rationale is that] perhaps the borrower would have been able to appease the lender and have him waive the debt." Thus by paying Reuven's debt, Shimon is not considered to have given him anything.
10.
See also Hilchot Ishut 12:19 which states that when a husband traveled to a distant country and left his wife without resources, if another person gives the woman money without clearly specifying that he is extending a loan to her, he forfeits his money. Even though the husband is obligated to pay for his wife's provisions, as long as a debt is not formally established, the person who pays the money has no claim upon him.
11.
The qualifier "even" is mentioned for the Canaanite servants, because it is not as great a mitzvah to sustain them as the others who are full-fledged members of the Jewish people.
12.
This applies even though the non-kosher animal may not be eaten by the Jew, he may sell it to a gentile and will receive a greater payment because of its increase in weight.
13.
And thus he is not considered as having performed a favor for the person bringing the sacrifice.
14.
For then, she is considered as having carried out the marriage. Her father is merely acting as her agent and thus is not considered as offering Reuven benefit.
15.
A girl between the ages of twelve and twelve and a half who has manifested signs of physical maturity (Hilchot Ishut 2:1-2). Needless to say, this applies if the girl is a minor, in which instance, her consecration is dependent entirely on her father.
16.
For at this age, she cannot marry without her father's consent, as stated in Hilchot Ishut 3:11.
17.
If, however, Reuven does not consent, the separation of the terumah is not effective (Bava Metzia 22a).
18.
Since Shimon is forbidden to receive a wage from teaching Reuven, he is not giving him tangible benefit. Although he is enabling him to observe a mitzvah, the mitzvot were not given for our satisfaction (Eruvin 31a).
19.
See Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:7, 3:10 where the Rambam issues such a ruling and explains that this is derived from Deuteronomy 4:5: "Behold, I [Moses] have taught you laws and statutes, as God commanded me." On this basis, Nedarim 37a teaches that Moses was implying: "Just as I learned at no cost, so, too, you have been instructed at no cost by me. And so, too, should you teach the coming generations at no cost."
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 4:3), the Rambam writes:
According to our Torah, there is no way that it is permitted to take a wage for teaching any of the Torah's professions....
I am amazed at the men of stature who aroused by desire, denied the truth had wages designated for themselves for giving Torah rulings and instruction, citing flimsy support.
See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah Avot 4:7. It must, however, by noted that most authorities [see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 246:5) allow a teacher to charge for the time he spends teaching Torah on the basis of the principle of sechar batalah, i.e., he could have spent the time he spends teaching working at another profession which would bring him an income. He is allowed to be reimbursed for the money he loses by choosing to teach Torah instead. For this reason, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:2) does not accept the Rambam's ruling and forbids Shimon from teaching Reuven.
20.
Nedarim 37a gives two reasons why it is permitted for a teacher of young children to charge a wage for his services: a) he is not charging for teaching; he is charging for being a disciplinarian; b) he is not charging for teaching the wordings of Torah; he is charging for teaching the cantillation notes. (For at that time, there were no texts with vowels and the Written Law was studied by memorizing its chants.) The first rationale does not apply with regard to adults, but the second does.
21.
A father is obligated to teach his son the Torah. Hence, by instructing Reuven's son, Shimon is freeing him of an obligation. Nevertheless, this is not considered as providing him with benefit, for teaching his son is a mitzvah. And as stated above, the mitzvot were not given for our satisfaction. Moreover, it is possible that Reuven could find another person to teach his son without charge.
22.
For this is also a mitzvah. Even though the sick person derives benefit from the person's visit, the benefit is not granted him directly (see Nedarim 39a).
23.
I.e., pay a short visit and leave promptly. Since sitting with the sick person is worth money in that community, it is forbidden, by doing so, he will be providing the sick person with a tangible benefit. Payment is not given for visiting while standing. Therefore, there is no prohibition against doing so. See Siftei Cohen 221:19 who writes that if he charges for his time, he may sit and pay the sick person a longer visit.
24.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 4:4), the Rambam states that it is a mitzvah of Scriptural origin for a doctor to heal a sick person.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:4) states that when medical attention is given without charge, he may treat him without charge. If, however, it is customary for a doctor to charge, he must also do so.
25.
In certain manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah, this clause is included as the conclusion of the previous halachah rather than at the beginning of this one.
26.
I.e., he may give him advice with regard to which treatments to employ, but may not treat the animal himself. The rationale is that treating a colleague's animal is not considered a mitzvah (Tosafot, Nedarim 41b). The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 221) explains that if there is no one else capable of treating the animal but Shimon, Shimon may do so, because the mitzvah of returning a lost object also includes doing what is necessary to save a colleague's livestock. The Radbaz also adds the rationale that Scriptural Law requires us to alleviate an animal's discomfort.
27.
For the entrance of one person into a large bath is not significant.
28.
And that is considered as pleasurable.
29.
Because the increase in warmth is not desirable.
30.
The more people under the same bed clothes, the greater the warmth produced. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:5) states that this applies with regard to a small bed. If the bed is large, even in the winter, it is permitted.
31.
This alone is not enough to create suspicion that he will offer him food.
32.
The Meiri explains that even though the two are at odds - and for that reason one has taken a vow not to offer the other benefit - we fear that he might make such a gesture out of good manners.
33.
The custom was that before passing the tray to another person, the host would fill it up again. Hence there would be no need for Shimon to worry about leaving a piece for Reuven [Radbaz; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:5)]. The Rama adds that if the serving plate contained a very large amount, there is no prohibition.
34.
It was customary to drink wine in the house of mourners to help him overcome his sorrow (see Ketubot 8b).
35.
A cup of hot water that was provided for bathers by the owner of the bathhouse (i.e., and not one belonging to Shimon).
Nedarim 38b states that Shimon may give Reuven "the cup of peace" and advances these two interpretations for the term. The Rambam does not consider the interpretations as mutually exclusive, for the same principle - that the satisfaction Shimon gives Reuven is minimal - applies in both instances (Kessef Mishneh).
36.
The Ra'avad offers a different interpretation than the Rambam, explaining that the "cup of the bathhouse" is given to save the person's life, lest he dehydrate. Moreover, he explains that since the cup belongs to Reuven, there is no difficulty. And he states that giving the cup of comfort is a mitzvah.
37.
For the coal is considered an entity of substance, while the flame is not (Siftei Cohen 221:57).
38.
Since Shimon retains a certain dimension of ownership, when Reuven makes use of it, he is still considered as benefiting from Shimon's property.
39.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Maaserot 1:7) the Rambam defines the term ekal as referring to a container made from ropes in which olives are placed and crushed.
40.
Provided Shimon did not specifically forbid Reuven from entering these structures, as indicated by Halachah 14.
41.
And once an entity has become forbidden because of a vow, it remains forbidden.
42.
For that is ownerless and is not affected by the vow.
43.
Although he is allowed to benefit from the produce, he is not allowed to set foot in Shimon's land, as stated in Halachah 3, and as the Rambam continues to explain.
44.
For then, benefit from that particular field itself becomes forbidden to Reuven forever. Compare to Chapter 5, Halachah 5.
45.
In which case, the prohibition involves only property actually owned by Shimon without applying to any particular property individually.
46.
For the entrance of the Sabbatical year causes them to be considered as ownerless. Shimon cannot cause the produce to be forbidden for Reuven, for a person cannot cause food that does not belong to him to be forbidden to a colleague (Nedarim 42b). And when Reuven takes an oath or a vow not to benefit from Shimon's property, the oath or the vow does not pertain to this produce, for it does not belong to Shimon.
47.
See Halachot 1 and 3.
48.
Because in such a situation, he is not forbidden to enter Shimon's property.
49.
Since the prohibition took effect before the Sabbatical year, it continues during the Sabbatical year, as stated in Halachah 13.
50.
Hence Shimon cannot cause it to be forbidden for Reuven, as above.
51.
Reuven is not receiving any benefit from lending out either his articles or his money. Nevertheless, he is forbidden lest Shimon reciprocate and that would involve receiving benefit.
52.
In a sale, even though the purchaser receives an article in return for his money, the seller is considered to have benefited. For if this was not so, he would not have sold the article.
53.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, explaining the source for this law (Nedarim 38b) in another way. The Radbaz explains that halachically, both interpretations are acceptable. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 223:1) quotes the Ra'avad's interpretation, but not of the Rambam. Accordingly, the Bayit Chadash maintains that according to the Shulchan Aruch, the Rambam's interpretation is not accepted. See also Turei Zahav 223:1 and Siftei Cohen 223:1.
54.
See Chapter 3, Halachot 10-11, for details on how a vow of this nature must be worded for it to be effective.
55.
The Baer HaGolah 221:65 rules that he may not write a note specifically for that person. Instead, he should write on the wall with the intent that the person see. Others, however, do not accept this stringency.
56.
He may not, however, speak to the wall, for in this instance, it is obvious that he is speaking to his colleague. The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 221) is even more stringent, stating that when it is obvious that he is intending for the person to whom he is forbidden to speak to hear, he may not speak even to another colleague.
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class
Sunday, Tevet 27, 5778 · 14 January 2018
"Today's Day"
Monday, Tevet 27, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Va'eira, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 120-134.
Tanya: It is different (p. 59)...Note there. (p. 61).
The Alter Rebbe said: Jewish physical matter is spiritual. G-d gives us material bounty for us to transform into something spiritual.1 When occasionally it is not so at the moment (G-d has not provided the material wealth), then we must give G-d whatever we can, even a "pauper's offering," and then He gives generously.
FOOTNOTES
1.See Adar II 29; Elul 27.
Daily Thought:
Going Over (1)
Rabbi Shmuel of Lubavitch, known as “The Rebbe Maharash,” the fourth in the golden chain of rebbes of Lubavitch, had an attitude.
“The whole world says if you can’t go under an obstacle, then you have to go over it,” he taught. “But I say, the first approach is to just jump over it.”
---
No comments:
Post a Comment